m4nu3l

It depends on how AI technologies are distributed in society. Let's assume the worst case. A restricted set of people have access to AI technologies. Let's call them "The AI Rich". All the rest of the population is effectively useless to the AI rich.

You are saying that the rest of the population will starve to death because the AI rich won't given them jobs. They won't build their houses etc.

But guess what? In a free market the AI poor can still trade and work as they always did. It doesn't matter if the AI rich build and exchange yachts and other luxury goods between them.

What you have now is a two tier economy, but not one where people are starving.

This is also the worst case scenario which I don't think it's going to happen as AIs systems are proving quite easy to replicate and most algorithms are open-source (and training data is available publicly).

That would be fraud to investors, given investors own the company in a shared manner. If some investor approve printing new shares all investors should be notified. But there are no laws settings how many shares a company can print.

> If we had enough in the 50s

By what standard? In the 50s a lot of things didn't even exist.

> then if we took a hit on GDP now when we have more productivity than the 50s, then we can take care of everyone.

If the hit is closer to 100% than to 0% then no. Examples: The USSR, Maoist China, North Korea.

Let me introduce you to free-banking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking that made possible some of the most stable financial systems in history.

> Money is absolutely the complete and only goal

If that were the case it would be easy to optimize. Just divert all resources to print more money.

> Absolute wealth (the kind that gets created) is kind of pointless to measure.

It's literally the other way around to me. I want to be better off than I'm now, not better of in relative term (which might mean I'll be worse off).

> you have $50K and all your neighbors have $100K, and then tomorrow you have $100K and all your neighbors have $1M, you and your neighbors created wealth but you are worse off.

You literally aren't if there is no inflation. You are worse off of your neighbors. If you want to be wealthy as them then ask yourself about how they are doing it and copy them. That's how the system grows. You don't go and punish people that are successful in producing wealth.

>This is not a GDP focused argument.

The argument was about wealth, which its production is measured by GDP. It's definitely a GDP argument.

> If you give everyone more money and stuff, they will be able to buy more, and one person's spending is another's income.

I disagree. I don't think the system is either demand nor supply oriented. It clearly is both. If you just take money from rich people forcing them to divest and give it to poor people you won't get immediate grow, but inflation. If you just produce and consume there won't be any growth.

> It could be argued that GDP would increase faster under a more equal system.

You would need to provide me with good evidence for this, given all economic systems in history that championed equality ended up with very low growth. It's the reason why China, Russia and many other countries are lagging behind.

> but I don't think the planet could take it (hence, like under our current system, planning will be needed to mitigate the environmental cost).

Growth is not directly related to energy consumption (nor unrelated). You can have economic growth by becoming more efficient. Also a lot of services produced today are intangible (like software) and require much less energy per dollar to be produced.

Also most environmental issues are not just a product of the market, but (if for instance you look at climate change) are at least in equal part Governmental failures. We could have had ~100% nuclear energy production by now if Governments didn't restrict or entirely ban nuclear energy.

> We have the capacity to take care of everyone right now but we don't because private wealth.

This is very not the case. Wealth is created. It doesn't exist just somewhere to be redistributed. Making the assumption that you will have the same GDP if you redistribute massively is unrealistic.

I doubt that AI will lead to a post-scarcity society. It depends of what you mean by "post-scarcity". The amount of good and services will always be finite regardless of how they are produced.

> and the corporations and governments that control them rapidly have millions of useless mouths to feed?

I always struggle to understand this. Maybe I'm missing something. Who's buying what AIs produce if nobody has an income? You can imagine a scenario where corporations only trade between them (so only shareholder benefit from the production). However in such a scenario who prevents other people from spawning their AI systems?

I also doubt shareholders can actually consume all the GDP by their own. If production is so high that they can't and other people are poorer, then prices must come down. This combined with the fact that you can use your AI to produce services, makes me skeptical of these claims.

Mostly because of economic theories that turned out to be empirically wrong during the 20th.

Most countries where free banking was the norm had very stable financial systems. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_banking

Note that the United States never had free banking.

Correct, but the problem is how you prove that for humans is by using the output and inferring that. You can apply the same criteria to ML models. If you don't, you need some other criteria to rule out that assumption for ML models.

> I know that humans have intentionality and agency.

You assume that. You can only maybe know that about yourself. But my question was bit different. How do you know that the ML model doesn't?

> about topics for which they have no prior information, by applying reasonable similarities.

This is a contradiction. If you have no prior information about a topic you can't know even what topic is similar.

> Even if someone never heard the phrase "walking a mile in someone elses shoes".

Same for ML modes. They don't have a representation of every possible prompt.

> But being better at mimicking reason, is still not reasoning

How do I know people are not using a similar process when they perform "reasoning" but with a way more elaborate model?

Can you prove me that the two are inherently different in the type of output they produce regardless of how large a ML model is or can be?

Because if you can't, and they produce the same type of output, the processing could be similar enough to be considered reasoning.

Languages evolve. Just like Italian words are used in English-speaking countries, English words or derivations of them become part of the spoken and written language in Italy. I think Government enforcing culture should be unconstitutional. The Government has to adapt to the culture. Government should work for the population and not vice versa. I find this Government idiotic.

I have been using Godot since it was open-sourced in 2014. I'm also familiar with the source code and I have made some contribution. I mostly created prototypes until two years ago when I started working my first commercial project, it's called Outer Space: War Gears and it's a six-degrees-of freedom space shooter.

I chose Godot mostly because of the familiarity and hackability. However I spent a lot (too much) time working around/fixing obscure bugs in the engine. I figured I was definitely the first one to use some features (given they really didn't work), like using GDNative in a MT fashion.

Another issue (for Godot 3.x, Godot 4 is much better in this regard) is that GDScript is really slow. I got to a point where it took longer to run all the script than to run the physics step (and my game is physics-based, all actors are rigid bodies!). Luckily GDScript is fully parallelizable as it doesn't have a GIL. So now I run a lot of code in thread pools and do a lot of sub-step optimizations. If you do use it with MT, though, you won't be able to debug GDScript and profile on any other thread than the main one - for better profiling I just use perf.

However I'm reluctant to use Unity and UE because even just loading the project in the editor is much faster in Godot. I like it being so lightweight. I also like how you can easily write native modules for it. Recompiling the Engine is quite fast.

I hope Godot 4, with more support from companies and the community will get much better.

> Wierdly,monarchs seem to be the default in human societies throughout the ages.

The Roman Republic lasted about as much the Roman Empire. There have been a lot of Republic and Monarchies and I don't know which one more often that the other, but I wouldn't call it a default.

> Even our current system of government is modelled after monarchs. Supreme leader at the top, his second, close circle below, ministers below, bureaucrats below them, and finally us plebs.

This doesn't justify keeping the monarchy, actually it is an argument that we can have something that works similarly without the issues of the inherited rights.

> At the beginning of this video, though, he makes the argument (one which I think is quite common these days) that all the news around QEII, and all of the tributes to her, are imposed from on high by media-elite overlords.

I think he was just criticizing the tradition as a whole because of the effects it has. But I might be mistaken.

> And the weird thing for me is that, while I kinda agree with that assessment, I think I would be the stupid one if I were so clearly dismissive of an institution that is held in such regard by a huge portion of the populace.

I don't think so. I was raised Catholic and I think the religion is stupid. It might have had a purpose in the past as a tradition, but that doesn't change that I think it really is stupid. Saying something shouldn't the dismissed because many people believe in it is a logical fallacy (Argumentum ad Populum).

I'd say that people coming together for something isn't necessarily good. If they come together for something wrong it is worse than everyone just minding their own businesses.

This person pretty much sums up my thoughts. I'll let him speak for me (although my position is probably a bit more moderate).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TzM1TO2pb4

He's also English while I'm not.

Coincidentally I had debates recently about traditions. In particular about Monarchies.

While traditions can be there for reasons and it's OK to follow some traditions, all traditions should be questioned. The amount of knowledge we have today is not comparable with what we had in any previous time in history. The article actually proves that. We now know about chronic cyanide poisoning to a level that was unknown even to the population that developed traditions to avoid it.

Also traditions can:

- Have lost the original problem they were developed to address.

- Always been the wrong choice (but probably without giving a significant disadvantage to a population).

- Be irrelevant as better methods are now available.

In short the Monarchy serve no real purpose in modern societies. Even as a symbol, it's a very bad symbol.

Ad hominem again, no hard data provided, just anecdotal evidence. Ignored all my other points. I'm the naive person. OK.

"Ugh, ancap bullshit. Get out of your bubble."

Did you miss I wrote I don't know it would work. Not an argument anyway? I don't know if you know the version I'm talking about. It doesn't even assume the non aggression principle.

"Because then they have the money and you don't".

Money can't buy you a planet (yet) and money only have value in a functioning economy.

"Look at the world aroudn you and tell me how corporate greed isn't ruining it" Most very rich people are actually donating most of their time to fix what they think are the worst problems

"Actually don't tell me, your philosophy is bankrupt"

Ad hominem, I belive?

I'm not arguing for no Government. I'm arguing against Government intervention in the economy. I disagree on many points though (I have seen the Vox article before - I don't have much respect for Vox as it is very biased, so I tend to ignore it, just like The Guardian or Fox News).

"Because the government isn't, (or at least shouldn't be) beholden to short term interests in the same way those other classes are". A Government is made of people. "Shouldn't" doesn't mean "Isn't". You need to convince me that it "Isn't".

"Companies will happily destroy everything around them, poison and impoverish entire nations if not reined in, just to turn a quick buck." I disagree. What's the point for investor to make money and then die of pollution or die in a fire. Yes, there are bad apples and stupid people, but you can't design a system that prevent people to do things because there are some bad apples. Look at the big tech, they are mostly investing voluntarily to reduce fossil fuel dependency. Of course if there is a market failure that really can be solved by the Government and that would otherwise kill us all, then I'm in favor of (indirect and market based) intervention.

"People are extremely short-term, local thinkers in general." Disagree, people have different plans, some shorter term some longer term. Also why would they have short-term thinking in the market but long term thinking at the election?

"A government, under the purview of democracy, is needed to try to balance these things out and help a society actually operate" Very likely so. Although there are some ANCAP proposals I find interesting like the one form David Friedman, I'm not convinced it would work in practice. However my ideal Government doesn't balance anything (I don't think it actually can without making more harm than good). It instead define the rules and what constitute private property, but it doesn't decide how to allocate these resources. That would be left entirely to the market.

The real question for me is, do you think that a Government is different or in a better position than corporations or people operating in the market in making economic decision for an entire country?

I believe it isn't. Actually I think it's in a much worse position for the following reasons:

1) A Government is made of people (usually elected directly or indirectly by the majority based on feelings and all the same irrationality), which in turn will likely be "irrational", or have the wrong incentives (be elected again).

2) A Government is made of few people compared to all the people that there are in the Country. They can't possibly know about all the details of the economy and the situations people are in or they can't process it.

3) Government policies can affect the entire economy. An error there can have bigger repercussions than, for instance, a company making a mistake.

AFAIK this is the only one what is compatible with C++ at the source level. As much as I like C++ I think it has a lot of accidental complexity built in and the syntax is too verbose at times. I also think that a lot of people (me included) do not want to switch to something like Rust immediately because of the existing C++ code and the friction of having to make it interoperable. So I believe this is actually a great experiment. Will see whether it works or not, but I hope it will.

I had been thinking about something like this for a long time. There is just too much C++ code out there but C++ (despite many efforts by the standard committee) is still too verbose and hard to make sense of in many cases. So I thought "why not designing a new language that is compatible with C++?"

I can't read the original comment, so I'm only replying to this one. I don't live in the US however I know that implementing restrictions is only possible if the Second Amendment is changed. While I think gun violence is a tragedy that needs to be solved, I do believe that the Second Amendment has good reasons to be there.

When it was written there was no standing army nor police, so it allowed people to quickly form an army if required and allowed people to defend themselves. These are not as important points as they were at the time. But one that has gotten more important with time (I believe) is that it was also meant to allow citizens to rebel to a "tyrannical government". In other words it was meant to prevent the US to become Russia, North Korea or China - Not without a fight at least.

I also think that restricting guns is not guaranteed to work. If you look at the UK, gun restrictions are pretty recent and there was a time both the US and the UK had freedom of gun ownership. Yet the UK had very few mass-shootings.The UK might still have few mass-shootings even with less gun restrictions.

On the other hand, some countries that have very strict gun restrictions but have higher gun violence than the US (e.g. Mexico).

So the reality is that it's complicated.

Of course. I use both the built in Godot profiler and perf.

Which led me to change many things in the implementation and I also ended up patching the Engine multiple times.

One example is this (which I have patched on my Godot version): https://github.com/godotengine/godot-proposals/issues/4050

I profile my game all the time, but sometimes it's not clear if there is a bottleneck or if there are just too many things at the same time.

Also the bottleneck can change in different parts of the game. Sometimes I have removed a bottleneck on the CPU just to find another in the GPU.

What kind of game are you working on? I have managed to actually removing a lot of these bottlenecks by parallelizing or rewriting in C++. The ones I'm left with I believe are now more on the GPU side. I'm trying to use portal rendering / occludes for that.

It supports optional types. It's not perfect but I use them consistently and it helps.