Adapt, sure, but is my life better or worse after adapting? It's a fair question and a fair worry. The goal of most AI companies seems to be to replace some amount of labor with AI. Look how that worked out for our factory workers. They adapted by getting jobs at Walmart and Dollar General, or scraping by in the gig economy.
Computers are many thousands of times faster and more efficient than they were 50 years ago. Airplanes still fly at the same speeds, and with only marginal safety improvements. Fuel efficiency has doubled however. Overall significantly less changes.
Despite the article title, it's clearly about technology usage patterns roughly 25 years ago being a lot better than they are today. Its obviously from the PoV of someone in a developed western country, probably America.
Every single time someone brings up positive things about the past there's always some 'Nuh uh, look at how bad this thing you weren't a part of was at that time.'. Boring, pedantic, and not even relevant to what the article is about.
Ridiculous. When Ellen Degeneres came out as gay in the 90s it was a groundshaking media event. Being gay was incredibly stigmatized, far more than today. The other groups at least have public supporters today, instead of being nearly universally rejected.
No, you've created a generic condition checker, which is where all of your complexity comes from. Further, you've left the actual check to be duped in all callers.
But what if you need to save up to buy something that you can't afford in one year? Or you're trying to reduce cost in one place enough to hire a team to do some other project?
That sounds like 5 humans got replaced by AI. I don't think most people worry about whether all humans will be replaced, simply whether or not they will be replaced, or people they care about.
Or perhaps there is a 3rd explanation, spending all of your time with people much less intelligent is frustrating and unsatisfying, and being such an outlier, it's how most of your time is spent.
Someone with a 142 IQ is to the 100 average in the same way that 100 average is to someone with a 70 IQ. We don't expect people with average IQ to spend all of their days with 70 IQ people (in a peer situation).
(BLAH BLAH BLAH Multiple intelligences, IQ isn't a good measurement, etc)
They want it on their resume primarily to make more money and have a better career in terms of getting hired, etc. Very different motivation. They'd only work at a FAANG for free long enough to get that bump. Game devs however would work for many years underpaid because they like what they're creating.
I've got no problem with your concept, and even think it's useful. I just don't think that concept and AGI are the same thing. Economically useful has no relation to what has been called AGI before.
Well, let's look at someone like Einstein. Just for argument's sake let's say he has a flat salary demand of $5 million dollars. It's not cost effective to hire Einstein to write your CRUD apps in this situation. That doesn't mean there isn't somewhere that he would have a value of $5 million.
> The overlapping AGI definition I use here is "Most purely cognitive labor is automatable at better quality, speed, and cost than humans".
That's a poor definition. Nowhere have I seen cheapness as being a requirement to count as AGI. If we have something that can do everything people can do and more, but it costs a lot means it's not AGI?
Eh, at the beginning of 1995 the Nasdaq PE ratio was about 17.5. The current Nasdaq PE bounces around 33. During the dotcom bubble that would be the early 1998 timeframe.
The difference is jquery went away because better things replaced it (in javascript). If the fundamental need for tailwind has passed why is it's usage growing? It's more that the problem solved by the paid portion of tailwind is now solved by AI.