- the Bureau of Labor Statistics thinks we should have 15% more software engineers in 10 years. What if we had 10% fewer?
-800k project managers - how about 650k in 10 years?
-nearly 4 million executive assistants and admins - let’s take 1M off that total
-millions combined (still) in clerical roles across industries, including financial, medical, warehouse, etc. let’s take 1-2M off that total
- journalists, writers, editors, graphic designers, interior designers, illustrators, …
… and the list goes on. These are intentionally conservative numbers (no 50% cuts or jobs going away entirely) but they still add up to millions.
(I mean, my intuition would be, for example, that it means more software engineers, and disproportionately even more PMs -- though probably often with a different title -- as it expabds the market for software solutions, and reduces the engineering effort to product decision ratio. But that’s not conservative, any more than your catastrophizing is.)
Is it fair to say that 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a great proponent and enabler of such inequalities?
One may see them as a good "driving force behind bringing down the price of computers and software" for a very limited time. I don't know if the result of 90's and early 2000's microsoft was a net positive to the field.
I don't think "They have done more to educate people in developing countries [..] than maybe any other company in history" considering how they also made many governments, institutions and people dependent on their software. This eventually cost these same entities a lot more than needed if there was a healthy competition which always fought against.
Done charity work there.
Created an IT company there.
You have it totally backward.
IT is NOT helping the poorest part of Africa. Quite the opposite.
But it does help us create a lot of BS virtue signaling about all the good we do in Africa.
The explanation would take a lot of text, unfortunately and I'm not in the mood for the rant again. But it comes from experience, not from the idealized narrative you have been sold.
[1] https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2006-apr-09-fi-micro...
People in developing countries chose to pirate and use Windows because it ran most of the important apps of the era, namely video games, which were also easy to pirate, and because it ran on any custom built PC from the parts each user could afford to scrap together. It was the perfect storm.
To reduce inequity abolish (c)opywrong laws.
BG grew rich via (c)opywrong laws.
That is the dilemma. Does he see it and just not connect the dots? Or can he connect the dots but doesn't really care? I am not sure.
I'm not being facetious. What specifically are you drawing objection to?
A correction of the copyright misnomer.
You didn't carve out any exceptions, hence my assumption.
I'm not sure this answers the question. Who's revenue is this, and which of the elements you described is "a tax"?
One great first step OpenAI can take towards this is by actually making their models open. As long as the models are intentionally kept back and intentionally profited from by already wealthy private citizens, inequality will grow, not shrink.
Not to mention that people in poor countries (which as Gates cites as the "hotspots" for inequality in health) won't be able to use some HTTP API based in US/SF. Not just that latency will kill requests, some of the places don't even have internet connectivity. How is OpenAI supposed to help those communities if the "inequality fighter GPT-4" is gate-kept behind a centralized HTTP API?