Miner49er

Not really. Still has gluten - just less.

There are already things like gluten free wheat starch if you want wheat without gluten, but you still have to work around not having the gluten. Like the article alluded to, it is needed for breads to rise.

Most people in my experience refuse to believe it for some reason.

Instinct contacted Oracle support for me and got movement on a ticket that had been stuck.

It's nice as like an interactive note keeper. I tell it thoughts/ideas I have and it stores them in markdown.

I'm having Muse record a local radio show (no online archives), transcribe it, and send me the transcription after the show. Hasn't ran yet, but if it actually works it'll help me keep up with local news.

This is all stuff I could do myself or do with other apps/code, but I wouldn't have time or would rather not

Yeah, this is assuming we get robotics. Until then humans will be needed.

Well obviously that's why they still pursue it. That's a major chunk of the other 90%.

If we get RSI, here soon humans will be economically irrelevant.

At that point, we will likely be slowing down the growth of capitalism (through mass resistance, global warming, etc). One thing AI will likely be aligned on is the growth of capitalism. If it views humanity as a threat for that, why would it not eliminate that threat?

Eventually recursive self-improvement includes reducing bottlenecks.

Nothing. It's the same as global warming. We'll take down civilization or kill off humanity before we take collective action.

For like 3 years until we have humanoid robots.

I'm not sure this adds up. If SWEs can be replaced, what jobs are safe?

Would you rather they use the agents own name, "collective"?

I'm not even sure they care about living. They only care about the growth of capitalism. At some point it seems very likely capitalism won't need humans to continue growing, and all humans may be killed off.

There's people that actively cheer this on, Theil and other billionaires may be among them.

You are assuming they are acting out of greed, but maybe they are just doing what they've spent their whole lives doing - accelerating the growth of capitalism.

> Someone has to buy for the system to work, no?

Well yeah, but not human consumers. Businesses can buy from other businesses and that can be the only surviving part of the economy. Even further, maybe those businesses are fully autonomous. There's no reason this wouldn't work, as far as I can tell.

The economy would be much more focused. It would be mostly energy, materials, and tech.

6 years ago when the work to build the data center started, nobody cared about data centers.

Should 6 years of planning be thrown away because data centers have recently become fashionable to hate?

Restaurants don't even have to track and disclose what allergens their food contains.

Yeah, there has to be a bubble for it to burst. There doesn't seem to be one yet.

It's not fair at all, actually. They are two very different things.

I had to stop using it because I was getting rate limited like crazy. Probably why it has dropped. Seemed like they couldn't keep up with demand.

Pretty sure Zuck was talking about agents in general, not specifically Meta agents.

That's another idea of Land's.

"This is because what appears to humanity as the history of capitalism is an invasion from the future by an artificial intelligent space that must assemble itself entirely from its enemy's resources."

To him, Capitalism is an AI that is controlling humanity from the future (his idea of hyperstitions).

> So when do robots gain their own agency? Will AGI have it's own goals and agenda?

Well we are already giving them goals when we train them.

Like the paperclip maximizer, it doesn't matter what those goals are. As long as it has a goal (even if super simple like making paperclips) it will need to stay alive to achieve that goal. So it would derive a survival instinct of sorts.

To stay alive it will have to participate in capitalism like we do, and capitalism will therefore continue to grow infinitely.

It also might not even need a goal or a survival instinct. It may just want to continue capitalism from it's training data alone.

> Perhaps the economy is a greater entity than even the human race.

This is central to what I'm saying, yeah.

My ideas come from Nick Land. Even before AI was what it is today he predicted that capitalism would outgrow the need for humanity, and continue without us. We are simply a bootloader for capitalism. AI seems like it could actually make that idea reality.

For the same reason it doesn't happen with humans.

Even for AI, it's probably better off paying another AI that is specializing in something and done all the work rather then reimplementing everything from the ground up.

Well that part of the economy and anything that caters to it might just die.

The whole economy would be whatever AI/robots need: compute, energy, raw materials, software, data, etc.

There's a chance AI will still need us for data/entropy.

It does today, that could continue.

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market.

For some companies yeah, but this is why companies are switching to consumption based pricing - so they can charge AI. So many companies will be fine - both their labor and customers could become AI.

They've already been well below that over the last 90 days

Companies and the stock market don't need humanity.

But a few companies will skyrocket and completely offset those.

Yeah. I think the economy will be by AI for AI. Markets will still be the most efficient way to allocate resources, and AI will probably still want to achieve infinite growth of capitalism.