Yes, but so? It provides a modicum of balance versus relentless hype by founders and the doting media. Even if not true it might remind people to have some healthy skepticism. The fact that your reflex is to find it "extremely mean spirited" speaks volumes. Everyone else in life gets shat apron because of other people's unscrupulous behavior, why are these people special? People should assume that there is a good chance any business venture is a fraud.
Ultimately it's one guy's opinion. It's not like he's going to ruin these people's lives or businesses.
Addresses are one thing, but the inverse has its own logic. In terms of (mental) planning you want to know that you need to go to the UK then London then Croydon, otherwise there's an element of "where's that?" as you read left to right.
> when the machines rob students of the opportunity to develop critical thinking skills
This is a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. Machines don't rob people of critical thinking skills, people do. Mostly people do it to themselves, often inheriting it from their parents or social environment.
> 1. Let's be clear: what you're describing is faith.
And what I am countering is not? You can easily argue technology generally improves lives. Is it optimal? Beyond abuse? No. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. Are we better of without it? No.
> 2. And what are you smoking to assert "all technology before ... AI [improved] most people's lives"?
OK social media is an unmitigated disaster, I'll give you that.
But, for example, nukes have given us the longest period of relative peace in history.
>> 1. Let's be clear: what you're describing is faith.
> And what I am countering is not? You can easily argue technology generally improves lives. Is it optimal? Beyond abuse? No. Does it have unintended consequences? Yes. Are we better of without it? No.
The faith part is assuming it will always turn out as well as it has in the past. But every technology is different, and the patterns of the last 100-200 years are not some fixed law.
Look at each technology and its characteristics with fresh eyes, and think of the consequences without that assumption. That's not faith.
> But, for example, nukes have given us the longest period of relative peace in history.
I think celebrating nuclear weapons is a bit premature. A non-zero chance of obliteration over a long enough period of time becomes a near-certainty.
This isn't correct. The deal is that the poor countries get development and increased employment, and the rich countries get lower prices. Generally speaking both types of countries get richer.
That some workers lost their jobs is a symptom of any change. I don't know why people always get upset people losing their jobs. It's like death, if no one died relatively few people would be born. If you resist job losses you reduce overall employment and economic development.
It would be ok if people lost jobs, and the products and services become cheap correspondingly.
But it would be a problem if people lost jobs and all the product and services keep costing the same as before, and get costlier over time as before...
Are you serious? People get upset about losing jobs because they need jobs to pay their bills. Further, we often build our life identities around work; if you're a good car mechanic or a successful restaurant owner, you're proud of that. It's a part of you.
Having to repeatedly restart your career is risky, painful, and demoralizing. I have no problem seeing why people don't like that and why it can lead to populist backlash or even violent revolutions (as it did in the past).
By the way, to address your closing comment: people don't like dying either and tend to get upset when others die?
I don't think the point is that the transition isn't difficult. It is that there is an overall benefit that outweighs the challenges of the transition.
The sad part is that industrializing societies have not been very good at reconciling the benefits with the costs. The benefits first go to a select few and have seeped out to the masses slowly. Railroads in the US are a good example. The wealth accumulated by the Vanderbilts, Hills and Harrimans, did not get redistributed in any kind of equitable manner. However, everyday people did eventually gain a lot of benefit form of those railroads through economic expansion. (None of which address the loss of the native Americans, whose losses should also be part of the equation.)
My impression is that the transition is such an open-ended process that you can’t really call it that. It’s unclear if and when the challenges will be overcome.
> I don't think the point is that the transition isn't difficult. It is that there is an overall benefit that outweighs the challenges of the transition.
In the abstract, sure. But not when you're on the receiving end. It's like with NIMBYism: we all roll our eyes at NIMBYs until it's actually our own backyard. You're not going to convince a coal miner that they're better off learning to code. You're not going to convince a software engineer that they're better off in the mines.
You're missing my point. Job losses are a fact of life, just like death. Why should people get upset about the fact that someone might lose their job, or die? It's not amoral. These things happen constantly to millions of people, we'd we worn out. We happily send young healthy people to their death fighting in wars so we don't have to. I don't see people weeping because the armed forces exist.
Or is this just some sort of PC bullshit, that we can't talk about this sort of progress without carefully lamenting job losses? If you're not useful doing a job, why should you be employed in it? That's the bottom line.
Society is better if we sacrifice one horse and buggy driver job for two engineering jobs. The drivers suffer from that, but the net win for society is so plainly obvious that it's a better investment to retrain the driver or just pay the off rather than support a job that dying anyways.
> Society is better if we sacrifice one horse and buggy driver job for two engineering jobs.
That's a "statistic" you're pulling out of your butt, and it's doing a lot of work. No one ever knows if something like that will actually happen.
It could actually turn out that AI sacrifices 100 engineering jobs for 10 low-level service or prostitution jobs and a crap-ton of wealth to those already rich.
> The drivers suffer from that, but the net win for society is so plainly obvious that it's a better investment to retrain the driver or just pay the off rather than support a job that dying anyways.
But what actually happens is our free-market society doesn't give a shit. No meaningful retraining happens, no meaningful effort goes into cushioning the blow for the "horse and buggy driver." Our society (or more accurately, the elites in charge) go tell those harmed to fuck off and deal with it.
> It could actually turn out that AI sacrifices 100 engineering jobs for 10 low-level service or prostitution jobs and a crap-ton of wealth to those already rich.
That's where wealth redistribution (Taxation) comes in. The USA is not good at progressive taxation, but everyone could be better off if it were implemented properly.
Your comment is typical of the tortured efforts of skeptics to discredit renewables, also usually applied to electric cars and other climate friendly measures.
You ignore the points made to argue a bunch on non-sequiturs that you think serve your purposes. Plus you throw in various ad-hominem attacks.
The article points out the experiential growth of renewables and logarithmic reductions in price. You don't take issue with that, maybe because you don't understand the consequences of exponential growth?
You mention that largest renewable share is hydro, but the number of locations suitable for hydro is very limited, and the attendant cost is very high.
What you focus on in existing installed capacity. But so what? Yes sources of power that have been installed over hundreds of years are indeed outnumbering renewables. Somehow you don't get that the rapid increase of renewables will wipe out existing forms of power generation in a fraction of the time it took for those to appear.
Renewables are much, much cheaper than other forms, and more scalable (up and down). That is undeniable buy you or anyone else. That will drive installations even in the face of issues such as intermittency because the force of money, along with convenience and flexibility, beats everything.
Your comment makes no sense. If the Middle Eat oil gets cut off, you're suffering within days. If China cuts off solar panels, you have many plenty of time to find an alternative source or ramp up your own production.
If you chase down all inputs into everything you need to generate power you will find you're not truly independent from anyone. But solar panels and various other renewables hardware is much easier to stockpile than oil.
> but there is nothing inevitable about it
The Middle East is not going back to normal any time soon. The Israeli/US attack on Iran is a strategic catastrophe, implemented by two felons advised by ideologues and incompetents. The conditions are right to make oil more expensive for a long time, regardless of the outcome of the war. True peace is very unlikely to never be achieved. For instance: Iran now has a massive incentive to build nukes.
Meanwhile solar panel, wind farm, and battery prices are dropping like a rock and they avoid all of the problems of oil. Only the most ideologically fixated wouldn't invest in and install renewables. Anything that makes huge amounts of money is indeed inevitable.
Alternatively: how are you in a position to claim they're 100% not frauds?
reply