So you are never going to convince people that Tesla won't make a fortune on humanoid robots or SpaceX won't colonize Mars. The fever will break when people decide flying robots (or whatever) are a bigger business then humanoid robots or some other company than Space X will colonize the ocean before Mars. You aren't going to convince people to price these things reasonably but eventually the heat will wear off.

Let’s try: George Collins believes that people can satisfy their material needs by working only a few hours. People usually want more. But at many times and within many social movements— religious, political, artistic— people have chosen to want less. Maybe that is part of the answer.

John Maynard Keynes thought people might eventually work only a few hours per month because the growth in productivity would allow only a few hours of work to cover consumption. He did not imagine that people would want their own cars, their own lavish houses filled with appliances, extensive wardrobes, fancy food. As a westerner you do not feel like you live an opulent lifestyle but compared to almost any person in 1900 you do.

Why is this? Advertising continually raised people’s expectations. Now social media does. People are naturally competitive.

It’s obvious that things don’t really make a person happier except in extreme cases. Also, historical comparisons show we are happy with or admire those that have more and when everyone has a thing contentment is not achieved.

It’s easy to imagine different values and lots of social movements have eschewed materialism. Now there is lying down. There used to be hippies living on communes.

I prefer employment to be transactional. I think it always ultimately is. There is a role for government to not let employers unfairly take advantage of workers or cheat them, but beyond that my loyalty is to people and what I have equity in.

If AI reduces white collar jobs, how can that be bad when automation reducing blue collar jobs is good? It's like suddenly engineers embrace Marxism.

They killed their competition and now they will give you the product that gives them the most money.

They repeated the test and the results were replicable. (But still only about 25%, but that is something.)

This made me think: I grew up in a world where there was a flawed but consensus view of the world, its problems, institutions motivations. This came from a common mass media. Maybe getting our answers from AI will lead us to a new (inevitably flawed or even bad) consensus. Weird.

Source: https://play.cdnstream1.com/s/kcrw/question-everything/can-a...

What about when the llm is smarter than the person? Sometimes I get material that is so bad I wish they had had AI do it. Then it would be poor to mediocre.

There was an episode of the podcast “Question Everything “ where they talked about how LLM s can sometimes talk people out of conspiracy theories by patiently refuting the arguments with facts. There have been academic studies on this.

I think people hate AI because it is often mediocre and flawed but sometimes it’s replacing humans that are inept.

What it threatened is the ad based "content" models where you put stuff up for free and sell ads against it. There's lots of ways to make money from any creative endeavor that has a lasting audience. I don't know if that includes talking into your phone or writing a personal journal about productivity hacks.

Things you make that are really good: a novel, a game, a short film, a song are still very valuable.