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

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?

I think the principle isn't necessarily wrong, but it skips the major step of access to infrastructure, which is still deeply human mediated. Robotics and automation could foom in its own way, I think, and AGI can still do a lot of bad stuff in the present day. But I think economic irrelevance will depend on more automated robotics handling physical work.

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

Eventually recursive self-improvement includes reducing bottlenecks.

Eventually the bottleneck might be people themselves.

Improbably, the real bottleneck is energy.

Which is to say, scalable and open-ended capability of ramping up physical infrastructure.

I don't know that that's achievable yet. Though the era of increasingly advanced and automated robotics seems to be around the corner which could create a cycle, vicious or virtuous depending on how you feel about it.

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

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

Plumber, server. There are a huge amount of these jobs.

For like 3 years until we have humanoid robots.

Nah battery power and meat based hardware will stay intrinsically ahead indefinitely.

That being said metal based robots can replace many human jobs (like server) but something like a plumber or construction worker is extremely hard to do.

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.

Exactly, it seems many if not most people are trapped in an 1800s ideal of how an economy works. "You do work, you get money, you spend money, you do work" In fact the entire "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." statement is in full force here.

It's impossible for most people to envision an economy without them even though there are economic systems that will work without them.

>It's impossible for most people to envision an economy without them

It's possible that's the case because (at least in the US) 68% of GDP is consumer spending[0]. As such, 2/3 of the economy is "them."

[0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DPCERE1Q156NBEA/

Yes, that's the inefficient part of the economy that can and will be eliminated as far as the elite are concerned. The only reason that hasn't been achieved yet is because so far you still need manual labor to support the wishes of the elite.

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?

So noise and pollution that makes it impossible to live in or sell your house is now simply 'fashionable' to hate?

I guess i don't understand why reneging on a binding agreement is the cool thing here. They went through all the requirements. If the requirements should now change that's fine. But hold yourself to the agreement you made. Or appropriately terminate it

Amazon is not exactly known for playing fair or treating their workers well, so trying to play it like this is somehow the little guy being oppressed here or something is pathetic.

Did it ever occur to you that politicians signing a 'binding agreement' may not be the same as public interest? That they are often paid to hide the full implications from the public? Do you understand that some people actually want to live and raise family in a livable environment?

I understand that Ayn Rand fans who do not have to suffer the consequences of that philosophy or 'futurists' who think purely in 'make AI go brrr is cool' do not understand this, but some people place value on other things in life besides this and yes, they do deserve a place at the table.

As generally a tech optimist, but also someone deeply aware of the awful trajectory modern tech is on, such as their waste, war on general purpose computing, ownership, privacy and repairability, I think a lot of this needs rethinking and perhaps of brute forcing your way to stripping people of their livehoods by polluting, straining the grid and depriving people of places they'd want to live in, slow down and consider if there's not a smarter, more efficient, more humane way to move forward.

Failing to do so may produce a backslash that will harm even the things we love about our space.

The 'contract' is not sacred above everything. Especially when that contract affects a lot more people than those who signed it as 'binding'.

Yep.

The "noise and pollution" of a datacenter are bordering on nonexistent. The same goes for water use concerns and more. The environmental concerns are extremely overblown - but NIMBYs really don't need much to get going.

So which data center do you call neighbor?

This is going to sound like I'm flipping sides in this thread: but yeah, absolutely. Otherwise people in Gilroy would have hated datacenters when the planning started and Amazon would have built in Fresno or wherever.

Really both sides are insane in this battle. People are angry about social change, injustice, perceived loss of status and are taking out those frustrations on totems like "Buildings Owned by Big Tech". Which is wrong. But it's equally wrong to ignore those concerns and try to align with their political enemies, which only makes this worse. (We saw exactly this thing happen with the vaccine madness just half a decade ago!)

To wit: we're all going to hell in a handbasket and this community is 100% as much at fault as the big data opposition front.

6 years of planning can be thrown away if the community is just now becoming aware of the potential impact.

It’s not on the community to adhere to the companies looking to make a profit while ignoring how their presence affects those around them. Quite the opposite really.

One hundred years ago when humans started pumping oil out of the ground and burning it, nobody cared about it.

Should a century of infrastructure investment be thrown away because cooking the planet has recently become fashionable to hate?

Yes. It should. Will it? No.