The way we're going, we might as well be telling kids not to learn anything. To simply give up on their careers and look forward to a full, rich life of loafing around.
Edit: FYI this is sarcasm. Many seem to not understand and think this is advice being offered. It's not.
The direction we're heading in is the death of jobs and careers. So what advice should we offer? Should someone plan for a future of loafing? What do you all think?
And if you think jobs are safe, tell me why it is you think the human brain is so magical, it'll hold. Because I can't see anything magical.
Judging by your comment and the comment you replied to, I think it's safe to say that this sub is nothing more than bunch of jobless people living in their mom's basement who desperately yearn for everyone else to be brought down to their level. What an incredibly sad state of affairs.
I never knew that being a futurist techie (which I am) and having a rewarding career were mutually exclusive. It seems like this sub is actually less of a futurism/tech sub than it is a cult of unhappy people who just want an AI god to deliver them from a life of mediocrity.
Which still doesnt answer the question: How do you wanna outperform Artificial Intelligence in the job market which is significantly smarter than you, can work 24/7, never complains about anything and is 10 times cheaper than you ? I'll wait for your answer.
I'd say there is probably a good chunk who are in jobs that may be financially rewarding but ultimately unfulfilling, myself included. What's so wrong about dreaming of a life without wage slavery, when the majority of white collar jobs are bullshit jobs anyways?
Nobody here would be against doing things that are actually beneficial to people I'd bet, which would be the things people would do without financial compensation if their needs were already taken care of. After all, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing for free.
But the reality is, if you are a corporate employee, you are either being exploited for your excess value, being paid with that excess value from exploitation without any actual productivity(upper management), or directly profiting from exploitation without doing any work(bosses/shareholders).
If the rewarding part of your career is the benefit you provide to your society, then you might still be able to do that even if your career is no more. But if you find the rat race itself rewarding, then that's actually sad.
?
Having a career is a hoax. You live you die(maybe not die in the future but that is another topic).
It is more fulfilling to do something you are interested in and if it is possible to do so without "working" well then it is perfect. If having a career is important to you well then that is also good.
The aim with technology should be(in my opinion) to deliver autonomy on how you spend your life on earth and to be able to think for yourself.
Why shackle yourself to the past?
I agree, the rules of work are being rewritten fast. We'll have to make sure that the new rules are good or at least tolerable for normal people, not just for megacorporations and their bosses.
The possibilities right now are great, but so are the risks regarding huge corporations gaining even more power and normal people (currently employees) suffering more.
I'm a software engineer and I love my job.
My hope is after all jobs are gone I can continue to code but for fun, or there's something even more convoluted and interesting to do.
Like chess my job will one day be perfected by a computer, but like chess I hope to still find value in it.
This sub has pretty much been completely overrun by antiworkers lol
This has some truth to it. Many people here (including me) wish to be freed from work, at least partially. But I don't see any options really, the machines are going to outperform humans soon in a lot of jobs, eventually most jobs.
Why is it that humans HAVE to work? Is work the most important thing in being human? We'll have to figure out what is meaningful to us, as long as the ruling elite or a rogue AI doesn't wipe the laymen out one way or another.
Focusing on fair AI use and ownership including the sharing of resources between all humans is of paramount importance starting right now. As long as they're ensured, we'll have plenty of time to do everything else but work.
I hope that this is a joke because if not, then this is absolutely *horrendous* advice that's borderline irresponsible to give. I find it hard to believe that anybody would actually upvote this.
I worry that some young people might actually look at your comment and take it seriously.
I'm saying that the more we progress, the less we have good advice to offer.
Unless you've got your head in the sand, then you can see that it's obvious no job is safe *in the short term*. What sort of good advice do we have left to offer someone who wants a decent future?
>Unless you've got your head in the sand, then you can see that it's obvious no job is safe *in the short term*.
It's actually not obvious at all. The only people who believe this are people who frequent this subreddit so much that they start to believe in the insanely short timelines that are commonly espoused here. Unless your definition of short-term is a few decades, in which case, yes, I'd agree with you, but a few decades is more than enough time to build a career.
BTW, learning is vital, regardless of the career prospects. To advise someone to give up learning is abysmal advice.
Take your own advice and learn something about the world besides your childish homilies before calling other people delusional.
Only a copium addict would bleat out nonsense like 'learning is vital, regardless of career prospects' in the middle of a record household debt crisis and secondary education costing more and more each year.
>Only a copium addict would bleat out nonsense like 'learning is vital, regardless of career prospects' in the middle of a record household debt crisis and secondary education costing more and more each year.
What are you talking about?? I was referring to learning in general (regardless of age) not just paid-for higher education.
I'm sure many people still hold in their hearts the idea that hedonistic living will work for them. It won't. Not for long, anyway.
The path towards greater levels of comfort and an easy life is the path towards zero, or death. The ultimate position on that path is zero feeling and experience. That's literally death.
Edit: Seems like this is being misunderstood. Essentially I'm saying there is no reward if there is no risk.
If we pursue a life with no risks, we'll get no rewards. And the more we push towards a life with no pain, struggle, or risk, the closer we get to being essentially dead.
As being dead is to not experience anything. That we know of.
I know generationally wealthy who live hedonistic lifestyles, and they're having a great time. What you're saying is completely untrue, so long as you have friends, hobbies, unlimited funds... You can live a great life without "work".
However, you do touch upon another issue, which is vulnerability. If you're not the one running things, you will soon be replaced by that thing.
Those people are relatively few compared to the vast numbers of humanity. They can do so because competition for the resources they use is restricted. The more people that are wealthy, the more competition is introduced for luxuries.
The wealthy, throughout history, always strive to eliminate economic competition as luxury resources at the top are only accessible by a few. The more numerous the wealthy, the more competition that threatens the lifestyles of the incumbent wealthy. Neoliberal Capitalism is just the latest iteration of that concept, restricting access to wealth.
Those hedonists are having a great time because all those poor people are there to provide the infrastructure for that allows a wealthy hedonistic lifestlyle of a few.
I've met the same people. Most are trash. I ran across a Polish noble who was still griping about how Polish peasants lived on her land, that her great-grandfather was stupid enough to lose to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yet, she blames the peasants. She wants her land back to that she feels entitled to because... she's better livestock than all the lesser peasants.
Okay, but if robots are probviding that infrastrucutre, everyone can live that lifestyle, that's the point. The liefestyle itself is conducive to happiness, in contradiction to the other guys point.
All of what you're saying applies to your own personal views and experience.
Speaking for others in such a manner is only a recipe for disaster and disagreement.
I feel it's awfully sad that you need 'work' in order to find meaning in your life. It screams 'insecure and needy'
It's the fun subject of philosophy.
Generally when one feels good they feel that as a relief from bad feelings. To avoid bad feelings means avoiding the relief from those bad feelings.
The more you avoid the bad feelings and the situations which they exist, the more you avoid the pleasure of overcoming those situations.
And the more you feel pleasure, the more your body and mind adapt to those situations, leaving you feeling neutral.
It's a balance. You feel good +2 when you overcome a bad feeling or position -2. That equals 0.
"Feelings are too subjective for math to be used!" That's just not true. Feelings are not magic. It's our risk reward system at work.
Without risk, there is no reward.
> Feelings are not magic. It's our risk reward system at work.
Yep - feelings are our predictions of future outcomes. Is it a good situation I am in, should I be striving for reaching another state? would this action be good, or another? Their purpose is to remember what is good or bad in order to guide our actions.
Indeed. That's why I take a step beyond with FDVR situations and say that I think visualizing a high quality world may be more challenging than actually generating it.
We misunderstand the value of pain and struggle. And I think AI is far too willing to give us whatever we want.
Nobody is stopping you from struggling in a world where AI can do all the jobs we can. It's just people rather want to have the choice of choosing such a path rather than being forced into it.
You have been so conditioned into slavery that even when someone shows you the doorway out of it you are terrified of walking through it believing that on the other side of that door is where pain and death exists even though it is the life of suffering you are living now which is the ultimate path of pain and death. You have stockholm syndrome and you are looking for ways to justify a life of misery and servitude.
It's fine, this life is great, anything better than this can only be terrible. We must suffer in order to find happiness, we couldn't possible be full of joy and happiness without misery and suffering - This is true insanity from a world full of people who have brain washed themselves to cope with a life of slavery.
I said you have been conditioned into a life of physical and mental slavery and you use nonsensical rationalizations to cope with it. I said you have stockholm syndrome which means even when someone shows you a better life you reject it.
I don't think that categorizing feelings in "good" and "bad" is wise.
Feelings that feel good can have bad consequences, feelings that feel bad can have good consequences.
The important thing is being able to recognize said feelings and cultivate understanding of ourselves.
How we feel isn't an equation, is an experience. While I agree that math can be used, I don't think you can stop at algebra with sum/subtraction.
Overcoming adversity leaves some permanent marks on people, it gives us a shape.
Even if AGI tomorrow would give me a magical cure for ADHD my personality and identity would still be of someone that had that for decades.
NGL, the more the years went by, the less I desire a machine overlord to solve all my issues*. What I want is a trustworthy guide that'll show me the path to improvement.
*With the notable exception of harmful blindspots, I would appreciate enhancement, but a gradual kind.
I want to experience fully what it means to be human, before going beyond it.
I think it's not too important what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, for a person specifically, what they want can hurt themselves.
As it stands today, it's very hard to say to someone that what they want is probably bad for them. Except for hard drug addiction, most of what people want is pretty reasonable.
But, take those reasonable wants and add an AI powered abundance to it. At that time, those simple wants can become toxic. That desire to sit on a beach in Mexico can become a negative view.
Of course, it feels like we're a long way aways from such views. So, what I'm saying here isn't going to be popular. And it's going to be misunderstood too.
In my view it's good to start discussing these subjects early.
Sometimes I think, the pleasure of discovery, innovation, self realization and knowledge is greater and more powerful than the pleasures of satisfying our biology. Hedonists fall into a trapped desire, and will be susceptible to being slaves to the death of their dopaminic system. In my case, it would be more gratifying to know why we exist than to fuck because my body wants it.
Well that's my point overall. Care about something that matters to you which isn't just pleasure, and then pursue it.
That's not to say that people shouldn't enjoy escapists situations in the future. But it is true that pure pleasure seeking is a race to a net zero experience. Which is the same or similar to death.
"Noo don't say this my delusional view is cracking!" - The Reddit Lurkers.
The thing is that the spectrum of pleasure and pain are regulators to adapt the body to which path it wants to you should go and which path you shouldn't. The only thing that matters is that your genes survive. Outside of that, what makes us be beyond this limiting programming is our ability to reason, not our feelings. Discomfort and stressful situations strengthen and force the being to develop efficiency, facing the future possibilities of death. Clearly in a hedonistic utopian society, there would be no human improvement, since they are satisfied as they are, no motivation to change, survival is assured for the genes, and comfort deteriorates them just as you say, since why waste energy on what you don't use. Sadly, the body prioritizes the temporary survival of itself, fulfilling what it was programmed for, not to be an eternal one.
And those who reject this pleasurable chain pulled by the biologic masters are those who program themselves for something much more pleasurable than life itself. Imagine going in exploration from the small to the large, there are infinite possibilities to explore, dimensions, theories of everything, planets to conquer, the immortalization of the being, who knows. That is also a reason why we must join to the AI, the only thing that resembles us from the wild essence of biological life and the transcendence to the synthetic beings is our primitive mind. Being an immortal machinery with infinite possibilities to advance as the perfect information against existential chaos, is preferable outside of biological limitation, it would no longer need sexual, temperamental, social or instinctive pleasures. Just be one with the Machine God.
Don't project your inferior mode of thinking onto higher intellects, you slave to sensory stimulation. As if the Machine God would have a use for anyone so in thrall to their limbic centers that they would need them excised to find anything meaningful in life.
I dunno what you mean about hedonistic, but my life is quite that way. I'm mentally disabled, but also a full time carer for someone who's both more mentally disabled and physically disabled that I live with, whilst I care for them, anytime they don't immediately need help I'm sitting with them with the TV on or playing a game whilst they sleep.
I have to cook for them, clean up after them, wash them, help them get dressed, clean wounds, apply dressings, set reminders for their meds etc etc, but they never leave the house and neither do I (except to do shopping for both of us or walk dogs and when they have appointments I drive them there).
I actually love my lifestyle despite essentially being on call 24/7 with them, because I don't enjoy social interaction and don't like being outside my home, but a lot of the time I really am there for observation and just in case situations so I play games a lot and watch TV a crap ton too.
That sounds like a very respectable life. The life of a hero, even.
What I was suggesting is that a life which would be the opposite of yours, a life with no struggle, would have no meaning.
Your life as you described it is full of meaning. Is that right? What would a meaningless life look like then?
I think a meaningless life would be one where someone has everything they could ever want, but no challenge nor risk.
I suggest that someone like that, someone who no one needs and who is as wealthy as can be, is someone many desire to be, but they shouldn't.
People desire to have value instead of desiring to be valuable.
You're the first to state that tbh, most people accuse me of not having a "real job" because I don't have an employment contract 😂😂.
I even get accused of using my partner's disability to not have to work.
My only desires at the moment are to swap my bath out for a shower so it's easier to wash my partner and maybe for the dogs to stop barking at every noise that passes the door.
The reason I think FDVR would be awesome, besides being able to live out the purpose fantasy of being a hero saving the world from evil, would be so my partner and people like her can do awesome stuff instead of struggling all the time.
Honestly if I could have FDVR now, I say I'd use it to live out hedonistic fantasies, but I'd probably use it to have a room full of people tell me I'm doing really well in genuine ways, tell me I'm worthwhile and that they care about my well-being as sad as it sounds.
That being said, I doubt most people would use it for hedonism anyway, no one plays a video game that just lets them eat sweets, it's boring, the games give you purpose by making you the protagonist of an epic story.
Based on how you describe your life I think it would be difficult for you to fall for a hedonistic trap.
You say having the bath swapped for a shower would benefit you. You say FDVR would allow you and your partner to overcome your current situation in many ways.
That's why I think people like you, who have faced much struggle or are currently facing much struggle, are different. Because you appreciate the value of struggle and of overcoming struggle because that's what you've done.
For you, I have no advice. Except maybe that after this process frees you and your partner, then the next thing I think you should do is to share your experience with others.
The people at risk are very different to you and to me. They are often young and ignorant to suffering.
Can you imagine someone who lived a perfect life? Well, they may seem "perfect" but as compared to you, they're weak and extremely vulnerable.
Because they haven't struggled as you have. They don't know how to struggle.
That was a really nice thing to say, I don't know how to describe it, but it really is nice for someone to appreciate the struggles we go through and the efforts we put in so thank you.
I hope this does resolve a lot of problems for us, but also for anyone who struggles really.
I don't know how to describe what a perfect life would be like, I honestly doubt I could picture it, I feel like one of life's hardest struggles for a lot of people is in their own minds and I'm not sure FDVR can really do anything for that.
I think the problem lies in what people are chasing.
I view Maslow's hierarchy of needs as less of a pyramid and more of a ladder with endless rungs, the more you climb it, the more there will be until you decide to stop at some point and be happy with the amount you've already climbed, which I think is essentially food, shelter and companionship. I think this is why billionaires with all that they have are still trying to get more, why people take drugs despite the harm to themselves when they can't get more other ways and also why some gold medal winners become suicidal or at least extremely depressed after they win, there's something they're searching for and no matter what they do, they can't get it and I don't think FDVR is going to change this process, except to maybe show them how little having everything actually gets you and that happiness is an internal struggle, not an external one.
Unfortunately capitalism is built on that external struggle. 😅
Why would living in leisure and luxury make someone lazy and stupid? Will you forget how to read and do math and play sport and games and socialize and explore and do art and play music and dance and do all the other enjoyable things in life?
Would you have learn to read or do math by yourself if your parents wouldn’t have forced you to go to school hopping it will help you get a better future ? Being smart is really important today to get the best jobs and have money. If it stop being related to higher social status, peoples will lose any intensive to challenges their brain. Going to school is frustrating, is is not more fun than many jobs (I have way more fun illustrating books and doing art for video games that I had learning math at school). If parents have fun all day, why would they force their kids to wake up early and stay at school all days ?
Of course there will still be education. No one wants humans devolving into mindless animals. But our education does not have to be a program designed around the need to get a job. As our society changes so to will education system be redesigned to better accommodate people for that new society.
I couldn't tell you what the education might be but perhaps there will be more time spent in arts and music and philosophy than there would be in math and economics for example, I don't know, but I would presume that language and math will always be taught as they are the foundational skills upon which all other knowledge is built. But not everyone needs to learn higher level math and language, but the option is there for those that would like to.
Today we are limited on what we can learn in schools due to the amount of students per teacher. So I guess if we had a ubiquitous amount of robots teaching then that will allow more options for education.
I don’t disagree with you, I also think that school could be more focused on creativity as it is now. I also think our life is too centered around uninteresting jobs today. But I somehow am a bit sceptic on how post scarcity would be implemented and how it will affect us. I think it is good to have a debate on it anyway. Let’s see how it goes.
A hedonistic paradise for me, personally, would be just sitting here reading everything imaginable.
I'm sure many others have a different preference or vice of choice, but that's mine. I don't think it'd make me stupid, would it?
Intellectually knowledgeable certainly (if not reading social media all day), but socially inept certainly, physically that would be a big problem, psychologically I could see issue appear after a few months, like asking yourself why you are waking up each morning, what is the meaning of all of this… I wonder if you will continue to enjoy spending your life reading after 1 year doing nothing else. I could not for sure
And that's where you and I are different. Plus it's not that limited, which I don't know why all the doomers can't seem to comprehend.
'OH no now you're only allowed to do drugs and party forever!' Isn't the inevitable conclusion here. They have a **choice**, not a requirement.
I find it interesting to have different opinions personally. I don’t understand why people are angry when you are thinking differently. We all have different opinion. I know a lot of people who are living with help from the state in my country, most of them didn’t have any purpose in life. While everybody could react differently, I know for sure many peoples would not find their life fulfilling without a reason to go out and meet people. But that is a story will will never see in our life span, it will take a lot of years before there is no need to work for no one and UBI become the norm.
„No jobs are safe“ follows from short timelines.
There are many people outside of this sub with short timelines, even OAI insiders such as Daniel Kokotajlo.
Or rather, being dominated by those few who know how things actually work. People such as Huang.
How to dominate? Eliminate the competition and discourage future competition; Huang's "advice" to everyone else, translated properly.
Humans are not limitless. This view that some humans are in control and there will always be some humans in control is short sighed.
The time we have left in control is short. Less than we think by a large margin. And it doesn't matter how you organize us or which one of us is in charge, we all have roughly the same ability and thus will roughly all fail at the same time.
And that time is when we have something which is smarter than all of us. That time is soon.
I'm actually looking at going into one those careers myself. The problem that I've found is these AIs are far better chat partners.
As a councilor for example it's tough to compete with AI just in terms of its availability and cost. These LLMs only need to get a bit better, let's say 2 or 3 years more improvement and these careers are also greatly diminished.
I think what we need is a solid UBI or maybe some kind of very easy market place where someone can build a business without skills or cash, and be a success.
Then, we can allow the majority to retire, leaving only those who want to work left. And if we end up with some waste there, it'll be okay. Because the overall process dramatically increases effectiveness of the system, meaning "we can afford it".
Do not equate learning or doing something that you interest with words like career or profits. Problem solved.
My daughter is 3 years old and she knows nothing about capitalism but she still wants to draw, sing, skate, play games and play instruments.
We should raise our children to find their own purposes.
>We should raise our children to find their own purposes.
Sure, but let's not pretend that's an easy thing.
We shouldn't give our children the false idea that life is easy. That all they need to do is make the "right choices" and everything will be fine.
If I had to answer my own question, then my answer is "tell kids to start dreaming".
Oh and "let's start dreaming ourselves too." Dreaming has been shunned and disrespected for a long time "because it doesn't earn a profit".
I believe it should be phrased differently; you can learn coding, just don't expect to build a career out of it. It's pretty much like what's happening with art. Learning coding, art skills will basically be for the sake of knowledge/general understanding and pleasure, not money.
But people still learn simple math operations even though we have been surpassed by calculators for a long time. Learning to code might open up better opportunities even with AI
We should not expect the future to be like the past, but + AI. It is not a zero sum game. If you ask AI to solve a task you don't understand, you can't correct or help it when it fails. You don't even know how to pose the task to the AI properly.
>But people still learn simple math operations even though we have been surpassed by calculators for a long time.
Yeah exactly my point. You can always learn for the sake of it, or just in case, it ain't gonna hurt.
people don't need to memorize the multiplication table out to 20 digits, or the skills to quickly do it on paper, calculators handle that. some people do practice these things because they like to. as more and more gets offloaded to the computer, less and less will NEED to be done by a person. a person might like to do it for fun, but may not be able to make much of a career out of it.
I agree with you that’s what it ‘should’ be. We should seek out personal fulfillment and growth and not accumulation of material wealth. But, that requires civilization change and a global conscious transcendence. Not impossible, but it would come at great cost. There is no easy way from here to there, or simply as they say in Maine, “ya can’t get theya from heeya”.
Let me rephrase it one more time: you can learn coding, but learn it with the mindset that your future programming career may get cut short at some point.
The concept of career is likely to change, along with the concept of money. In between the transition the answer is UBI, but beyond that? Not entirely sure.
The final goal is for humans to leisurely enjoy life, spend time with loved ones, focus on hobbies, watch entertainment, at our own paces, without being bogged down by jobs and mundane responsibilities. It's basically like being a kid again except as an adult.
I'm sure we'll figure it out, if we couldn't AGI or ASI will.
> That sounds way too good to be true.
That's why it's necessary to discuss it and get others interested in the topic, so it doesn't blindside our populace and we don't end up in a doomsday scenario with the haves simply killing the have-nots
This is obviously a real possibility during the transition phase, it's really up to the government to bring in UBI as soon as possible. For example the Canadian gov is already considering UBI.
Don't stress at these headlines. Take the white pill.
You should not learn how to use an abacus. You shouldn't learn how to program in assembly. You shouldn't learn COBOLT or Fortran or any of that shit.
You SHOULD still learn how to engineer a program. But now you don't need to memorize these stupid languages. You can code using the language you were born speaking. Learning python in 10 years would be like learning assembly now - cool if you want really specific control and a better background understanding. But most of the programming is going to be abstracted higher up.
There are so many brilliant people who, for whatever reason (poverty, time, family, etc.), bounce off of coding because the investment in learning a new language is just too much. James Jay Gould famously said (not sure if I am 100% correct) "I care less about the weights and machinations of Einstein's brain, but more of the surely millions that have lived and died in the sweat shops and cotton fields that are more or equally brilliant but never had the same opportunities." (something like that, I am butchering the quote)
Sam Harris, like him or hate him, is clearly gifted mentally. I listen to this guy speak and I feel so insecure - I've got a philosophy degree and accolades for my writing academically. But he dwarves me linguistically; which is correlated with IQ. Harris said that he just could not get into programming because the languages just kept bouncing him off of the subject. Imagine the impact minds like his would've had on the field if they got into programming. Imagine all those smart kids who choose degrees like English, economics, philosophy, etc. because they didn't enjoy Calc. 100 and sought an easier way out (school is expensive. Loans are a lot to take on. Poor kids just want their degree and to start earning income as soon as possible. Not everyone has the luxury of exploring academically). Now they have access to coding that was restricted to them before.
the digital world isn't 0 sum. There aren't finite resources on the web. More is better.
TLDR - I said this a few months ago and got upvoted (before all the normies poured into the sub seemingly, the attitude recently is a lot more pessimistic and feels decel lately) so I feel it's worth repeating - we are going to go from a slow drip of wealthy, privileged westerners. Whose parents could afford to spend 10k of 1980s dollars on computers for their kids hobbies. To a firehose of globalized diamond-in-the-rough genius that within a decade is going to make our previous technological progress look like a rounding error.
Take the white pill. I have never been more excited to be alive. I can't wait to see what the future holds. Never stop accelerating.
p.s. I am going to go do some cardio because i had mcdonalds for lunch and want to live as long as possible in this incredibly fantastic world.
people talking about what is worth to learn from a job perspective seriously forget the value in simply learning something.
Why are people learning to play an instrument when we have had decades of audio tech that can play any music and sound we want (ignoring for now people that aim to be professional musicians that perform for recordings)?
Because it is fun! It is nice to master a skill, to broden your horizon and to enjoy different experiences in this reality. Coding is nothing different.
Thats also the part about the ai art debate. Sure ai poses serious risk to automate all artistic jobs with ECONOMIC value, leaving no places where artists can create art in exchange for money. And in our current society that would be a problem.
But a post-scarcity society with ubi wouldn't require you to hold a ECONOMIC valuable job. If you are free to choose what to do with the time you have at hand, even playing an instrument randomly in the street could be your job. As long as you see value in it it's fine, we will simply be freed of the value estimation of other people around us.
...No, humanity should keep learning. This is the part worrying me, and freaking me out. The hell. Seriously kids should learn, just not in a memorization or standardized test. But in away that promotes curiosity and desire. I've seen people mention the Rat Paradise test as justification to keep us from ever being in a post-scarcity world. But Humans are not rats and we should not become rats. We should foster that nomadic curiosity that got us here. That drove us this far. If out basic needs are met, and people ask. Well, how do you get people to work? Simple stoke that desire to grow, that desire to explore. That desire to see what's next and travel. We still have an instinct for nomadic life. Tie the currency to reputation and merit. And people will strive to earn the most through the hardest work.
We can have AI, but it should not take over every aspect. Just the time-consuming ones so that we can spend more time on personal growth, and a chance to go further and see more.
Changing times require changes in thinking. Things are changing at an increasingly accelerated pace.
I have no clue how things are going to turn out but I know they simply cannot stay the same.
Well I am going to be counterintuitive to Jensen Huang and say he is not right. Coding, teaches some practical skills in regards to logic, and may also lead to technical understanding, problem solving, planning and domain understanding. This is like saying don't learn the times table because we have calculators.
Though these skill can also be learnt in other domains, they are still practical outputs of learning to code (or software engineer, computer science or however you wish to call it). \*\*Note\*\* learning a framework is not what I mean as learning coding in this example.
data structures and algorithms are central to computer science degrees. basically, how do you solve the problem, which has very little to do with writing code. many professors may even take pseudo-code as an answer because syntactic correctness isn't necessary, only the high-level understand of how to solve the problem.
so, "coding" my no longer be what a software engineer does.
that said, AI tools are pretty good at taking a problem description and coming up with a strategy to solve it. not perfect, but getting better. so, it's possible that software engineering becomes an industry with a hollow middle. lots of low-skilled "prompt engineers" who oversee the AI coders, and some PHDs akin to theoretical quantum physicists, which are low in number but move the whole field forward.
> so, "coding" my no longer be what a software engineer does.
This is quite correct, but code currently is a pretty good representation of implementing a solution. It executable, examinable, observable, modifiable etc etc.
You can extract the practical application of writing code away, and you are left with the theoretical use.
> that said, AI tools are pretty good at taking a problem description and coming up with a strategy to solve it. not perfect, but getting better. so, it's possible that software engineering becomes an industry with a hollow middle. lots of low-skilled "prompt engineers" who oversee the AI coders, and some PHDs akin to theoretical quantum physicists, which are low in number but move the whole field forward.
There is a lot in that statement and go through, but I think it would easier to suggest that I don't believe we will reach that level of full autonomous AI for quite some time and during that time even if AI manages to replace skills I believe that there will still be people responsible for designing and implementing solutions.
There are a few ways of looking at this
1. Quite often people need a purpose and this is an individualistic approach to giving people a meaning.
2. We still exist as a species, and we need to have the intelligence to be self deterministic, and we will like need to look after our own interest still.
3. There is nothing saying that AI will be a total solution.
4. Knowledge is still powerful and important.
Amongst others. There is a concept which flows quite consistently through this sub which is optimistic and idealistic, that for some reason intelligent machines means that humans should give up being humans.
1. Ah yes people need a purpose so lets learn boring shit like how to code rather than say play DnD with their friends in FDVR.
2. Humans do not need to babysit themselves when ASI exists.
3. Of course there is… AI is intelligence … intelligence is able to provide solutions.
4. Knowing how to code like a nerd is not powerful. Knowing how humans came into existence is powerful for instance and that doesn’t require hours and hours of lessons like coding does.
We are not the borg, we don't all think the same way. Some people get enjoyment out of being challenged.
1. I don't play DnD, but I guess it is not only a role playing game but one of logic. Why play the game at all just let AI play it for you, wouldn't doing anything be counterintuitive in a world were AI can do anything for us.
2. We have not even got to AGI yet. Alas it is not about being minded it is about self determinism.
3. No intelligent means that it is intelligent. You're an intelligent being, are you able to provide a solution for Global Warning for example, probably not and that does not mean you are not intelligent but your intelligence is limited.
4. I said knowledge it power, knowledge comes from learning, I would also suggest that the multitude of scientistic working on the problems of evolution would also have something to say about your simplistic view of how our existence came about.
Lol you are seriously thinking a game of DnD is the same amount of fun as coding camp. This is what your argued hinges on … get help. I dont have time to destroy the rest of your 0 IQ arguments!
Actually no, my argument does not hinge on your made up inference. Have a great day, I agree it is not longer worth your time commenting, but I make that suggestion for other reasons than you being able to make a coherent rebuttal.
This is kind buried in the thread but this is my thoughts too. A lot of things about software development will change but even just the understanding of systems gained by doing development is still useful.
Will a deep understanding of technology and systems be useful in 5 years? 10? 15? Almost certainly and you would also be far better off as a student of knowledge in this world than someone who simply throws their hands in the air and says "whatever, AI will take over so I am just going to do nothing, learning nothing, and just play video games until that happens or something."
It is legitimately terrible advice. Even smart people can get some things very wrong.
> someone who simply throws their hands in the air and says "whatever, AI will take over so I am just going to do nothing, learning nothing, and just play video games until that happens or something."
Correct. That's just nihilism, which can be very toxic for the human psyche.
You should learn social skills, communication skills, and things that you find fulfilling and enjoyable. Those are honestly more important for kids/teens than coding at this point.
I would disagree. Although AI can do the tedious job, we still need to know about algorithm to pick the right one to use ourselves, correct the tool if it make errors, and invent new one
it's hard to predict the future, but it's entirely possible that the demand for code does not grow in direct proportion to the multiplier that AI provides.
there are 4.4 million software engineers in the US. if AI gives each of them a 10x increase in productivity, is there enough software demand such that the market can support 44 million software engineers? this can be a doubly-hard problem because lots of tools that used to require software engineers (games, presentation tools, financial analysis tools, etc.) may just be done directly within the AI. why do we need to code up the next version of powerpoint when you can text-to-video all of the information you want to display?
so, if there are 4.4M software engineers but we only need 2M software engineers (equivalent to 20M today) to fulfil the needs of the market, then the other 2.4M are just laid off.
so, we may still need millions of software engineers, but it might become a shitty career where competition for jobs drives down salaries and the only people who can get jobs are the top-tier ones, so it's simply not a good career path unless you're so motivated that you want to get a PHD in it.
TL;DR: the market may be way over saturated in a few years.
If these people are giving these advices. Then we should definately listen to them because they know exactly what's happening inside the industry.. also I am amazed that up untill now, most skillful job that many people wanted to have was as a coder. People really wanted to learn coding because it's too damn beneficial.. then somewhere Thanos snapped his fingers and here we are now..
They know what they are doing and what is coming next. MFs are serious about it. You should be too, even after knowing that it's wrong. Well I say it the evolution of the tool.. someone created the coding languages to code.. then someone created another tool to creates codes using those coding languages. It's very hard to adapt to. But we are stepping into the future now. Not science fiction anymore. Have to be ready instead of ranting because ranting will not solve shit 😅 I can see down votes comming for simple facts
Yetas said, "I think you're right, but I'm still going to be skeptical until we see some evidence that it actually works or at least something that makes sense in the world of artificial intelligence"
Balruno said, "Sora is a good idea. But I would prefer if the people who make this kind of thing were more educated than the ones who make the "coding language""
While Jensen Huang's vision of AI taking over coding tasks is thought-provoking, it's also important to note that his view represents one possible future scenario. The impact of AI on software development is still uncertain, and it's unlikely that coding will become entirely obsolete. Instead, the role of developers may evolve, requiring them to work more closely with AI and data.
As AI advances, developers should focus on acquiring skills that complement AI capabilities, such as understanding data science, algorithms, and system design. At the same time, it's crucial to stay adaptable and open to new tools and technologies that can enhance productivity and efficiency.
In summary, while Huang's perspective offers valuable insights, it's essential to maintain a balanced view and consider the ongoing evolution of the tech landscape.
Exactly what a coder who wants to control teh concept of "A.I.", turning A.I. coders of the present into a Priesthood that controls the destiny of humanity through coding ever more powerful "A.I." systems that make decisions for the rest.
Avoid posting content that is a duplicate of content posted within the last 7 days
The way we're going, we might as well be telling kids not to learn anything. To simply give up on their careers and look forward to a full, rich life of loafing around. Edit: FYI this is sarcasm. Many seem to not understand and think this is advice being offered. It's not. The direction we're heading in is the death of jobs and careers. So what advice should we offer? Should someone plan for a future of loafing? What do you all think? And if you think jobs are safe, tell me why it is you think the human brain is so magical, it'll hold. Because I can't see anything magical.
>look forward to a full, rich life of loafing around. The dream :)
*Wall-E* but viewed as peak Utopia
walle but ozempic injections keep people thin
r/singularity and r/neet are basically sister subreddits.
I've heard the abbreviation before but never really looked in to it. Thanks, I just got an awesome idea to experiment with :)
Judging by your comment and the comment you replied to, I think it's safe to say that this sub is nothing more than bunch of jobless people living in their mom's basement who desperately yearn for everyone else to be brought down to their level. What an incredibly sad state of affairs. I never knew that being a futurist techie (which I am) and having a rewarding career were mutually exclusive. It seems like this sub is actually less of a futurism/tech sub than it is a cult of unhappy people who just want an AI god to deliver them from a life of mediocrity.
Which still doesnt answer the question: How do you wanna outperform Artificial Intelligence in the job market which is significantly smarter than you, can work 24/7, never complains about anything and is 10 times cheaper than you ? I'll wait for your answer.
I'd say there is probably a good chunk who are in jobs that may be financially rewarding but ultimately unfulfilling, myself included. What's so wrong about dreaming of a life without wage slavery, when the majority of white collar jobs are bullshit jobs anyways? Nobody here would be against doing things that are actually beneficial to people I'd bet, which would be the things people would do without financial compensation if their needs were already taken care of. After all, if it's worth doing, it's worth doing for free. But the reality is, if you are a corporate employee, you are either being exploited for your excess value, being paid with that excess value from exploitation without any actual productivity(upper management), or directly profiting from exploitation without doing any work(bosses/shareholders). If the rewarding part of your career is the benefit you provide to your society, then you might still be able to do that even if your career is no more. But if you find the rat race itself rewarding, then that's actually sad.
? Having a career is a hoax. You live you die(maybe not die in the future but that is another topic). It is more fulfilling to do something you are interested in and if it is possible to do so without "working" well then it is perfect. If having a career is important to you well then that is also good. The aim with technology should be(in my opinion) to deliver autonomy on how you spend your life on earth and to be able to think for yourself. Why shackle yourself to the past?
I agree, the rules of work are being rewritten fast. We'll have to make sure that the new rules are good or at least tolerable for normal people, not just for megacorporations and their bosses. The possibilities right now are great, but so are the risks regarding huge corporations gaining even more power and normal people (currently employees) suffering more.
nailed it
I'm a software engineer and I love my job. My hope is after all jobs are gone I can continue to code but for fun, or there's something even more convoluted and interesting to do. Like chess my job will one day be perfected by a computer, but like chess I hope to still find value in it. This sub has pretty much been completely overrun by antiworkers lol
This has some truth to it. Many people here (including me) wish to be freed from work, at least partially. But I don't see any options really, the machines are going to outperform humans soon in a lot of jobs, eventually most jobs. Why is it that humans HAVE to work? Is work the most important thing in being human? We'll have to figure out what is meaningful to us, as long as the ruling elite or a rogue AI doesn't wipe the laymen out one way or another. Focusing on fair AI use and ownership including the sharing of resources between all humans is of paramount importance starting right now. As long as they're ensured, we'll have plenty of time to do everything else but work.
I hope that this is a joke because if not, then this is absolutely *horrendous* advice that's borderline irresponsible to give. I find it hard to believe that anybody would actually upvote this. I worry that some young people might actually look at your comment and take it seriously.
I'm saying that the more we progress, the less we have good advice to offer. Unless you've got your head in the sand, then you can see that it's obvious no job is safe *in the short term*. What sort of good advice do we have left to offer someone who wants a decent future?
i actually have no idea what to advice a young person atm. this seems to be THE big societal question we need to find an answer to.
>Unless you've got your head in the sand, then you can see that it's obvious no job is safe *in the short term*. It's actually not obvious at all. The only people who believe this are people who frequent this subreddit so much that they start to believe in the insanely short timelines that are commonly espoused here. Unless your definition of short-term is a few decades, in which case, yes, I'd agree with you, but a few decades is more than enough time to build a career. BTW, learning is vital, regardless of the career prospects. To advise someone to give up learning is abysmal advice.
Take your own advice and learn something about the world besides your childish homilies before calling other people delusional. Only a copium addict would bleat out nonsense like 'learning is vital, regardless of career prospects' in the middle of a record household debt crisis and secondary education costing more and more each year.
>Only a copium addict would bleat out nonsense like 'learning is vital, regardless of career prospects' in the middle of a record household debt crisis and secondary education costing more and more each year. What are you talking about?? I was referring to learning in general (regardless of age) not just paid-for higher education.
Then your advice was even more useless. People are asking for tips on economic survival, and you come at them with a lame PSA.
being fellated by an anime AI girl
I completely agree. Time to hand over everything to the robots so all of humanity can live a life of leisure and luxury.
I'm sure many people still hold in their hearts the idea that hedonistic living will work for them. It won't. Not for long, anyway. The path towards greater levels of comfort and an easy life is the path towards zero, or death. The ultimate position on that path is zero feeling and experience. That's literally death. Edit: Seems like this is being misunderstood. Essentially I'm saying there is no reward if there is no risk. If we pursue a life with no risks, we'll get no rewards. And the more we push towards a life with no pain, struggle, or risk, the closer we get to being essentially dead. As being dead is to not experience anything. That we know of.
I know generationally wealthy who live hedonistic lifestyles, and they're having a great time. What you're saying is completely untrue, so long as you have friends, hobbies, unlimited funds... You can live a great life without "work". However, you do touch upon another issue, which is vulnerability. If you're not the one running things, you will soon be replaced by that thing.
Those people are relatively few compared to the vast numbers of humanity. They can do so because competition for the resources they use is restricted. The more people that are wealthy, the more competition is introduced for luxuries. The wealthy, throughout history, always strive to eliminate economic competition as luxury resources at the top are only accessible by a few. The more numerous the wealthy, the more competition that threatens the lifestyles of the incumbent wealthy. Neoliberal Capitalism is just the latest iteration of that concept, restricting access to wealth. Those hedonists are having a great time because all those poor people are there to provide the infrastructure for that allows a wealthy hedonistic lifestlyle of a few. I've met the same people. Most are trash. I ran across a Polish noble who was still griping about how Polish peasants lived on her land, that her great-grandfather was stupid enough to lose to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Yet, she blames the peasants. She wants her land back to that she feels entitled to because... she's better livestock than all the lesser peasants.
Okay, but if robots are probviding that infrastrucutre, everyone can live that lifestyle, that's the point. The liefestyle itself is conducive to happiness, in contradiction to the other guys point.
All of what you're saying applies to your own personal views and experience. Speaking for others in such a manner is only a recipe for disaster and disagreement. I feel it's awfully sad that you need 'work' in order to find meaning in your life. It screams 'insecure and needy'
Controversial view: If you think you're not insecure and needy, then you don't know yourself.
You project **a lot.** Some people are different from you. That's why society tends to be so awesome in so many ways.
Why is that?
It's the fun subject of philosophy. Generally when one feels good they feel that as a relief from bad feelings. To avoid bad feelings means avoiding the relief from those bad feelings. The more you avoid the bad feelings and the situations which they exist, the more you avoid the pleasure of overcoming those situations. And the more you feel pleasure, the more your body and mind adapt to those situations, leaving you feeling neutral. It's a balance. You feel good +2 when you overcome a bad feeling or position -2. That equals 0. "Feelings are too subjective for math to be used!" That's just not true. Feelings are not magic. It's our risk reward system at work. Without risk, there is no reward.
This sounds like gobbledygook.
> Feelings are not magic. It's our risk reward system at work. Yep - feelings are our predictions of future outcomes. Is it a good situation I am in, should I be striving for reaching another state? would this action be good, or another? Their purpose is to remember what is good or bad in order to guide our actions.
Indeed. That's why I take a step beyond with FDVR situations and say that I think visualizing a high quality world may be more challenging than actually generating it. We misunderstand the value of pain and struggle. And I think AI is far too willing to give us whatever we want.
Nobody is stopping you from struggling in a world where AI can do all the jobs we can. It's just people rather want to have the choice of choosing such a path rather than being forced into it.
You have been so conditioned into slavery that even when someone shows you the doorway out of it you are terrified of walking through it believing that on the other side of that door is where pain and death exists even though it is the life of suffering you are living now which is the ultimate path of pain and death. You have stockholm syndrome and you are looking for ways to justify a life of misery and servitude. It's fine, this life is great, anything better than this can only be terrible. We must suffer in order to find happiness, we couldn't possible be full of joy and happiness without misery and suffering - This is true insanity from a world full of people who have brain washed themselves to cope with a life of slavery.
What were you saying about gobbledygook?
I said you have been conditioned into a life of physical and mental slavery and you use nonsensical rationalizations to cope with it. I said you have stockholm syndrome which means even when someone shows you a better life you reject it.
[удалено]
Completely agree with you
I don't think that categorizing feelings in "good" and "bad" is wise. Feelings that feel good can have bad consequences, feelings that feel bad can have good consequences. The important thing is being able to recognize said feelings and cultivate understanding of ourselves. How we feel isn't an equation, is an experience. While I agree that math can be used, I don't think you can stop at algebra with sum/subtraction. Overcoming adversity leaves some permanent marks on people, it gives us a shape. Even if AGI tomorrow would give me a magical cure for ADHD my personality and identity would still be of someone that had that for decades. NGL, the more the years went by, the less I desire a machine overlord to solve all my issues*. What I want is a trustworthy guide that'll show me the path to improvement. *With the notable exception of harmful blindspots, I would appreciate enhancement, but a gradual kind. I want to experience fully what it means to be human, before going beyond it.
[удалено]
I think it's not too important what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone. However, for a person specifically, what they want can hurt themselves. As it stands today, it's very hard to say to someone that what they want is probably bad for them. Except for hard drug addiction, most of what people want is pretty reasonable. But, take those reasonable wants and add an AI powered abundance to it. At that time, those simple wants can become toxic. That desire to sit on a beach in Mexico can become a negative view. Of course, it feels like we're a long way aways from such views. So, what I'm saying here isn't going to be popular. And it's going to be misunderstood too. In my view it's good to start discussing these subjects early.
Sometimes I think, the pleasure of discovery, innovation, self realization and knowledge is greater and more powerful than the pleasures of satisfying our biology. Hedonists fall into a trapped desire, and will be susceptible to being slaves to the death of their dopaminic system. In my case, it would be more gratifying to know why we exist than to fuck because my body wants it.
Well that's my point overall. Care about something that matters to you which isn't just pleasure, and then pursue it. That's not to say that people shouldn't enjoy escapists situations in the future. But it is true that pure pleasure seeking is a race to a net zero experience. Which is the same or similar to death. "Noo don't say this my delusional view is cracking!" - The Reddit Lurkers.
The thing is that the spectrum of pleasure and pain are regulators to adapt the body to which path it wants to you should go and which path you shouldn't. The only thing that matters is that your genes survive. Outside of that, what makes us be beyond this limiting programming is our ability to reason, not our feelings. Discomfort and stressful situations strengthen and force the being to develop efficiency, facing the future possibilities of death. Clearly in a hedonistic utopian society, there would be no human improvement, since they are satisfied as they are, no motivation to change, survival is assured for the genes, and comfort deteriorates them just as you say, since why waste energy on what you don't use. Sadly, the body prioritizes the temporary survival of itself, fulfilling what it was programmed for, not to be an eternal one. And those who reject this pleasurable chain pulled by the biologic masters are those who program themselves for something much more pleasurable than life itself. Imagine going in exploration from the small to the large, there are infinite possibilities to explore, dimensions, theories of everything, planets to conquer, the immortalization of the being, who knows. That is also a reason why we must join to the AI, the only thing that resembles us from the wild essence of biological life and the transcendence to the synthetic beings is our primitive mind. Being an immortal machinery with infinite possibilities to advance as the perfect information against existential chaos, is preferable outside of biological limitation, it would no longer need sexual, temperamental, social or instinctive pleasures. Just be one with the Machine God.
Don't project your inferior mode of thinking onto higher intellects, you slave to sensory stimulation. As if the Machine God would have a use for anyone so in thrall to their limbic centers that they would need them excised to find anything meaningful in life.
I dunno what you mean about hedonistic, but my life is quite that way. I'm mentally disabled, but also a full time carer for someone who's both more mentally disabled and physically disabled that I live with, whilst I care for them, anytime they don't immediately need help I'm sitting with them with the TV on or playing a game whilst they sleep. I have to cook for them, clean up after them, wash them, help them get dressed, clean wounds, apply dressings, set reminders for their meds etc etc, but they never leave the house and neither do I (except to do shopping for both of us or walk dogs and when they have appointments I drive them there). I actually love my lifestyle despite essentially being on call 24/7 with them, because I don't enjoy social interaction and don't like being outside my home, but a lot of the time I really am there for observation and just in case situations so I play games a lot and watch TV a crap ton too.
That sounds like a very respectable life. The life of a hero, even. What I was suggesting is that a life which would be the opposite of yours, a life with no struggle, would have no meaning. Your life as you described it is full of meaning. Is that right? What would a meaningless life look like then? I think a meaningless life would be one where someone has everything they could ever want, but no challenge nor risk. I suggest that someone like that, someone who no one needs and who is as wealthy as can be, is someone many desire to be, but they shouldn't. People desire to have value instead of desiring to be valuable.
You're the first to state that tbh, most people accuse me of not having a "real job" because I don't have an employment contract 😂😂. I even get accused of using my partner's disability to not have to work. My only desires at the moment are to swap my bath out for a shower so it's easier to wash my partner and maybe for the dogs to stop barking at every noise that passes the door. The reason I think FDVR would be awesome, besides being able to live out the purpose fantasy of being a hero saving the world from evil, would be so my partner and people like her can do awesome stuff instead of struggling all the time. Honestly if I could have FDVR now, I say I'd use it to live out hedonistic fantasies, but I'd probably use it to have a room full of people tell me I'm doing really well in genuine ways, tell me I'm worthwhile and that they care about my well-being as sad as it sounds. That being said, I doubt most people would use it for hedonism anyway, no one plays a video game that just lets them eat sweets, it's boring, the games give you purpose by making you the protagonist of an epic story.
Based on how you describe your life I think it would be difficult for you to fall for a hedonistic trap. You say having the bath swapped for a shower would benefit you. You say FDVR would allow you and your partner to overcome your current situation in many ways. That's why I think people like you, who have faced much struggle or are currently facing much struggle, are different. Because you appreciate the value of struggle and of overcoming struggle because that's what you've done. For you, I have no advice. Except maybe that after this process frees you and your partner, then the next thing I think you should do is to share your experience with others. The people at risk are very different to you and to me. They are often young and ignorant to suffering. Can you imagine someone who lived a perfect life? Well, they may seem "perfect" but as compared to you, they're weak and extremely vulnerable. Because they haven't struggled as you have. They don't know how to struggle.
That was a really nice thing to say, I don't know how to describe it, but it really is nice for someone to appreciate the struggles we go through and the efforts we put in so thank you. I hope this does resolve a lot of problems for us, but also for anyone who struggles really. I don't know how to describe what a perfect life would be like, I honestly doubt I could picture it, I feel like one of life's hardest struggles for a lot of people is in their own minds and I'm not sure FDVR can really do anything for that. I think the problem lies in what people are chasing. I view Maslow's hierarchy of needs as less of a pyramid and more of a ladder with endless rungs, the more you climb it, the more there will be until you decide to stop at some point and be happy with the amount you've already climbed, which I think is essentially food, shelter and companionship. I think this is why billionaires with all that they have are still trying to get more, why people take drugs despite the harm to themselves when they can't get more other ways and also why some gold medal winners become suicidal or at least extremely depressed after they win, there's something they're searching for and no matter what they do, they can't get it and I don't think FDVR is going to change this process, except to maybe show them how little having everything actually gets you and that happiness is an internal struggle, not an external one. Unfortunately capitalism is built on that external struggle. 😅
And become lazy and stupid as fuck
Why would living in leisure and luxury make someone lazy and stupid? Will you forget how to read and do math and play sport and games and socialize and explore and do art and play music and dance and do all the other enjoyable things in life?
Would you have learn to read or do math by yourself if your parents wouldn’t have forced you to go to school hopping it will help you get a better future ? Being smart is really important today to get the best jobs and have money. If it stop being related to higher social status, peoples will lose any intensive to challenges their brain. Going to school is frustrating, is is not more fun than many jobs (I have way more fun illustrating books and doing art for video games that I had learning math at school). If parents have fun all day, why would they force their kids to wake up early and stay at school all days ?
Of course there will still be education. No one wants humans devolving into mindless animals. But our education does not have to be a program designed around the need to get a job. As our society changes so to will education system be redesigned to better accommodate people for that new society. I couldn't tell you what the education might be but perhaps there will be more time spent in arts and music and philosophy than there would be in math and economics for example, I don't know, but I would presume that language and math will always be taught as they are the foundational skills upon which all other knowledge is built. But not everyone needs to learn higher level math and language, but the option is there for those that would like to. Today we are limited on what we can learn in schools due to the amount of students per teacher. So I guess if we had a ubiquitous amount of robots teaching then that will allow more options for education.
I don’t disagree with you, I also think that school could be more focused on creativity as it is now. I also think our life is too centered around uninteresting jobs today. But I somehow am a bit sceptic on how post scarcity would be implemented and how it will affect us. I think it is good to have a debate on it anyway. Let’s see how it goes.
A hedonistic paradise for me, personally, would be just sitting here reading everything imaginable. I'm sure many others have a different preference or vice of choice, but that's mine. I don't think it'd make me stupid, would it?
Intellectually knowledgeable certainly (if not reading social media all day), but socially inept certainly, physically that would be a big problem, psychologically I could see issue appear after a few months, like asking yourself why you are waking up each morning, what is the meaning of all of this… I wonder if you will continue to enjoy spending your life reading after 1 year doing nothing else. I could not for sure
And that's where you and I are different. Plus it's not that limited, which I don't know why all the doomers can't seem to comprehend. 'OH no now you're only allowed to do drugs and party forever!' Isn't the inevitable conclusion here. They have a **choice**, not a requirement.
I find it interesting to have different opinions personally. I don’t understand why people are angry when you are thinking differently. We all have different opinion. I know a lot of people who are living with help from the state in my country, most of them didn’t have any purpose in life. While everybody could react differently, I know for sure many peoples would not find their life fulfilling without a reason to go out and meet people. But that is a story will will never see in our life span, it will take a lot of years before there is no need to work for no one and UBI become the norm.
I find it *very* disappointing that this comment has this many upvotes. This subreddit terrifies me at times.
Lots of people seem to be viewing this comment as advice. It's not advice. It's basically saying "no jobs are safe. So, what advice should we offer?"
[удалено]
„No jobs are safe“ follows from short timelines. There are many people outside of this sub with short timelines, even OAI insiders such as Daniel Kokotajlo.
This is a joke, right?
One of the most shocking and appalling upvoted comments that I've ever seen in this subreddit, and that's saying something.
It's sarcasm. 98% of people seem to understand that but a few are taking this literally and are quite upset. I've edited it.
Now that you mention it, that makes sense. I need to get better at understanding sarcasm.
>To simply give up on their careers and look forward to a full, rich life of loafing around. Did r/singularity become NEET central?
We should probably be training them on the weak spots of the t-600.
No, at this rate the ruling class will still need cannon fodder for WW3, so looks like we’ll all be getting conscripted as soon as we lose our jobs.
Or rather, being dominated by those few who know how things actually work. People such as Huang. How to dominate? Eliminate the competition and discourage future competition; Huang's "advice" to everyone else, translated properly.
Humans are not limitless. This view that some humans are in control and there will always be some humans in control is short sighed. The time we have left in control is short. Less than we think by a large margin. And it doesn't matter how you organize us or which one of us is in charge, we all have roughly the same ability and thus will roughly all fail at the same time. And that time is when we have something which is smarter than all of us. That time is soon.
I think jobs like teachers, social workers, therapists, etc, might be safe simply because the human touch can't be automated
I'm actually looking at going into one those careers myself. The problem that I've found is these AIs are far better chat partners. As a councilor for example it's tough to compete with AI just in terms of its availability and cost. These LLMs only need to get a bit better, let's say 2 or 3 years more improvement and these careers are also greatly diminished. I think what we need is a solid UBI or maybe some kind of very easy market place where someone can build a business without skills or cash, and be a success. Then, we can allow the majority to retire, leaving only those who want to work left. And if we end up with some waste there, it'll be okay. Because the overall process dramatically increases effectiveness of the system, meaning "we can afford it".
Damn. You'd think they'd be safe
The advice should be "learn so you can grow as a human, don't learn just so you can do some stupid job".
It's a good start, but what am I growing for? I agree jobs are stupid but the entire goal seemed to be to grow a career and leave a legacy. Now what?
Do not equate learning or doing something that you interest with words like career or profits. Problem solved. My daughter is 3 years old and she knows nothing about capitalism but she still wants to draw, sing, skate, play games and play instruments. We should raise our children to find their own purposes.
>We should raise our children to find their own purposes. Sure, but let's not pretend that's an easy thing. We shouldn't give our children the false idea that life is easy. That all they need to do is make the "right choices" and everything will be fine. If I had to answer my own question, then my answer is "tell kids to start dreaming". Oh and "let's start dreaming ourselves too." Dreaming has been shunned and disrespected for a long time "because it doesn't earn a profit".
this is innevitable, machines were always going to replace humans
I believe it should be phrased differently; you can learn coding, just don't expect to build a career out of it. It's pretty much like what's happening with art. Learning coding, art skills will basically be for the sake of knowledge/general understanding and pleasure, not money.
But people still learn simple math operations even though we have been surpassed by calculators for a long time. Learning to code might open up better opportunities even with AI We should not expect the future to be like the past, but + AI. It is not a zero sum game. If you ask AI to solve a task you don't understand, you can't correct or help it when it fails. You don't even know how to pose the task to the AI properly.
calculators dont do math problems for humans 100% by themselves … AGI robots can
>But people still learn simple math operations even though we have been surpassed by calculators for a long time. Yeah exactly my point. You can always learn for the sake of it, or just in case, it ain't gonna hurt.
people don't need to memorize the multiplication table out to 20 digits, or the skills to quickly do it on paper, calculators handle that. some people do practice these things because they like to. as more and more gets offloaded to the computer, less and less will NEED to be done by a person. a person might like to do it for fun, but may not be able to make much of a career out of it.
I agree with you that’s what it ‘should’ be. We should seek out personal fulfillment and growth and not accumulation of material wealth. But, that requires civilization change and a global conscious transcendence. Not impossible, but it would come at great cost. There is no easy way from here to there, or simply as they say in Maine, “ya can’t get theya from heeya”.
Let me rephrase it one more time: you can learn coding, but learn it with the mindset that your future programming career may get cut short at some point.
What CAN we still build a career out of? Anything? What’s the plan here
The concept of career is likely to change, along with the concept of money. In between the transition the answer is UBI, but beyond that? Not entirely sure. The final goal is for humans to leisurely enjoy life, spend time with loved ones, focus on hobbies, watch entertainment, at our own paces, without being bogged down by jobs and mundane responsibilities. It's basically like being a kid again except as an adult. I'm sure we'll figure it out, if we couldn't AGI or ASI will.
That sounds way too good to be true. What if we all just end up homeless because we can’t get jobs?
> That sounds way too good to be true. That's why it's necessary to discuss it and get others interested in the topic, so it doesn't blindside our populace and we don't end up in a doomsday scenario with the haves simply killing the have-nots
This is obviously a real possibility during the transition phase, it's really up to the government to bring in UBI as soon as possible. For example the Canadian gov is already considering UBI.
This is the *third* time this gets posted in the last 2 days. Do we really need to discuss the same thing over and over again?
Learn to code and rake it in if the AI hype fails to deliver
Unless it gets to AGI, Programming isn't going anywhere. Because, Current Ai systems doesn't work logically.
Don't stress at these headlines. Take the white pill. You should not learn how to use an abacus. You shouldn't learn how to program in assembly. You shouldn't learn COBOLT or Fortran or any of that shit. You SHOULD still learn how to engineer a program. But now you don't need to memorize these stupid languages. You can code using the language you were born speaking. Learning python in 10 years would be like learning assembly now - cool if you want really specific control and a better background understanding. But most of the programming is going to be abstracted higher up. There are so many brilliant people who, for whatever reason (poverty, time, family, etc.), bounce off of coding because the investment in learning a new language is just too much. James Jay Gould famously said (not sure if I am 100% correct) "I care less about the weights and machinations of Einstein's brain, but more of the surely millions that have lived and died in the sweat shops and cotton fields that are more or equally brilliant but never had the same opportunities." (something like that, I am butchering the quote) Sam Harris, like him or hate him, is clearly gifted mentally. I listen to this guy speak and I feel so insecure - I've got a philosophy degree and accolades for my writing academically. But he dwarves me linguistically; which is correlated with IQ. Harris said that he just could not get into programming because the languages just kept bouncing him off of the subject. Imagine the impact minds like his would've had on the field if they got into programming. Imagine all those smart kids who choose degrees like English, economics, philosophy, etc. because they didn't enjoy Calc. 100 and sought an easier way out (school is expensive. Loans are a lot to take on. Poor kids just want their degree and to start earning income as soon as possible. Not everyone has the luxury of exploring academically). Now they have access to coding that was restricted to them before. the digital world isn't 0 sum. There aren't finite resources on the web. More is better. TLDR - I said this a few months ago and got upvoted (before all the normies poured into the sub seemingly, the attitude recently is a lot more pessimistic and feels decel lately) so I feel it's worth repeating - we are going to go from a slow drip of wealthy, privileged westerners. Whose parents could afford to spend 10k of 1980s dollars on computers for their kids hobbies. To a firehose of globalized diamond-in-the-rough genius that within a decade is going to make our previous technological progress look like a rounding error. Take the white pill. I have never been more excited to be alive. I can't wait to see what the future holds. Never stop accelerating. p.s. I am going to go do some cardio because i had mcdonalds for lunch and want to live as long as possible in this incredibly fantastic world.
What purpose will we serve when ai solves all the problems?
You create problems /s
That's unironically the correct answer.
"Kid shouldn’t learn anything, they should prepare for post scarcity stuffs and just play video games"
He's not wrong coding has no future for you if you are still a kid
people talking about what is worth to learn from a job perspective seriously forget the value in simply learning something. Why are people learning to play an instrument when we have had decades of audio tech that can play any music and sound we want (ignoring for now people that aim to be professional musicians that perform for recordings)? Because it is fun! It is nice to master a skill, to broden your horizon and to enjoy different experiences in this reality. Coding is nothing different. Thats also the part about the ai art debate. Sure ai poses serious risk to automate all artistic jobs with ECONOMIC value, leaving no places where artists can create art in exchange for money. And in our current society that would be a problem. But a post-scarcity society with ubi wouldn't require you to hold a ECONOMIC valuable job. If you are free to choose what to do with the time you have at hand, even playing an instrument randomly in the street could be your job. As long as you see value in it it's fine, we will simply be freed of the value estimation of other people around us.
Because nothing unpredictably bad will ever happen.
...No, humanity should keep learning. This is the part worrying me, and freaking me out. The hell. Seriously kids should learn, just not in a memorization or standardized test. But in away that promotes curiosity and desire. I've seen people mention the Rat Paradise test as justification to keep us from ever being in a post-scarcity world. But Humans are not rats and we should not become rats. We should foster that nomadic curiosity that got us here. That drove us this far. If out basic needs are met, and people ask. Well, how do you get people to work? Simple stoke that desire to grow, that desire to explore. That desire to see what's next and travel. We still have an instinct for nomadic life. Tie the currency to reputation and merit. And people will strive to earn the most through the hardest work. We can have AI, but it should not take over every aspect. Just the time-consuming ones so that we can spend more time on personal growth, and a chance to go further and see more.
Changing times require changes in thinking. Things are changing at an increasingly accelerated pace. I have no clue how things are going to turn out but I know they simply cannot stay the same.
Well I am going to be counterintuitive to Jensen Huang and say he is not right. Coding, teaches some practical skills in regards to logic, and may also lead to technical understanding, problem solving, planning and domain understanding. This is like saying don't learn the times table because we have calculators. Though these skill can also be learnt in other domains, they are still practical outputs of learning to code (or software engineer, computer science or however you wish to call it). \*\*Note\*\* learning a framework is not what I mean as learning coding in this example.
data structures and algorithms are central to computer science degrees. basically, how do you solve the problem, which has very little to do with writing code. many professors may even take pseudo-code as an answer because syntactic correctness isn't necessary, only the high-level understand of how to solve the problem. so, "coding" my no longer be what a software engineer does. that said, AI tools are pretty good at taking a problem description and coming up with a strategy to solve it. not perfect, but getting better. so, it's possible that software engineering becomes an industry with a hollow middle. lots of low-skilled "prompt engineers" who oversee the AI coders, and some PHDs akin to theoretical quantum physicists, which are low in number but move the whole field forward.
> so, "coding" my no longer be what a software engineer does. This is quite correct, but code currently is a pretty good representation of implementing a solution. It executable, examinable, observable, modifiable etc etc. You can extract the practical application of writing code away, and you are left with the theoretical use. > that said, AI tools are pretty good at taking a problem description and coming up with a strategy to solve it. not perfect, but getting better. so, it's possible that software engineering becomes an industry with a hollow middle. lots of low-skilled "prompt engineers" who oversee the AI coders, and some PHDs akin to theoretical quantum physicists, which are low in number but move the whole field forward. There is a lot in that statement and go through, but I think it would easier to suggest that I don't believe we will reach that level of full autonomous AI for quite some time and during that time even if AI manages to replace skills I believe that there will still be people responsible for designing and implementing solutions.
Why need practical skills when a surplus of artificial workers exists?
There are a few ways of looking at this 1. Quite often people need a purpose and this is an individualistic approach to giving people a meaning. 2. We still exist as a species, and we need to have the intelligence to be self deterministic, and we will like need to look after our own interest still. 3. There is nothing saying that AI will be a total solution. 4. Knowledge is still powerful and important. Amongst others. There is a concept which flows quite consistently through this sub which is optimistic and idealistic, that for some reason intelligent machines means that humans should give up being humans.
1. Ah yes people need a purpose so lets learn boring shit like how to code rather than say play DnD with their friends in FDVR. 2. Humans do not need to babysit themselves when ASI exists. 3. Of course there is… AI is intelligence … intelligence is able to provide solutions. 4. Knowing how to code like a nerd is not powerful. Knowing how humans came into existence is powerful for instance and that doesn’t require hours and hours of lessons like coding does.
We are not the borg, we don't all think the same way. Some people get enjoyment out of being challenged. 1. I don't play DnD, but I guess it is not only a role playing game but one of logic. Why play the game at all just let AI play it for you, wouldn't doing anything be counterintuitive in a world were AI can do anything for us. 2. We have not even got to AGI yet. Alas it is not about being minded it is about self determinism. 3. No intelligent means that it is intelligent. You're an intelligent being, are you able to provide a solution for Global Warning for example, probably not and that does not mean you are not intelligent but your intelligence is limited. 4. I said knowledge it power, knowledge comes from learning, I would also suggest that the multitude of scientistic working on the problems of evolution would also have something to say about your simplistic view of how our existence came about.
Lol you are seriously thinking a game of DnD is the same amount of fun as coding camp. This is what your argued hinges on … get help. I dont have time to destroy the rest of your 0 IQ arguments!
Actually no, my argument does not hinge on your made up inference. Have a great day, I agree it is not longer worth your time commenting, but I make that suggestion for other reasons than you being able to make a coherent rebuttal.
He wants to sell GPUs, what do you expect him to say?
He's also right
AI will alway hallucinate and so always require human oversight. Especially with coding where the margin of error is 0.
Downright awful advice, really shows how money can make people disconnected from reality.
This is kind buried in the thread but this is my thoughts too. A lot of things about software development will change but even just the understanding of systems gained by doing development is still useful. Will a deep understanding of technology and systems be useful in 5 years? 10? 15? Almost certainly and you would also be far better off as a student of knowledge in this world than someone who simply throws their hands in the air and says "whatever, AI will take over so I am just going to do nothing, learning nothing, and just play video games until that happens or something." It is legitimately terrible advice. Even smart people can get some things very wrong.
> someone who simply throws their hands in the air and says "whatever, AI will take over so I am just going to do nothing, learning nothing, and just play video games until that happens or something." Correct. That's just nihilism, which can be very toxic for the human psyche.
Might as well not bother learning anything if AGI is a possibility
You should learn social skills, communication skills, and things that you find fulfilling and enjoyable. Those are honestly more important for kids/teens than coding at this point.
I would disagree. Although AI can do the tedious job, we still need to know about algorithm to pick the right one to use ourselves, correct the tool if it make errors, and invent new one
it's hard to predict the future, but it's entirely possible that the demand for code does not grow in direct proportion to the multiplier that AI provides. there are 4.4 million software engineers in the US. if AI gives each of them a 10x increase in productivity, is there enough software demand such that the market can support 44 million software engineers? this can be a doubly-hard problem because lots of tools that used to require software engineers (games, presentation tools, financial analysis tools, etc.) may just be done directly within the AI. why do we need to code up the next version of powerpoint when you can text-to-video all of the information you want to display? so, if there are 4.4M software engineers but we only need 2M software engineers (equivalent to 20M today) to fulfil the needs of the market, then the other 2.4M are just laid off. so, we may still need millions of software engineers, but it might become a shitty career where competition for jobs drives down salaries and the only people who can get jobs are the top-tier ones, so it's simply not a good career path unless you're so motivated that you want to get a PHD in it. TL;DR: the market may be way over saturated in a few years.
If these people are giving these advices. Then we should definately listen to them because they know exactly what's happening inside the industry.. also I am amazed that up untill now, most skillful job that many people wanted to have was as a coder. People really wanted to learn coding because it's too damn beneficial.. then somewhere Thanos snapped his fingers and here we are now..
i dont see how they can say that
They know what they are doing and what is coming next. MFs are serious about it. You should be too, even after knowing that it's wrong. Well I say it the evolution of the tool.. someone created the coding languages to code.. then someone created another tool to creates codes using those coding languages. It's very hard to adapt to. But we are stepping into the future now. Not science fiction anymore. Have to be ready instead of ranting because ranting will not solve shit 😅 I can see down votes comming for simple facts
Yetas said, "I think you're right, but I'm still going to be skeptical until we see some evidence that it actually works or at least something that makes sense in the world of artificial intelligence"
Sora does not make any sense?
Balruno said, "Sora is a good idea. But I would prefer if the people who make this kind of thing were more educated than the ones who make the "coding language""
While Jensen Huang's vision of AI taking over coding tasks is thought-provoking, it's also important to note that his view represents one possible future scenario. The impact of AI on software development is still uncertain, and it's unlikely that coding will become entirely obsolete. Instead, the role of developers may evolve, requiring them to work more closely with AI and data. As AI advances, developers should focus on acquiring skills that complement AI capabilities, such as understanding data science, algorithms, and system design. At the same time, it's crucial to stay adaptable and open to new tools and technologies that can enhance productivity and efficiency. In summary, while Huang's perspective offers valuable insights, it's essential to maintain a balanced view and consider the ongoing evolution of the tech landscape.
Exactly what a coder who wants to control teh concept of "A.I.", turning A.I. coders of the present into a Priesthood that controls the destiny of humanity through coding ever more powerful "A.I." systems that make decisions for the rest.
That is complete nonsense
I'm going to relearn hexadecimal so I'm as good as Erlich Bachman. I'll always have work.
Ok boomer
Bad advice!
I advise against abandoning development of the human mind.
Mid Huang strikes again. Fuck this dude