I don't think "no one" will even happen - nor with potato, nor with mechanical skills. There are books which tell how to do all sort of things, starting from the refining metal from ores, and there are people reading them. I have no doubt that minute details will be forgotten, but they were discovered once and could be discovered again if needed.
Yes, horses were replaced, but go outside of city and there are many horse farms, and some of them offer horse riding classes to general public. Should something happen to the cars, the knowledge will come back. Same way, even if an average JS programmer has no idea what "differential pair" stands for, there are plenty of people who _know_ what this is, and can at least read the eye diagram.
And yet people still do. So the problem being discussed is demonstrably unlikely compared to the more likely benefit of significant scaling potential for humanity
Back to AI: Would you agree that the problem comes when no knows how to think any more, not when most people don't?
Personally, I'm pretty concerned about both. The fact that many people don't have basic survival skills like sourcing their own food, safe drinking water, and heat. And the fact that that many people lack basic thinking skills: ability to detect misinformation, or deal with the challenges and inaccuracies of flaky AI.
In an ideal world society everyone who is capable has a higher level of training in both. But under modern oligarchic capitalism there are advantages to ensuring that people have neither skill: survival or thinking.
The way I interpret the philosophy of the minds is a bit different.
Some seem to conform to your analysis here, but many seem deeply compassionate toward the human condition. I always felt like part of what banks was saying was that, no matter the level of intelligence, humanity and morality had some deep truths that were hard to totally trancend. And that a humam perspective could be useful and maybe even insightful even in the face of vast unimaginable intelligence. Or maybe that wisdom was accessible to lower life forms than the minds.
> And that a humam perspective could be useful and maybe even insightful even in the face of vast unimaginable intelligence.
I think something like this is likely in the reality where we have ASI, just because biological brains are so different. Even if AI is vastly beyond humans in raw intelligence, humans will probably still be able to come up with novel insights due to the fundamental architectural differences.
Of course when we start reverse engineering biological brains then this gets fuzzier.
I'd rather kill myself than pay Microsoft $41 a month for windows 11 - let alone windows 12, whatever amazing pile of shit that turns out to be - especially when it CANT respond in less than 100ms to anything. My god. At least it means someone will have to do something better.
The person writing this article is almost definitely part of the 1%. Who cares what gender the 62 richest people in the world are; these people cannot be the victims of inequality. What evidence is presented here that says "if rich people earnt less then poor people would earn more" which is the obvious inference. It is intuitive but is it true? If rich people pay more tax this doesn't get given to poor people as wages, so how does the tax question relate to the poverty issue? I agree that more tax revenue is good as it pays for better public services but there isn't any talk of 'wealth' provided by public services being part of the discussion.
More tax revenue could mean more/better public transport and less pot holes on roads, so a "poor" person doesn't have to buy/maintain a car or spend their time walking to/from work[1]. They can use the money not spent on a car on other things they need/want, spend the time more productively at work to earn more money, at home to learn some new skill, or heck, even spend time with their kids and help them grow up to be productive members of society.
But well, many think: OMG, spending tax money on public utilities!?! That's Unamerican! Spending time with kids? That's commie socialist talk!
I think the GP was making a note about exactly this: it could, but will it?
What evidence is there that keeping equality at the same level for the uber-rich would have resulted in higher standard for the poor?
It could have translated to the second 49% still leaving the bottom 50% in the gutters.
In all likelihood, the result would have been quite similar to what has already happened: slightly larger gains for the poorest, but most of the gains would be in the middle and higher classes. Nothing to be sneezed at, but hardly a substantive change, yet with the risk that some of those investments in jobs would be gone too.
Are we talking about taxing the rich more, or about the gender equality of the top 62? I think the post I'm replying to is talking about taxes, and I'm talking about taxes as well.
> It could have translated to the second 49% still leaving the bottom 50% in the gutters.
What is "It" here? Gender equality of the top 62 people/1%?
I am talking of taxes too. We've got no proof where the tax money would go or that it would benefit the poorest if governments simply had more money. Basically, there's no commitment from any government that it would spend any surplus tax money on the poor (because it wouldn't be a surplus without alternate reality).
I still have no idea what you're trying to argue, and I feel your generalization about "there's no commitment" is a lazy argument, let me join you in your laziness because I won't bother trying to refute it.
