Those incentives are themselves the output of a variety of heuristics that we rely on only due to a lack of viable alternatives. I expect that eventually AI will make some alternatives viable because the bottleneck is so often an information processing one. Three examples:
- Loans get issued when they're likely to make a banker rich. We know that's a lousy proxy for assurances that their associated ventures will be beneficial to the public, but it kinda sorta works enough.
- Those loans cause money to enter the system and then we all chase it around and we cooperate with people who give us some of it even though we know that having money is a lousy proxy for competence or vision or integrity or any other virtue that might actually warrant such deference, but it kinda sorta works enough.
- Research gets done in support of publications, the count of which is used to assess the capability of the researcher, even though we know that having many publications is a lousy proxy for having a made a positive impact, but it kinda sorta works enough.
If we can fix these systems that are just limping along... If money can enter the system in support of ventures which are widely helpful, not just profitable... If we can support each other due to traits we find valuable in each other, not just because of some happenstance regarding scarcity. If we can encourage effective research in pursuit of widely sought after goals, rather than just counting publications... well that will be a whole new world with a new incentive structure. AI could make it happen if it manages to dispense with all these lousy proxies.
> AI could make it happen if it manages to dispense with all these lousy proxies.
The thing that you, altman, and every other AI booster fail to explain is how AI will do this. Every argument is littered with "if"s and "could"s, and it's just taken for granted that AI will be smart enough to find a solution that solves all our problems. It's also taken for granted that we'll actually implement the solution! If AI said that curing cancer requires raising taxes, cancer would remain uncured.
I've got a few designs in mind for an alternative to scarcity based economics. I don't presume to have it right, but its worth a shot and its a bit more concrete than blind trust in one technology or another. I thought it would take my whole life to just lay the foundation, but with some AI help, maybe not.
The trouble with you naysayers is you always take as immutable things that we can change.
So I think this piece by Altman is mostly hype smoke also but I really dislike your framing here. Somehow the "AI boosters" have to come up with a how but the "AI doomers" can just sit back, criticize, and not solution?
Let's be real here, US politics is fucked and none of us knows how to fix it.
> Somehow the "AI boosters" have to come up with a how but the "AI doomers" can just sit back, criticize, and not solution?
as the top level comment pointed out, we have solutions to many of these things, but we choose not to do them. I don't think it's unfair to say "maybe we shouldn't spend billions of dollars on this thing that will probably just reinforce existing power structures".
> Let's be real here, US politics is fucked and none of us knows how to fix it.
> Loans get issued when they're likely to make a banker rich. We know that's a lousy proxy for assurances that their associated ventures will be beneficial to the public, but it kinda sorta works enough.
This system exists and is optimized to make the bankers rich. The idea that it helps ensure that ventures using that money will be successful is the thin veneer used 100+ years ago to sell it to everyone. But the true purpose has always been to make bankers rich. If you to institute any other system that would not achieve that purpose, you will find yourself battling enormous opposition.
The same things are true for huge parts of our society. Perhaps the most glaringly obvious is the US Healthcare system. Experience from all over the world shows clearly that it is not an efficient way to organize Healthcare, by any stretch of the imagination. Still, it won't change, not because people don't believe the outside examples, but because the system is working for what it was designed to do - transfer huge amounts of money to rich people. And it delivers just enough health care that people aren't routing in the streets against it.
