Sabitlenmiş Tweet
Me enamoro. Motivación para estudiar ciencias y hacer posible esto algún día. Entre otras cosas. vimeo.com/108650530?ref=…
Español
Adrià 🌲🌳
652 posts
Adrià 🌲🌳
@AdrMmp
\PhD student in Neurorobotics \effective human optimism
Earth, Solar System, Laniakea Katılım Temmuz 2011
750 Takip Edilen114 Takipçiler
@kimmonismus I've lived there for 7 years, missing it. You should definitely go
English
I've landed in beautiful Copenhagen. I wish I had time to explore the city. The world can be so beautiful. Anyway, next stop: California.
Chubby♨️@kimmonismus
Back at the airport, on my way to the US for Google I/O. I’m really hoping we’ll also see some announcements around the Siri-Gemini update, because that’s the one I’ve been waiting for. See you in a few hours!
English
@IterIntellectus the relational sector, where the human element itself is part of the value (arts, education, care, entertainment, etc)
x.com/alexolegimas/s…
Alex Imas@alexolegimas
New essay on the economics of structural change and the post-commodity future of work. 1. Almost any question about the impact of advanced AI on the economy needs to start at the same place: what is still scarce? Answer that, and the analysis becomes pretty straightforward. This essay explores what becomes scarce if AI really can replicate most of what humans do in production, and what this mean for the future of jobs. 2. My conjecture, working through the economics: labor reallocates across sectors, and the sector it reallocates to has properties that keep labor a meaningful share of the economy. Ultimately this is about the structure of demand itself. For this, we have to go back to Girard, Augustine and Rousseau: once people's base needs are met, their preferences shift to comparative motives (e.g., status, exclusivity, social desirability). This motive is inherently non-satiated. 4. The key paper is Comin, Lashkari, and Mestieri (Econometrica 2021). As people get richer, they don't buy proportionally more of everything. They shift spending toward sectors with higher income elasticity. They estimate income effects account for 75%+ of observed structural change. 5. The ironic consequence: the sector that gets automated becomes a smaller share of the economy, not a larger one. Agriculture got massively more productive and its share of employment collapsed. Manufacturing too. The "stagnant" sectors absorb the spending and the jobs. 6. So the question is: which sectors have high income elasticity in a post-AGI world? I argue it's what I call the relational sector. Categories where the human isn't just an input into production, it is part of the value. 7. Why does the relational sector have high income elasticity? Because human desire has a mimetic, relational dimension. We don't just want things for their intrinsic properties. We want what others want, and we want it more when others can't have it. Girard, Rousseau, Augustine, and Hobbes all saw this. 8. In work with Kristóf Madarász, we showed this experimentally: WTP roughly doubles when a random subset of others is excluded from the good. And in new work with Graelin Mandel, AI involvement kills the premium. Human-made art gains 44% from exclusivity; AI-made art only 21%. 9. This all comes together for the core argument. The sector that absorbs spending as AI makes commodity production cheap is one where human provenance is part of the value, and demand for it grows faster than income. Exactly the profile that keeps labor meaningful. 10. To be clear about the claim: I'm NOT saying aggregate labor share must rise. It may fall. The claim is about sectoral composition, i.e., where expenditure and employment go once commodities get cheap, and the fact that the sector that will absorb reallocated labor maps to a substantial component of human preferences and desire. 11. If you're interested in the formal model, a linked companion technical note works out all the economics. Read the essay here: aleximas.substack.com/p/what-will-be…
English
i don't get people who say "there will be new jobs with AGI"
like how?
if AI and robots are truly better than humans at every job we have today, how is it possible for humans to still be competitive?
"but every time new tech arrives, new jobs pop up"
sure, for the AIs maybe, you don't see horses being hired for transport anymore.
if any job were to emerge in the post-AGI era, definitionally AGI would be able to do it better. any company that could be founded would be founded by the AGI before you got there. if it needs dexterity, a humanoid robot already has it.
i do not understand how people building cars can tell you with a straight face that there will still be an economy for carriage riders.
English
@VictorTaelin I've resorted to chrome plugins and html parsing scripts just for this...
English
When the web became so copy-paste hostile? Why can't I ctrl+c an entire WhatsApp chat, thread on X, channel on Discord? Even ChatGPT doesn't allow you to ctrl+c a chat.
I don't get it, why people don't demand this?
Specially now that we can ctrl+c stuff to AI and ask questions
English
humanity alignment's percentage, we need to increase it over the coming decades
prerat@prerat
wtf is 58% a law of nature or something
English
@DarthDromos @steelmansteveo @cremieuxrecueil Ok but you see, now it's easier to qualify and judge people.
In the blender you're stupid for jumping, "why the f would you enter an experiment where you can die?"; in the blue-default, you're evil, "why the f would you enter an experiment where you can kill people?"
English
English
@DarthDromos @steelmansteveo @cremieuxrecueil Yes exactly, but you can say the same for my version in the previous picture, where you're team blue by default and not pressing red skips the situation.
Just to illustrate that depending on how it's framed it can bias the choice.
English
@AdrMmp @steelmansteveo @cremieuxrecueil If nobody gets in the blender you can skip the situation wholesale
English
@steelmansteveo @cremieuxrecueil Yes I think my version is more a counter to this version where red is inaction
x.com/RokoMijic/stat…
Roko 🐉@RokoMijic
We're doing the "Blender" game again There is a large blender. Everyone in the world has to decide whether to step into the blender. If at least 50% of the people do step into the blender, it will be unable to overcome their inertia to get started, and everyone survives. If less than 50% of the people step into the blender, then they all get blended up into paste and die. People who do not step into the blender suffer no adverse effects. Would you step into the blender? (Blue=step into the blender, Red= don't do that)
English
@AdrMmp @cremieuxrecueil Yes, but this scenario replaces the action of pressing the blue button with inaction, starting everyone prima facie as a blue presser. Deviation may cause death. The OG scenario starts neutral and forces you to choose a path. This framing of blue roughly equals pressing red in OG
English
So again, this was all a bet on that culture, to some extent I would sacrifice myself to keep that part of civilization going (if I assume that loosing like-minded people comprising nearly half the population could lead to a world where that civilization is lost) and making more likely its values prevail and keep improving for the centuries to come.
I totally see how it goes against self-preservation and how it's basically religion, putting that greater cause before the self, but I also think it's part of what makes us human and has allowed us to build civilizations in the image of shared gods.
English
Yes it was just an example, and yes more focused on western culture.
But I think we are in an inflection point in history (this century) where the values of the culture that builds strong AI and takes most solar system resources will dictate how most future humans (including ourselves) will live. Western culture is a good candidate to win (not guaranteed though), and although not perfect, has some norms and values that stop some of those brutal human impulses from happening, as you noted in your second case of loosing your freedom from killing your child.
English
why would anyone even press blue?!?
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
@RokoMijic You can also frame it in another way that biases it towards blue: the red vindicative dictator vs the blue benevolent ruler:
x.com/RichardMCNgo/s…
Richard Ngo@RichardMCNgo
@HiFromMichaelV @catehall The scenario seems underspecified to determine the Schelling points. Imagine the buttons are votes for a ruler. The red ruler is vindictive: if he wins he kills anyone who didn’t vote for him. The blue ruler doesn’t. So blue is the Schelling point. But in Roko’s version red is.
English
We're doing the "Blender" game again
There is a large blender.
Everyone in the world has to decide whether to step into the blender. If at least 50% of the people do step into the blender, it will be unable to overcome their inertia to get started, and everyone survives.
If less than 50% of the people step into the blender, then they all get blended up into paste and die.
People who do not step into the blender suffer no adverse effects.
Would you step into the blender?
(Blue=step into the blender, Red= don't do that)
Tim Urban@waitbutwhy
Everyone in the world has to take a private vote by pressing a red or blue button. If more than 50% of people press the blue button, everyone survives. If less than 50% of people press the blue button, only people who pressed the red button survive. Which button would you press?
English
I doubt it would do well with nearly half the population missing but that's another topic.
We are the same animals with same set of personality traits, but culture filters how these manifest in society, and generally we are evolving towards states that benefit the whole. In ancient times you may kill someone out of jealousy and that may benefit you and your family, nowadays that barely happens.
We're not perfect but we're progressing (if you consider that progress). A civilization collapse or considerable setback may also affect that cultural progress negatively.
English
@AdrMmp @dtrogers_2 @IterIntellectus It wouldn't collapse, no, I think it would just breath easily for a while.
But I wonder, obviously there's an immense difference in tech between now and 10.000 years ago... but are people all that different, do you think? Like truly different?
English
Yes it's a matter of perspective.
I guess I am thinking of knowledge/technological progress and I value more the current state of civilization and belive we can continue progressing if overall we try to align and think for the whole despite differences, as opposed to collapsing and going back 10000 years but surviving.
But perhaps it would not collapse even if 10-40% would choose blue, that was just my line of thinking. Bet on the current progress and alignment of humanity vs the self, but I can see how it can sound stupid.
English
@AdrMmp @dtrogers_2 @IterIntellectus We're still living in pre-historic tribal world, it's a matter of perspective. Thinking that humanity is more human than it used to be?
English
@dtrogers_2 @IterIntellectus if we lived in a pre-historic tribal world I would no doubt choose red, but with blue my bet was on valuing the entirety of humanity and the fact that if a considerable percentage of humanity chooses blue but red wins, then civilization collapses
English
@AdrMmp @IterIntellectus more like
red: Choose red if you don't want to die, simple as. Not everyone can or should be saved from their own stupidity.
blue: i will pretend that I am willing to die to prove I'm a better person than you
English
Would you drink if that motivated one of your friends to get healthier?
I never drink alcohol and never got drunk, and a friend of mine who's always been a bit fat told me he would get ripped if I promised to get tipsy for the day of his wedding.
I said yes. We have 6 months now till the day. If I can see his abs then I'll drink.
I hesitated but apparently his curiosity of seeing me in a drunk state is so strong, I thought it was worth making the sacrifice if he got healthier. We'll see how it goes.
English
Friends, stop drinking alcohol.
Not cut back. Eliminate.
> alcohol increases cortisol
> disrupts REM sleep
> accelerates epigenetic aging
> shrinks hippocampal volume
> elevates resting heart rate
> raises inflammatory markers
> impairs glucose metabolism for 16 hrs
One drink does that.
English
@scaling01 come on, François has been consistent, and it is not difficult to see current AI is not general and adaptive in the way humans are
English
