BB(AI,AI)
2.8K posts
BB(AI,AI)
@eppjamee
🎮ALL MY LOVE IS GAME🎮 #AI #MEME
Singapore Katılım Eylül 2015
2.5K Takip Edilen199 Takipçiler
VI. The Deepest Problem: Wants Are Infinite, Time Is Finite
The most fundamental reason the lump-of-labor fallacy fails — in its AGI application as in all prior applications — is that human wants are effectively infinite and human time is absolutely finite.
Even in a world where AGI can produce every good and service at near-zero cost, humans will still want things that are irreducibly scarce: other humans’ time and attention. A massage from another human. A meal cooked with love by a person who cares. A conversation with someone who genuinely listens. Live performance. Mentorship. Friendship. Community. Spiritual guidance. Teaching that is responsive to a specific child’s specific needs in real time. These things cannot be AGI-produced without losing the very quality that makes them valuable, because the value is constituted by the human origin.
As AGI drives down the price of machine-produced goods and services, it increases the relative scarcity and therefore the relative value of genuine human connection and human time. The inevitable long-run consequence of AGI is not mass unemployment. It’s a massive repricing of human time upward, with employment shifting toward the domains where human presence is the product — and the expansion of service, care, craft, performance, and connection sectors to a scale that would dwarf current employment in those areas.
Conclusion
The AGI unemployment catastrophism is the Luddite fallacy wearing a PhD. It makes the same structural error every previous generation of technological catastrophists made — treating the quantity of work as fixed, ignoring the demand-creation and productivity-feedback mechanisms, conflating transitional friction with structural permanence, and ignoring comparative advantage and complementarity effects.
The lump of labor fallacy is not a fringe economic insight. It is one of the most robustly empirically validated and theoretically grounded propositions in all of economics. The economy is not a fixed pie. Technology that increases productive capacity increases the size of the pie, and bigger pies employ more people doing more differentiated and higher-value work.
AGI will disrupt. It will displace. It will create extraordinary transitional friction in specific occupations and geographies. It will reward people who adapt quickly and punish people who don’t. It will reshape the composition of employment radically. All of that is true and worth taking seriously.
What it will not do — cannot do, given the basic logic of how market economies work — is produce permanent structural mass unemployment. The people making that argument are making a claim that has been empirically falsified ten times in a row over 250 years, grounded in a logical error that every serious economist since Bastiat has recognized as a fallacy.
The burden of proof is entirely on them to explain what mechanism, precisely, breaks the demand-creation feedback loop that has operated without failure through every prior technological revolution in history. And “AGI is really really powerful this time” is not a mechanism. It’s just the Luddites in better clothes.
English
III. The Specific Structure of the AGI Unemployment Argument and Where It Goes Wrong
The AGI catastrophist argument typically runs like this:
1.AGI will be capable of performing any cognitive task a human can perform.
2.Cognitive tasks constitute the majority of employment in advanced economies.
3.Therefore, AGI will be able to replace the majority of workers.
4.Therefore, mass permanent unemployment follows.
Step 3 to Step 4 is where the lump of labor fallacy smuggles itself in. The argument assumes that the quantity of cognitive work to be done is fixed, such that when AGI does it, humans are left with nothing. But this is precisely what is not true, for all four channels described above.
Let me be more specific about how each gap in the argument fails:
Gap A: “AGI can do the task” ≠ “There is no more task to do”
When spreadsheets replaced bookkeepers in the 1980s, they did not reduce the total amount of financial analysis done in the American economy. They increased it, massively, because the cost of analysis fell, which meant more analysis got demanded, which meant more analysts got hired — to do more complex, higher-value analysis that the spreadsheets enabled. Automation of the low end of a cognitive spectrum does not eliminate work in that domain; it shifts the frontier of what human effort gets applied to upward.
AGI will do the same thing. If AGI can draft a competent first-pass legal brief in 30 seconds, law firms won’t employ zero lawyers. They’ll employ lawyers who review, refine, strategize, negotiate, argue in court, build client relationships, exercise judgment in novel situations — and they’ll take on far more cases per lawyer because the cost per case has fallen. Total legal work done in the economy will increase, not decrease, because more people will be able to afford it.
Gap B: The Argument Ignores Price Effects on Demand
The catastrophist framing treats the displacement of workers as a pure subtraction problem. But displaced workers who find new jobs (as they historically do) are also consumers. The productivity gains from AGI don’t disappear into a void — they show up as lower prices, higher real wages, or both. Higher real purchasing power means more consumption of more goods and services, which means more demand for labor to produce them.
Furthermore, the catastrophist argument generally ignores what happens to the profits generated by AGI-driven productivity. Those profits go to shareholders, who spend and invest them, creating demand elsewhere. Or they get competed away in product markets, lowering prices and raising real consumer purchasing power. Either pathway generates demand for labor.
The only scenario where this mechanism fails is one where the gains from AGI are so concentrated and the distribution so pathologically skewed that effective aggregate demand collapses — which is a political economy problem (a distributional problem solvable through tax policy and redistribution) rather than a fundamental unemployment problem caused by the technology itself.
English
9/11 if the Opensea team planned it
dfinzer.eth | opensea@dfinzer
an update on $SEA. the team has been building at full speed, and the foundation had planned to kick off the first steps as part of our march 30th event. but @openseafdn is pushing back the timeline. a delay is a delay. i’m not going to dress it up, and i know how it lands. the reality is that market conditions are challenging across crypto right now, and $SEA only launches once. @openseafdn could force the original date, or we could ensure every piece is in place and make this moment what this community deserves. we gave a tremendous amount of thought to how to do right here. I’m thankful to @HollanderAdam for bringing the community’s voice into every conversation. we’ll be doing the following: no more waves: the current rewards wave will be our last. optional fee refund: recognizing that we originally committed to a Q1 date, we’re offering refunds of the platform fees we retained while participating in the rewards waves (3 - 6) that followed our timing announcement. if you like, you can receive a refund of those fees, which when combined with treasure chest prizes, essentially means all of your trading during that period was on us. if you opt for a refund, the Treasures you were awarded during these waves will be removed from your account. details on this process will follow. honoring existing Treasures: for Treasures you continue to hold, our prior commitment stands: they will be meaningfully considered by the Foundation at TGE. this is independent from allocations for historical activity. 0% fees for 60 days: starting on march 31st, opensea will reduce our own token trading fees to 0%. we want to make it a no-brainer for everyone to experience our new platform: cross-chain token trading, mobile app, perps and more. after this 60 day period, we will put a new system in place that makes fees significantly more competitive for anyone trading consistently on opensea. product updates: while we’re postponing our march 30th event, we’ll host a separate one in the coming months focused on product updates. it’s been incredible to see the early responses to our mobile app, and we can’t wait to get it into more people’s hands. so if not now, wen? when we announced last year, it was too early. that created unnecessary uncertainty and reactivity. so when the Foundation sets a new timeline, it will be deliberate and specific. here’s why i’m confident that’s the right move: i’ve been building opensea for almost a decade. when this started, we were two people and the only thing you could trade on OS was cryptokitties. i’ve watched this space go from a niche curiosity to billions in volume to where we are today. the thing that’s carried us through every cycle was a willingness to make hard calls when it mattered. when our market crashed, we rebuilt from zero: an entirely new stack, a new product, and a new team culture. that hurt in the short term. but today OS2 is undeniably the strongest marketplace offering, and it’s the foundation everything sits on. we have huge ambitions as a company, and we’re here for the long game. making all of non-custodial crypto delightful on mobile is just the beginning. that means we have to set a very high bar for everything we do, and it’s why i’m so protective of delivering a launch that’s worthy of this community and everything we’re putting into this.
English
🔥 'U.S. Trade Deficit Falls Sharply, Down 57.6 Percent From a Year Earlier'
English
"On BNB Chain, which handles roughly 40% of global stablecoin transactions by count, 82% of stablecoin transfers are under $1,000."
» How Stablecoins Became Parallel Currencies In Crisis Economies forbes.com/sites/boazsobr…
English
宣布一件大事，我们把 6551 的X + 全网新闻源MCP + SKILL 开源了！
很多人说，6551 的新闻源、推特面板很好用就是消息太多看不完。
还有很多朋友跟我说 X API 太难接，Skill 学不会，折腾半天龙虾就是跑不起来。
今天直接解决，我们把我们积累了1年的数据基础架构全部打包成 MCP + SKILL，任何人都可以几分钟部署，24h帮你看新闻。
🦞 你的龙虾现在可以：
• 直接连上 X 数据 + 全网50+实时新闻+链上数据，不用配 API 密钥。
• 24h 监控、分析、触发tg提醒。
照着 GitHub README 部署，几分钟就能装好。
欢迎大家安装试用和分享体验，有问题及时反馈及时迭代。
也欢迎👏🏻有热情的 dev 参加我们的生态
MCP
github.com/6551Team/openn…
github.com/6551Team/opent…
SKILL
clawhub.ai/infra403/openn…
clawhub.ai/infra403/opent…
中文
I spent 100 hours over the past week researching, writing and editing the piece we just put out.
It’s a scenario, not a prediction like most of our work. But it was rigorously constructed, dismissing it outright requires the kind of intellectual laziness that tends to get expensive.
And we’ve released it for free. Hopefully you enjoy it.
citriniresearch.com/p/2028gic
English
BB(AI,AI) retweetledi
I'm joining @OpenAI to bring agents to everyone. @OpenClaw is becoming a foundation: open, independent, and just getting started.🦞
steipete.me/posts/2026/ope…
English
核心總結（極簡版）文章主張：
你現在的人生不是因為你不夠努力，而是因為你「不是那種會過上你想要生活的人」。
真正的改變不是改行動（二階），而是先改「你是誰」（一階身份）。
DAN KOE@thedankoe
中文
BB(AI,AI) retweetledi
This is really funny and im proud to say im the artist for every single one of these petahs 😎
AT@lifeoftasin
The waiter brought my order & I said "arigato" instead of Thank you
English