>There was no default "state", at least by the time you're talking about humans, we probably already learned from each other by observation. Sure, politics and wars and religion and feudal dynasties and whatever make bumps in the line, but generally it goes up.
No, that's not the shape of the line. You can view it here:
The hockey stick upturn in recent centuries needs explanation.
I'm pushing back so hard on this comparative definition of wealth (which I notice is the secondary definition you found behind large possessions) because I think it's silly to do that when we have an unbelievably dramatic increase in wealth in recent centuries which needs understanding first.
Hand-waving away human progress and forcing zero sum definitions of wealth feels unserious. You have terms for things like inequality, why not use those instead of distorting what wealth means?
>A wealthy person is not someone with a lot of things.
No one made that claim.
By nearly any sane metric the world is wealthier. You can verify this on sites like Our World in Data.
We are healthier, have more leisure time, are less likely to die in natural disasters, etc.
It's willful ignorance to define wealth in a way that wouldn't show humanity as having gotten more wealthy. You're doing harm by overlooking massive gains we've made and understanding why we made them and instead redefining the common sense understanding of basic terms.
>You are talking about access to resources and technologies, which is basically constantly rising, we couldn't stop that if we wanted to
We could very obviously stop our progress in resources and technology. It has happened throughout history many times and we see plenty of modern examples.
You seem to be treating the accumulated products of civilization as though they are geological facts rather than fragile outputs of maintained institutions.
Maybe you should ask yourself why you believe that 1) access to resources and technology are "basically constantly rising" and 2) why the relative difference in wealth today is more important than the (magical?) existence of a system were everyone has continually gotten more access to resources and technology.
No. The world has absolutely gotten wealthier over the last few centuries.
Wealth is obviously not zero sum. Humanity is far wealthier today than before the industrial revolution, and the trend is still towards increasing wealth.
Deaths from all natural disasters have dramatically decreased over the last century.
I won't bother sharing the source because you'll find some reason to dismiss it I'm sure.
It's interesting you claim my comment is propaganda when I cite a scientific source and yet have nothing to say about the parent comment which claims we no longer need to worry about heating due to climate change. Which of those comments seems more propagandistic?
Emotions do seem to act as signaling, but is that the same as an attempt at manipulation for the benefit of the individual?
It seems conceivable in social groups that having an honest accounting of how people are feeling (via emotions) available to the group might benefit the group in achieving their goals while not always benefiting the individual.
Many comments are mocking the "Non-technical teams are now shipping production code" line as an obvious disaster waiting to happen.
I think this will be commonplace in the not too distant future.
Some disasters will happen, just like they did before AI. Skeptics will gleefully point out these failures while more and more non-technical teams ship code.
You can see when they buy or sell a position. It's on the blockchain so it's all public. And yes, copying positions is called copy-trading and it's extremely popular.
Orders aren't public though. Only the actual trades. This is important because by the time the trade is known by others very often the edge is gone. Especially if you have other people watching the same trader and they all try to copy the trade at the same time.
Ah I understand you now. Yes I could have had a service do the digitizing then only done delivery myself. And given the time investment that probably would have been more sound. I don't think I'd do it all myself if I did it again.
I didn't know Gemini models were that capable. I admit I'm still skeptical about this approach though - even if it were capable of accurately labeling people and locations across decades, there's no way it could know when a scene is of personal interest. I kept a running log for each sibling as I was manually doing the labeling, knowing what they'd want to see, which presumably is only possible for me and my siblings to do with any accuracy.
If AI could ever do that then we've definitely hit ASI!
sam + hn [at] sampatt [dot] com