> If AI evolves at the same pace, and replacing labor (robots) and services (AI), I am not sure that human would turn around? How do you think we can turn things around ?
I see no indication that we are close to building a GAI, or that we are close to solving the hallucination problems that severely limit the utility LLMs without human managers. We don't understand how our own intelligence works, or even an ant's. The notion the we are close to replicating or exceeding it seems far fetched to me.
> What activity would require human involvement ?
Nurses, bar tenders, barbers... Hasn't anyone read Player Piano? :)
> How do you think we can turn things around ?
I dunno. Did anyone know how dangerous fire or deadly spear points world work out?
I get what you are saying, and I don't think you are wrong, but it has been like 100 monumental changes in 200 years. The demographic shift of the industrial revolution was particularly painful, to be sure. But we seem to be pretty good at coping with them, overall.
And again, I remain skeptical that general artificial intelligence is actually that close at hand.
> I was talking about the issues with comparing it to singular inventions like the cotton gin or jacquard loom
Ok, appreciate the clarification. But in that time frame there have been a number of really tectonic inventions that changed pretty much everything: steam power, ICE power, electrification, refrigeration, computing and the internet, just to name a few off the top of my head.
> There's plenty of space to think it just won't happen (where I'm personally at, at least on the current LLM driven versions)
Same. I am both optimistic about human ability to find new jobs, and skeptical that "AI" is going to make that necessary in the new future.
There is likewise no indication that it won't. And if I am looking at a pattern where a thousand careers were destroyed by the advance of technology and were swiftly replaced by tens of thousands of new ones, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the pattern is likely repeat.
200 years ago, 95% of the workers in my country worked in subsistence farming. Today, only 2% are farmers. The whole spectrum of labor has turned upside down and upside down again, in that time. It has certainly not been a singular industry.
I grew up in a small town in rural Alaska that would have been completely under glacier ice when Columbus landed in North America. In the time between Captain Cook exploring the area in the 18th century and the next western survey a hundred years later, the coastline had been transformed by glaciers receding and revealing inlets hadn't been there for Cook to map. The glacier that was directly in between my town and the highway to Anchorage when I was a child is all but gone now, and there is a road.
This was my thought too, but I figured I just didn't understand the problem. Why use git commands to backup when a file system copy seems like it would do? zfs snapshot takes less than a second on any size repo. zfs send transfers just the changes since the last backup, as fast as your network, more or less.
I just got the new M4 iPad like two months ago, and my YubiKeys absolutely did not work, no matter what I tried. There are articles on apple.com and yubikey.com that explain that USB-C YubiKeys will not work with USB-C iPads because Apple's USB-C implementation isn't sending the timing info (or something like that) that the YubiKey needs to function. People were buying Lightening YubiKey and connecting them to Apple's Lightening to USB-C "camera adapter" to work around this.
I decided to double-check my YubiKeys before I responded to your post and (!!!) they work now! This is huge!
You've made the, "If you don't like the oppression here, move to Somalia" argument. If you don't like the way that cities are mismanaged, abandon them. We could also stop mismanaging them, as an alternative.
> From the little I understand the Japanese model is close to what I proposed about buying up land and creating a new urban area from scratch.
Japan had a king-hell housing crisis in the 1980s and solved it by liberalizing zoning and permitting, quashing NIMBY vetos, easing parking, setback and height requirements. Today in Tokyo, families earning median incomes can actually afford to own a home in Tokyo. That is something that can't be said of New York, LA, Boston, San Francisco, Paris, London, and to a growing degree, the middle sized cities across the US. Restrictions on land use drive up the price of housing. This should not be shocking. They also create a list of negative unintended consequences I already mentioned.
America creates new housing on the model of turning pasture and desert into tract-houses and strip malls, that has been known for decades to make things worse.
> So as I said, that is actually legally still on the table in the US.
"If you don't like the violent coercion that keeps poor people poor, you are free to move to the desert." But we already own houses in a city where no one can afford the rent. Why can't we replace the building on our land with one that is actually appropriate to people's needs? [0]
> not somehow having high population density without any conflict-resolving regulations.
...was never suggested. Merely liberalization.
[0] Actually I don't want to tear down my house, I just don't feel it is my business what my neighbors do with theirs. And the effects of imposing my will on their property seem very bad, indeed.
> There is plenty of vacant unincorporated land that a group of people could get together and build whatever city they might want.
This is just a big network affect failure. A bunch of zealots starting a cult in the desert isn't a city, and fails quickly every time.
> there is no blanket "striking the root" answer here
I didn't invent this. This is how the whole world worked, in general, 100 years ago. Japan already went back to this 30 years ago, and it absolutely worked.
> denser buildings now mean more traffic
But less need for cars when you can walk to where you are going. Also, public transit becomes a viable option at higher densities.
> existing properties lose access to sunlight
Exactly the NIMBY attitude that supposes you get to say what other people do with their property. This is what makes homes unaffordable, neighborhoods unwalkable, our working days full of commute time, the atmosphere full of CO2 and soot, and consolidates all sorts of commerce from the small and local into the national and international mega-corps. Great tradeoff!