It's not just myself but my family and descendants who will also be impoverished.
If the holders of capital who are best positioned to reap nearly all the benefits of automation aren't willing work towards some more equitable result why would I want to help automation at all. I'd rather work against it.
"just ignore the rising inequality and complete collapse in value of human labour we can work out the details later once I hold all the cards" is not a compelling story.
>Either humans are needed for a task or are not. Ideally we’re needed for as little as possible, freeing us up to do what we want rather than what has to be done.
If you're not valuable to the economic system you won't be treated well.
>It reminds me of NIMBYism. We’ve been automating entire professions for over a century now… but not MY profession…
Yes... it's self interest look at doctors or unions or guilds.
A giant corporation openly steals code from millions of devs and uses to try and automate us and programmers cheer it on.
A billionaire with known poor labor practices buys Twitter and twitter devs make no attempt to organize as lab instead they just write toothless statements.
there's multiple examples of it outputting non-trivial code that is identical up to and including comment strings
If microsoft wants a code AI they're free to create their own training data set instead laundering copyright violation of anything that's touched github. It being "hard" isn't an excuse.
>f you go by the rough count of their currently verified accounts, only ~0.16% of monthly active users are producing content of any real value.
Maybe I'm an outlier but of my hundreds of follows ~1% have checkmark. The bulk of my followers are artists, photographers, niche bloggers, subculture news aggregators which are all creating content.
The verified checkmark is basically a non-entity to my time on twitter, maybe it's different if you mainly follow more mainstream western pop culture and political/news media.
>Reading is merely a surrogate for thinking for yourself; it means letting someone else direct your thoughts. Many books, moreover, serve merely to show how many ways there are of being wrong, and how far astray you yourself would go if you followed their guidance. You should read only when your own thoughts dry up, which will of course happen frequently enough even to the best heads; but to banish your own thoughts so as to take up a book is a sin against the holy ghost; it is like deserting untrammeled nature to look at a herbarium or engravings of landscapes.
What is his criticism? If you agree with silent majority who seem to think it's not dangerous why agree with Altman who rants regulation.