If you're willing to accept small changes as a win in a fundamentally broken system (in the sense the incentives aren't aligned and there is no real accountability feedback mechanism) then the problem is you aren't cynical enough to attempt something drastic. I'd actually go even further and argue it's a form of being brainwashed, usually as a byproduct of effective propaganda. Going back to the example of private healthcare - I don't fucking care about small incremental changes when the system itself is still structurally broken. We need more cynicism about the status quo so people say "fuck this" and replace it with something better. And it's not even a complicated or abstract idea - literally every other 1st world country has solved this problem and laugh about how broken healthcare is in the USA.
> Being jaded and cynical will not help in the long run.
This sounds like it's better to work within the system rather than try to overthrow it. You need more than a little angst to completely reset cultural norms. Maybe you're optimizing for a local maxima instead of realizing the true potential of saying "fuck everything" and replacing it.
I'm mostly playing devil's advocate, not saying the correct response to all adversity is to plot a revolution. But my point is sincere - sometimes it is the best thing to burn it to the ground and start over. Private healthcare seems like a pretty good example of a system that should be abolished rather than massaged (assuming your goal is better healthcare at a more affordable price) and we have decades of data from our own country and others to corroborate that.
> There isn't anyone that would argue that a single or a group of firms dominating a sizeable amount of market, enough that they could, not that they do, influence and undermine the competitors is a desired status quo.
There are many people that believe monopolies are good, or at least that's what they say. Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen are notable examples that argue monopolies are good for innovation, as they supposedly allow for the flexibility to explore crazier research. I think this argument is bullshit and demonstrably false but there are influential people that advocate for it.
I'm not saying there isn't progress. I'm saying progress is slow relative to the work that needs to be done. I've also worked at enough robotics companies to be skeptical of anything they publish because there is a strong tendency to cherry-pick results. The disconnect between the research papers being published and the reality of the robots at one company I worked at was pretty egregious.
Robots are super cool. Just be skeptical of the hype.
> Doesn't it seem like in < 10 years there will be dozens of autonomous, affordable home-robots?
If you buy the hype, sure. I know many startups that have already gone bust working on this. I've also seen lots of similar attempts in laboratories around the world going back well over a decade.
> One last note, they call this generalist, but each of the examples is quite specific from a macro perspective. Yes the robot can fold maybe any pile of crumpled laundry now and that is generalist compared to previous efforts, but it does seem like we shouldn't try to train bots how to do billions of tasks in specific detail; rather they should learn to learn and take on new tasks they weren't trained for.
You are starting to see how difficult the problem is and how limited the solutions are. You're basically saying "let's just give the robots general AI and everything will be so much easier!"
I remember when Guitar Hero came out I didn't understand why anybody would play that instead of just buying a guitar. The point is the videogame itself is designed to be fun and remove plenty of other elements from the real life equivalent that focuses more on enjoyment and less on grinding it out. If you're thinking about "what have I accomplished?" instead of "I'm having so much fun!" then it might not be for you.
The other aspect is there are plenty of people that like to think like programmers, but have no experience programming and the barrier to entry for a videogame is substantially lower than even figuring out a "hello world!" program for someone who wouldn't even know how to pick a programming language.
Are we just going to ignore the negative externalities of AI? From my perspective, the main product of AI is bots spamming social media with misinformation - largely with a goal of swaying elections.
I'm not saying that AI is inherently evil and has no potential, but just ignoring the cost is misleading. It's like saying oil is wonderful and pretending global warming isn't a thing.
The tech may be "hard" but that doesn't mean it's a net positive for society, which to me is what really matters. Of course this is all subjective and nobody can predict the future, but I just find this blind optimism to be self-destructive.
It's more the fact that you're willfully ignorant which makes you annoying. Numerous people have already explained to you why you're wrong and you just keep repeating yourself. You're a hypocrite and you don't even realize it. I'm not going to waste my time trying to reason with an unreasonable person.
I strongly wish we had more comments like the one you're responding to. I find most comments here to be obnoxiously polite and I wish more ignorant opinions were publicly demolished as they should be, rather than continue to spread misinformation because it's the polite thing to do.
So your point is that if we fundamentally change society, ignoring the fact that this is integral to human nature itself, then we can fix this problem? That's about as helpful as saying we can have peace in the Middle East if we all just got along. It's comical how disconnected from reality it is, and yet you seem to think people should take it seriously.
I never said cheating is moral. I said cheating is advantageous. You think cheaters care that they're hurting society? You can't be a cheater without being selfish.