Thinking back I believe the logic was that the quote essentially says market will fix the issue, but that explanation is questionable. We know it is questionable precisely because the "fix" for the market not to starve people is more regulation. And the discussion is precisely about regulation of that kind, so the argument is circular.
I would not expect a job market "expert" or a historian to be able to predict future world where cumulative machine intelligence is higher than cumulative human intelligence. Why would you?
This seems wrong to me on multiple different levels.
One, this conversation is about economy side of things.
And two, calling comparison between humans and LLMs disgusting when LLMs are borderline GAIs sounds very xenophobic. Did you see the thread about LLM-written fiction contest the other day? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48782890
You bothered to write 3 paragraphs close to the original comment length 100% being a personal attack, and failed to articulate the point in context of my comment, let alone explain how the original comment answers the eat bit.
Some fun stuff:
https://borgcloud.org/speech-to-text at $0.06/h
Roxy: iOS hands-free voice AI: https://itunes.apple.com/app/id6737482921?mt=8
Turing Test Battle Royale: https://trashtalk.borg.games Pelican Arena Leaderboard: https://pelicans.borg.games
meet.hn/city/43.6534817,-79.3839347/Toronto
Socials: - linkedin.com/in/victor-msu - reddit.com/user/lostmsu - github.com/lostmsu
Interests: AI/ML, Gaming, Networking, Programming, Research, Science, Startups, Technology
---