It will be the first generation with widespread space travel. My children will have consumer access to a view that no one had seen until 1961 and only government employees had seen since.
I don't have an employer. But most of the excuses I used to tell myself are simply not believable anymore and that causes pressure leading to overworking myself.
In Japan, inflation adjusted wages are down 2% over the last 20 years. In the same time frame in the US, they're up 20% and even for the bottom quartile, earnings are up 15%.
Increases in labor productivity is a curious thing to think about. Do I deserve more wages for using AutoCad instead of drafting paper?
- The amount I'm working hasn't increased. Still an 8 hour day.
- My job honestly is easier than it used to be; certainly less menial.
- Strictly speaking, the education requirement is actually lower. It's easier and a lower bar to learn to become a decent designer in AutoCad than to learn to effectively use old drafting tools (even though the formal four year engineering degree still takes four years).
But it's also true that in spite of this, my output is higher. Should I capture the increased output or should the innovators of the tools? What about the firms that invest in procuring these tools and production technology? Should the customers capture the increased output through lower prices? Or should the innovators, firms, and customers all get less, and instead my wages should get bigger?
Humanoid robots barely progressed between 2000-2020. There have obviously been incremental improvements in things like dexterity, vision, self-balancing, and locomotion, but in terms of having a useful humanoid robot, Honda's ASIMO released in the year 2000 is not crazily behind what we had in 2020. So it's not surprise we haven't seen economic dividends yet in the real world.
I think AI is what could make humanoids turn from parlor tricks to huge amounts of utility, but we're really going to have to see how it plays out in the next 5-10 years.
I agree this will slow US development but what does "win the AI race" mean? What's the finish line? If there was a finish line, say a model that met some definition of general intelligence, wouldn't other labs eventually reach it too? Does getting there 6 months sooner actually mean anything in terms of say, the 5, 20, 50, 100 year view?
The cleanest positive study is Cui et al., because it used randomized rollout in real companies. Developers at Microsoft, Accenture, and a Fortune 100 electronics manufacturer were randomly given access to an AI coding assistant. Pooled across 4,867 developers, the authors estimate a 26.08% increase in completed tasks among users. They also report increases in commits and builds.
While that research was published in 2026, it analyzed the 2023 period. Very much NOT sota models!
This conversation always gets lost in the weeds. You don't need a SOTA model to replace an entire engineer role from the time he gets into the office until he leaves.
If you have a team of 10 and make them all a little faster, you can do the same amount of work with 9. Run this out over the entire industry and it's hundreds of thousands of roles that are redundant.
SpaceX valuation isn't based on ARR so juicing it isn't really relevant. And if he wanted to buy ARR for financial engineering reasons, he could buy a lot more than $4B with $60B
Especially with Elon? It happened one time (twitter) and if you think twitter was appropriately staffed at 8k employees you need your head read. Cursor operates with a very small team, and practically all have equity, so a $60B exit means congrats are in order.
you can live an 1880's lifestyle working about 5 hours a week. Outdoor toilets, no plumbing, uninsulated housing. Essentially zero healthcare. No lighting after the sun goes down or before it comes up. Little variation in diet and enough calories and nutrition to make you a strapping 130 lbs five foot four.
The labor theory of value is the idea that a commodity’s economic value is ultimately determined by the amount of socially necessary labor required to produce it. I'm not a Musk fanboy and I don't know what the idiot index is, but if he buys into the LTV, he's incorrect.
There are very very simple proofs to invalidate the LTV, for example the fact that two items requiring identical amounts of socially necessary labor can have very different prices. In my experience, I have only met one person who earnestly believed it (an old college classmate) and his basis was self-admittedly purely ideological. In the end, I think the most elegant way to think about it is to reverse the causal arrow. Labor does not create value; perceived value decides which labor was worth doing.
In tears laughing that people still believe the labor theory of value. How is this possible. What's next, bringing back miasma theory and spontaneous generation?
If companies can be held liable (in spite of very visible disclaimers, ToS, and usage policies) for the output of non-deterministic software, isn't this just a soft ban on the deployment of non-deterministic software?