A similar idea from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, ~7th century BCE
> 'And here they say that a person consists of desires. And as is his desire, so is his will; and as is his will, so is his deed; and whatever deed he does, that he will reap.
Yes, much in the same way that hiring someone to cater a dinner party makes me a great chef.
(edit to give some body to my comment above:
Hosting a great dinner party is hard work and requires coordination between food, decor, seasonality, people attending, etc. It is akin to a director coordinating the parts of a film. So I do think hosting a good dinner party can count as artistic expression.
I don't know the parent comment's intended reading, but I was reacting to the idea that typing a Sora prompt makes someone a good artist. If the parent means instead that AI allows people to coordinate multiple media in a broader expression that was not possible otherwise, then I fully agree.
I'm trying to point to the set of all jobs a human being could do, which includes future jobs enabled by future technology.
This is not as nebulous of a set as it sounds because it has real human boundaries: there are limits to how fast we can learn, think, communicate, move, etc. and there are limits to how consistently we can perform because of fatigue, boredom, distraction, biological needs like food or sleep, etc. The future is uncertain, but I don't see why an AI system couldn't push past these boundaries.
By definition, we don't have data for events we haven't seen before. So instead I reason as well as I can:
Consider the set of all jobs a human being could do. Consider the set of all jobs an AI system could perform as well as a human being but more cheaply. Is the AI set growing, and if so, how quickly?
Prior technology is generally narrow and dumb: I cannot tell my cotton gin to go plant cotton for me, nor can I ask it to fix itself when it breaks. Therefore I take on a strategic role in using and managing my cotton gin. The promise of AI systems is that they can be general and intelligent. If they can run themselves, then why do I need a job telling them what to do?
Sentence 1 seems historically illiterate, and I think pg knows how ridiculous it sounds because he walks it back almost immediately. "Historically people made a sacrifice, but not intentionally, for the most part" is incoherent.
> No one weaves now, and that's fine.
Did horses find new jobs when we moved to steam power? Leave aside the odd horse show and fairground ride. By the numbers, what do you think happened?
> How can the work both be "genuinely well-intentioned" and at the same time have "complete absence of concern for the user"?
I think the author is distinguishing between (1) well-intentioned work from workers in the trenches and (2) indifference to the user from upper management. It's institutional misalignment.
Evergrow | Quants, senior SWEs, and commodities experts | San Francisco | Full-Time | ONSITE | evergrow.com
Come work on climate fintech at gigaton scale!
At Evergrow, we seek to build and sustain a carbon-neutral world. We plan to do so by unlocking solutions which reduce 1 gigaton of CO2e by 2030, scaling to 1 gigaton per year every year thereafter.
Specifically, we are developing a suite of products and services for decarbonization project developers. We are starting with a financial product that shields developers from carbon credit price volatility, helping them access the capital needed to get their projects off the ground. We will be quickly expanding this suite of products and services so that we can become the ultimate support system for decarbonization developers.
Our team has spent time at leading companies (e.g., Google, BCG, McKinsey & Co., D.E. Shaw, Pinterest) and academic institutions (e.g., Columbia, MIT, Stanford, Princeton). We are backed by leading investors from Silicon Valley and beyond, including XYZ Venture Capital, Congruent Ventures, First Round Capital, Garuda Ventures, My Climate Journey, Skyview Ventures, and founders and senior executives from Plaid, Brex, Twitch, Instacart, Charm Industrial, Living Carbon, and Bridgewater Associates.
Evergrow | Quants, senior SWEs, and commodities experts | San Francisco | Full-Time | ONSITE | evergrow.com
Come work on climate fintech at gigaton scale!
Evergrow's goal is to support the permanent avoidance or removal of 1 billion tons of CO2e by 2030, scaling to 1 billion tons/year shortly thereafter.
We're getting started by providing "offtake" contracts to projects that produce carbon-linked commodities. Offtake contracts are important because they are the bedrock of most infrastructure finance, and they have historically been very hard to find for carbon projects. By providing offtake for carbon commodities, we unlock low-cost financing for carbon project development at meaningful scale. We are also building tooling and value-added services for project developers to accelerate their work to reduce, avoid, and remove carbon emissions.
Our founding team has spent time at leading companies and institutions, including Google, Salesforce, Clearbit, Columbia, MIT, and Y Combinator. We are backed by leading investors from Silicon Valley and beyond, including XYZ Venture Capital, Congruent Ventures, First Round Capital, Garuda Ventures, My Climate Journey, Skyview Ventures, and founders and senior executives from Plaid, Brex, Twitch, Instacart, Charm Industrial, Living Carbon, and Bridgewater Associates.
n=1, but I don't have any mental association between "mob" and being Irish, and I don't feel comfortable reading that intent into the original tweets without stronger evidence.
> That’s confabulation. Not a metaphor. The same phenomenon.
> Published. Replicated. Not fringe.
> Not to validate it. Not to refute it. Not to engage with its content at all.