Luddites were trying to throw wrenches in the works of tech that was destroying their livelihood. Calling someone who has legitimate concerns about use and misuse of entirely new tech a luddite is really a misrepresentation.

and that is increasing wages? Helping more folks have meaningful employment?

Belief that AI will solve our social problems is borderline religious. There in no evidence it will, and lots of evidence that like all tools it will be controlled by those already in power.

I didn't say AI would not run most decisions and operations. But it will be directed and controlled by humans at the top who will benefit the most.

If you want to change any of that you have to change how companies are formed and recognized. And I don't see any incentive for people to opt out of the loop. Especially lawyers.

A private company is going to be different I am discussing US law here. But no, it can't be changed, you need a human to be responsible at the top of an organization legally, otherwise artifical entities could spin up endless fake companies.

You're missing my point. An AI is not a human thus cannot be a human in a legal sense which is required for it to have a position as a CEO. Does not matter at all how good a tool performs it is not covered as a human nor should it be.

OK I'll bite. First off shareholders are not the ones who directly control appointing a CEO in publicly traded companies, that goes to the board generally. The board would need a human in charge of whatever AI oversaw a company for legal reasons alone. Because otherwise who would be liable for criminal wrongdoing, taxes, etc. Companies are formed from the ground up with assumption of humans in control. Even if shareholders decided they wanted an AI in charge it just could not happen, an S Corp requires humans in the loop, at the top.

Now, an AI for sure could be running the vast majority of the day to day operations. But for an AI to actually be CEO would require unending hundreds of years of law. I don't expect it to actually happen, instead CEOs will control AI and reduce human headcount below them. Bummer I know..and maybe that will then trigger bigger economic change. But the idea that we are going to jump right to AI being considered legally human is unbelievably farfetched and unlikely.

No. We will have humans at the top of almost all organizations for the foreseeable future. If you think having intelligent tools will force people to relinquish power you are going to be mightily disappointed.

Yeah but thats not a personality any more than a shoe style is.

LLMs do not have personalities. They are transformers that output predicted text based on what they were trained on.

If I were in college and a professor accused me of using AI to write a paper when I did not, you can bet your ass I am suing that school.

Got it thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irish_Civil_War

That too for sure. And the difference between beer and whiskey.

Ah what year was this? I wanted to read up some on which war they were referring to.

It was a dark but silly film. About friendship? The danger of wanting to be famous? Relationships based on animals as proxies for affection? Finding your lost father in a broken man? So many things. And it did impact me but I so wanted it to resolve cleaner. Just like life I guess...

yep, exactly - but my point is, for instance, everyone thinks that AGI is a few years off...maybe a decade. But maybe it's actually 4 months off. It wouldn't surprise me. Same thing with neural linkage to human brains - maybe someone is working on some nanotech that changes the game within a year or two. Or maybe some other tech is about to be unleashed that will make all this irrelevant.

Electric light is actually a great example of people working for many years to make something happen at a pretty slow pace (also, you needed AC power networks to make it practical for use in home in biz). But the number of folks working on it, based on patents anyhow, was somewhere in the hundreds or thousands. With AI we have hundreds of thousands of folks worldwide working with neural networks, and the lid is just starting to blow off.

back to my original point - we're already in the rapid change, and it will go on likely for as long as people are still around

There were actually 23 patents for the light bulb that Edison bought up before he developed the carbon filament. So lots of people were working on it

no, they really don't know how powerful future LLMs will be in solving certain types of problems. Yes, they know how they plan on training and tweaking these models, but they don't know the exact moment say the Turning test will become trivial to pass for a LLM. Is it GPT4? GPT6? OpenAI also don't know how new techniques and processes and technologies will impact the future iterations of the software. Or how allowing AI to tune and improve these models will be effective or not.

But my point really was more about, say, a scientific field, which is announcing new AI-based discoveries every day. There are so many teams working with so many technologies it would be impossible to say with certainty when the next breakthrough will happen.

So...can you explain why the government would ever allow a decentralized currency? What problem does this solve for the government? And why would having money that is decentralized change the equation of ultimately having to have the government as part of the deciding factor in whether something is going to be allowed or not? Last I checked governments had ALL the power in the world, and the chance of them giving up that power (much of which is derived from controlling currency), is 0.

The government in the US via the FDIC does protect customers from corrupt banks (to a certain extent, but most people don't have millions in savings anyhow) - and overall, the government does act on our behalf in keeping bad actors like FTX from pretending to be banks etc with the currency they control. Yeah I know...there are a lot of "whatabouts" you could come up with here, I could spend all day coming up with them also. And yeah, I know all about civil forfeiture, and the global financial crisis, and fiat currency, the whole thing being made up to serve elites, etc...none of that matters to the point I am making:

my point is NOT that the government does this WELL or better than a hypothetical system might, but rather that they control the system through currency now and are not going to relinquish that power, ever. So it doesn't matter even if blockchain solves some edge-case problems of validation and trust for individual citizens or businesses, it will never be adopted as a primary means of exchange exactly because it dis-intermediates our governments.

Unless of course they decide to make their own crypto currency and control it themselves, which of course gets us back to square one.

it's so odd to me that folks here think the singularity is some event in the future, and not something we are in the middle of right now. Even experts can't predict what will be seen in many fields 6 months from now - why would the singularity be something that happens in an afternoon, and not over decades? GPT-3 can write songs that rhyme and tell stories, feature just came out in the last week - and if you had asked me this Spring I would have said that was years away.

A singularity is something we can't see beyond - and we're there.

No I mean force as in someone steals from you a cop will take the case and the judicial system will prosecute.

But if you can't trust the government you are screwed anyhow. And by trust I mean that they will uphold your transactions and show up if someone steals from you. The idea that you don't need government to do these things is fantasy. And they are only going to do these things for currency they have a cut of and print.

Trust in economic systems is enforced by threat of force if trust is violated by bad actors.

Eh. The other executives know. Mostly those people know also and eventually take other gigs.

Well I think we are also in an age of Covid vaccines that just mitigate symptoms and don’t necessarily prevent. I think it’s more that when I was growing up vaccines like the polio ones were presented as ways to prevent and eliminate a disease. But frankly I don’t care what they call it, if it could have saved my mom then let’s get this shit rolling.