This is an insightful comment, though it just goes to show how rigid the framing is of "natural vs. artificial" or "human vs. machine". None of this stuff has any vitality outside of _some_ relationship or interface with people.

Yeah, it makes the owner class richer while driving the marginal cost of labor to zero, at which point the working class can't sell their labor at all and starve.

This would assume the rich some how oppresses everyone to pieces. If I have access to all this wonderful automation tech, I'm sure as fuck not going to sit around and starve, I'm going to try automate my food production to make more food, more efficiently ?

> If I have access to all this wonderful automation tech

But "you" don't, that is precisely the point. The speed at which the gap between rich and poor grows keeps increasing, after all -- the rest is commentary --, and people who right now send people to die and murder in wars for oil, and what not not, will not suddenly start sharing when they fully captured all means of production for good. That's like hoping the person who keeps stealing your shit every chance he has, leaving you in sickness or death without a thought will give you a billion dollars once all the locks on your house have rusted off completely and you no longer have means to call the police.

This is a step towards a human-machine hybrid world. Putting a human in the loop can do wonders. Sure, it is expensive now, but the subsequent iterations will crush it.

Have you heard of Centaur chess? A human and a machine would team up to find the best chess moves against another similar team. It's not a thing anymore. Computers have advanced so much that humans can't really contribute in any meaningful sense.

All these AI models do quite well in games because there are set rules, finite moves, and they can iterate in a tight loop (without humans) to get immediate feedback on pass/fail.

I think this is what differentiates the speed at which AIs have gotten from ok -> good -> great -> better than humans at say chess, versus say driving a car, summarizing a paper, understanding human requests, recommending music, etc.

I think a lot of people are extrapolating the rate of progress & possible accuracy rates from chess bots to domains that do not compare.

Would've said that about writing and text, about three years ago.

Is the point of your comment to make people feel depressed ?

Either we're going to use these tools to augment our abilities or basically just become wiped out, at least our jobs will be, and there is no plan to provide support for anyone. Maybe the tech will make the transition to a post employment world so swift we don't even feel any negative economic effects at all, but let's see.

There is no such bigger point. I'm just trying to look at the situation realistically.

is this a cry for help? there's always alcohol and drugs, they can't take that away from us!

(unless the robots of the future are like Bender)

I'm not saying I am depressed, but I mean, the comment just sounded like such a major downer.

reality often is, unfortunately.

Depressing hasn’t been the reality for the majority of people over the last 100 years of technological progress. You could die from a scratch or a kidney stone 100s ago.

Maybe this is the cliff , but it feels unlikely.

these things weren't depressing back then, they were normal. you can be depressed anywhere or anywhen, and similarly happy in any circumstances.

Once we realize we can make machines that can beat us in ways we can’t even understand, I wonder if will question if we have always been influenced this way by an exterior force

Sounds like an interesting idea, do you mean, like the concept of "fate" is the type of external force you describe ?

Yea something like that or like the benejeserit from dune.