Comment by trod1234
4 months ago
> The new approach
That won't work. The breaking of that model is far more widespread than one thinks because of how it was broken.
The breaking of the model breaks underlying models all the way down to the basis for economic distribution of labor.
Its a phase change where labor and expertise are free, without restriction and the people with that expertise do not receive economic benefit for it anymore. In short, your demand curves goes to 0 in that area. There may be a great need for something, but if the demand is 0 no one will fulfill that need. People aren't slaves. Many people conflate demand with need, Hayek in his economics in one book cover the distinction. TL;DR demand is the group of people where there is a point at which two parties are both willing to exchange something for something. Need is where no such crossection between the S/D curve in exchange can occur for the two parties involved. One is much smaller than the other, and at 0, it doesn't happen or you only get the efforts of slaves.
The trend is inevitably towards stalling the economic cycle, where such experts simply do not create such things, they do not share, the ones that could either abandon that expertise or they withdraw keeping it to themselves.
The vast majority of all action though is done for economic benefit, and when that's no longer the case people don't do it. People aren't slaves.
People, professionals, aren’t so stationary. You’re saying that this line on the asymptote is the threshold where incentives die. But the old axes need to be adjusted for new broader possibility. As long as professionals stay ahead of non-professionals by riding the same tools, to keep their position on the boundary of expertise, they will be in demand.
Better to do that by not sharing how as much (source code), but rather what (interactive demos).
People, professionals, aren't so stationary.
You are right, they will do something, and that something will become violent when the rule of order breaks down as a result of these basic underlying aspects.
People aren't static, but neither are they so dynamic that they can learn exponentially, expertise which took education and years to learn cannot compete with free, and lets remember people age and die, and expertise is only gained by doing the job the first rung on that experience ladder. The nature of the asymptote that people fail to realize is, the asymptote isn't at its given value when you see the whole, it trails off as it approaches certain points exponentially. Sometimes to infinity.
You can't compete with slavery, and in the case of AI, you have a digital facsimile of a person that is a slave being used by people that don't have that knowledge. It may be able to go on just long enough that there won't be any experts left by the time everything starts breaking down (which happens frighteningly quickly, typically within 10 years).
There is a train, its on tracks and those tracks go over a cliff, but that cliff is around the bend, and no one knows someone's switched the route to over that cliff, they didn't notice. The conductor keeps feeding the fuel, full steam ahead, and what happens with mass is you have inertia and between the end of the tracks and the rocky shore below? Trains don't stop on a dime.
Its an asymptote, and the nature of cascading failures is that by the time the average person realizes you have a problem, there isn't anything you can do to fix it, that is the difference between average and intelligent, and likewise the average person can't avoid the outcome because the lag and the time to react don't provide a window to change it; its already passed, its hysteresis, and its a bitch.