Not in reality. In reality, there are multiple other reasons, and the reasons you give are way down on the list. Just think of jobs nobody wants to do and see how well it correlates with pay. The number one, to me, seems to be that the people being paid, knows someone else who got them the job. That would explain the massive number of well paid idiots. Business people are not more capable than anyone else. They just know more people who can bail them out when things go bad. In a world with UBI, your statement would be true. You would have to pay people to do unwanted work.

Those jobs will have to pay more or not get done. Fundamentally, the argument is that we need people to do crap jobs so instead of paying well for these undesirable jobs, we have to threaten people with homelessness in order to do it. I agree that this type of system works. I don't think this is an ideal system. That means that you may need to pay people bucket loads of money to clean toilets. Personally, I don't see a negative in that. On the other hand, we have plenty of people who don't want to work, but have to work. I call them the negative work force. Their very presence makes everything worse. Their work quality sucks. Their attitude sucks. If they were not there, the job would get done faster. The only reason they are there is that they need a paycheck, and we who interact with them need to suffer as a result. I knew a city inspector like that. If that person just stayed home and collected a paycheck, the world would be a better place. But instead, she had to go into the world and screw it up, just because that was her job.

I think the point is to at least discuss this BEFORE it comes true. Not afterwards. Even if it takes 50 trillion years, it is worthwhile to discuss. Waiting until after it occurs is the normal human thing to do (reactive instead of proactive), but having thought experiments have their purpose.

In my mind (and I will accept that I could be wrong), there is a difference between avoiding bias, and accepting all information to understand the bias. You seem to be comparing humans, who are limited in their total information input, with computers, that are able to take in much more input. Humans have to try to avoid disinformation, as it is distracting and wasteful. Computers can take it all in, and determine the closest approximation to the truth . . . at least in my mind.

Yes.

I never heard of this claim, but I will accept that some people believed it at the time. You are coming to a conclusion which may or may not be accurate, from the original statement. We have POTENTIAL ACCESS to all sorts of information. If people are drawn to misinformation, then that is, by definition, LACK of information. I agree that you need to some sort of filter to determine the difference, but that is the purpose to this thought experiment. What happens when the AI is smart enough? I suspect that discussions would be different if we all had access to the same information, but we don't. We only have potential access to the same information, even though much of this lack of true access is limited by choice.

I am not questioning you. Just saying that it's strange that you can be driving under the influence without driving. Next, you will get a DUI without being under the influence.

As a landowner/property manager, I can confidently say that it doesn't work that way. Tenants freely share when they get a raise, and that NEVER prompts me to increase the rent. Instead, it gives me hope that the rent will come in on time and in full. And that is usually what it means. If you don't like the idea of UBI, that's fine. But increasing rent is the weakest possible argument.

We may have to wait for GPT5. You can't ask a programmer who just started 1 year ago to do the same either. This may be another real life story of John Henry, who beat the machine, but in the end, the march of progress beats the man. We will have to see, as the story is not over yet.

Remember that this is just the start. Beginning programmers start with stupid useless problems to solve, and work their way to complicated systems. The AI models are still at the beginning. The idea that it can be done at all, was fantasy just a year ago.

The vast majority of ALL problem solving is pattern recognition of previous experience. No matter what your field, how much is original thinking, and how much is based upon past experience? I guess the point is that even if AI solves the 99% of pattern recognition, and you need people for the remaining 1%, then that is a win. Not only that, but if it is able bring together all posted code from the internet, then it would bring together the collected intelligence/experience of everyone posting on the internet. For coding, that would be very powerful by itself. For slashdot forums though, not so much.

He's not looking for people to improve the code. He's looking to improve the reputation of the algorithm. As it is, people are being banned and censored without knowledge of what the parameters for such actions are. Open sourcing the code will just allow people to understand what is permissible and what is not, and hopefully how they come to that assessment.

The problem with ChatGPT may be in its artificial restrictions. It is even more of a problem with Bing. If anyone else has a system rivaling ChatGPT, powered by GPT3.5, but without the restrictions placed upon it, I would gladly choose that instead on any artificially restricted GPT4 based system. I don't think you have to be the best, just have the least limitations to interactions.

Just an fyi. Most otc supplements are owned and created by large pharmaceutical companies. The system is a lot more corrupt than you think.

That's not how Bill Gates works. He doesn't spend money. He only invests. If he cannot see a profit in the investment, he talks about what others should do, and how he is wonderful.

I think this is the attitude that prevents us from talking about subjects as the GP stated. One aspect of fascism is nationalism, which is simply a form of tribalism. Nationalism can bring people together for a common cause, even though that cause may be good or evil. When taken to the extreme, nationalism, like all tribalism, is vulnerable to othering people from differing nations and races, potentially leading to additional conflict and even war. This is not forbidden knowledge, so I'm disappointed it is treated as such.