Gagarin1961 t1_jdn931d wrote

If you’re like me, you’re getting into this web development because you like building things.

You’re basically the main builder of a house. People can and did build basic “houses” themselves throughout history, but they were limited. That’s us now. We hand code everything. Our sites are basically “hand crafted.”

But AI that can code is like having a company of builders working for you. You’re not going to build sun brick huts or teepees with a crew of 5-8 guys and advanced tools. You’re going to use your time to design a house much more luxurious than what one person could build. You’d build a modem home with air conditioning and maybe several floors.

This is how you’re going to start to see yourself. You will be the highest level manager of what we consider today to be major application projects.

People have been saying a lot of distributed software is going to go out the window. Why buy a license to Microsoft Office if you can just ask the AI to make you a word processor without all the other crap you don’t want.

You’ll be creating custom digital experiences in the future with the help of AI, not necessarily coding by hand. Start imagining what you could accomplish with a team of people working for you.


Gagarin1961 t1_jbylg97 wrote

I don’t think OP is saying the AI is a good replacement for therapists, they’re saying it’s a decent replacement for having no option to talk things out.

Not every problem needs to be addressed by a licensed therapist either. I would say most don’t.

For any serious issue, charGPT constantly recommends contacting a professional therapist.


Gagarin1961 t1_jar2jwn wrote

Yes so the phrase originated as an example of an “Impossible task,” but it’s since become a term for a self starting process.

The linked article reads:

>In general, bootstrapping usually refers to a self-starting process that is supposed to continue or grow without external input.

Computer engineers aren’t referring to an impossible task, just a self starting one. As much as Reddit loves the original usage, the the phrase “pull oneself up by their bootstraps” today means to use what you have to get ahead instead of relying on outside help.


Gagarin1961 t1_jaawpz0 wrote

If ASI always destroys it’s creators, then why isn’t there any evidence for their existence?

An ASI would be even less restricted than a biological civilization. Even if not all ASI’s had growth motives after exterminating their creator species, surely some would continue on and build megastructures and other detectable things.

A lack of evidence for extraterrestrial civilizations is also evidence is lack of ASI.


Gagarin1961 t1_j97l74o wrote

Reply to comment by TFenrir in What’s up with DeepMind? by BobbyWOWO

> get the impression that fear of bad results is a big part of the anxiety people like Demis feel.

Then he shouldn’t be upset with chatGPT at all, as their product hasn’t produced a particularly “bad” result.

It’s been nothing but positive for millions. He was wrong, the time is right.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8zl0gm wrote

> We passed there being more jobs in “Green” energy than fossil fuels back in 2017 in the us.

So capitalism is making change! That sounds much more than “nothing,” huh?

> GG you’re just showing that you’re not only constantly requiring assumptions for your arguments to be expressed you’re now just a flat-out liar.

You’re the one who said capitalism only focuses on growth and can’t address climate change.

So far it looks like capitalism can address climate change, and that the problem isn’t inherent in property rights.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8zgyhl wrote

> I think they would invest in research and switch to green energy instead of spending 30 years lying to the public about it.

Green energy doesn’t require nearly as many workers. Why would they vote for that?

They are the owners of the company. If the current owners wanted to lie, why wouldn’t they? They’re the owners too.

Workers aren’t “inherently better people” or something. They’re just like billionaires and billionaires are just like them.

> Your second point is literal nonsense.

How so?

> I know you don’t understand my point. Its clear you don’t understand a lot of whats being said here. I gave you all the clues you need, I told you where to go for record profits and still workers getting the axe. You live in a fantasy.

No, no I understand your overall point. It was that specific sentence that wasn’t communicated well enough. What were you trying to say about video game companies?


Gagarin1961 t1_j8zf35d wrote

> Many of those things have been delayed for years or decades by interested groups in capitalism.

What do you think the workers is a fossil fuel company would do under a socialist economy?

> A form of socialism is probably the answer.

Just one?

“It’s capitalism” Is getting really ridiculous when you actually mean “It’s capitalism, market socialism, state socialism, etc.”

Kind of has a completely different meaning. It implies the problem is actually something shared between them.

> Workers would not demand growth at all cost if that growth came at the cut of their jobs.

Why would it come at the cost of their jobs? Demanding growth will secure their jobs and company.

>Look to the games industry’s recent success to see that doesn’t go the opposite way. All fantasy. You are all fantasy lol.

I don’t understand your point.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8zaexx wrote

> Capitalism does not focus on the environment, some companies claim to but you’ll notice nothing has been done to curb fossil fuel companies

A lot has been done, of all the new energy capacity the world is adding, 90% of it is renewable energy.

The downfall of fossil fuels is right around the corner. We’ve been working decades and the markets have finally won the battle to beat fossil fuel on pricing.

Things aren’t black and white, a lot of people are trying to make is feel that way, don’t buy into it.

> I never said anything about market socialism and there are more than two types of economic situation so again, silly assumptions wasint gour time

Well now I’m getting consumed with what ideology you do support.

I’m not sure why you aren’t defending it.

Your claim is that capitalism is the problem, so therefore market socialism should be a fairly valid solution under that premise, right?

> No, they wouldn’t because they wouldn’t have the shareholders unreasonably expecting growth at all costs so they can live the American dream.

Shareholders are just owners of the company.

Workers would be the new owners of these companies.

They would feel the exact same way as the shareholders because they would be in the exact same situation.

> Its capitalism because capitalism is the thing that demands growth at all costs.

People within every other ideology would aim for growth equally, unless specifically defined as being against it. That means capitalism isn’t the issue, as practically all forms of socialism, communism, etc, will have the same problems.

It’s like saying “We can fix our drug problem if we switch to eating healthier!”


Gagarin1961 t1_j8z5koq wrote

> you just said because none of them prioritize the environment none of them will.

Oh it looks like you just misread. I’m not saying no one will prioritizes the environment. People already do that under capitalism.

My point is that there’s nothing inherent in other ideologies that increases the chance of environmental concern. In the past, Socialism originally promoted the equitable distribution of natural resources.

> New owners? Do you think getting rid of capitalism means keeping the same structure and just replacing the people?

No, the new owners under market socialism (the most popular form of socialism on Reddit), would be the workers.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear.

> No. Capitalism requires growth at all costs.

>I don’t know where your fantasy is coming from but if a company doesn’t grow, it eventually dies or gets bought out.

If the entire economy isn’t growing then they are just sustaining. That happens all the time with businesses. They even lose money some years.

They aim for growth because they want to and it can be achieved. Just like employee owned companies currently do. And just like employee controlled companies under socialism.

> You haven’t said anything about any other ideology for me to talk about you silly goose. You just keep screaming about the joys of capitalism

What? No I don’t, my comments are almost exclusively about other ideologies.

You just feel like I’m screaming and supporting capitalism because it’s easier to dismiss.

In fact, my whole point is that every other ideology would aim for growth equally, unless specifically defined as being against it. That means capitalism isn’t the issue, as practically all forms of socialism, communism, etc, will have the same problems.

It’s like saying “We can fix our drug problem if we switch to eating healthier!”


Gagarin1961 t1_j8z0vel wrote

> Lolol why are you ranting like a lunatic

No you simply aren’t reading what I’m saying.

I can tell because you aren’t responding to my points, you just keep reiterating yours even though I’ve addressed each one directly.

> I already said that they don’t prioritize the environment but since they don’t have to focus on growth at all cost they can be smarter about their choices.

And I said that the new owners will prefer growth just as much as current owners.

> Capitalism has to be focused on growth at all costs so it is impossible for it to prioritize anything else.

Capitalism doesn’t have to be focused on with at all costs. People prefer growth because it’s easily possible now. They do in every ideology, even socialism!

> I am thriving in the capitalist system. I still am able to recognize it has problems.

You don’t seem capable of recognizing the problems of other ideologies, however.

You just have a “the grass must be greener” mentality.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8yyw08 wrote

> You’re wildly confused.

No I assure you, you are the one that’s confused.

Nothing about other ideologies promises to prioritize the environment. Socialism for 100+ years was pitched as a way to more equitably exploit resources. Growth was always promised.

Now that’s forgotten and replaced with a fake premise. It’s just to trick people.

I’m sorry but someone probably took advantage of you at some point and just straight up lied about all this.

> Growth at all cost mostly comes once a company goes public.

What are you talking about? IPOs only happen for successful companies that have grown like crazy under private leadership.

You’ve got this entirely backwards.

> The shareholders wont allow, not deliberately, for foresight in their leadership so its a constant revolving door of people aiming for growth at all costs.

That’s true of all companies, including employee-owned businesses.

Everyone prefers growth over shrinking. How would you react if the workers of a company under a market socialism wanted to continue growth?*

*This isn’t a rhetorical question, I expect an answer.

> Youre talking fantasy, Im talking real world. Capitalism is the root cause.

Capitalism is not a root cause, every ideology promotes growth.

I’m sorry this might be hard to come to terms with, as it seemed like a nice ace-in-the-hole (“Our ideology will literally save the world!”). But as I’ve pointed out, there’s literally no reason people wouldn’t vote for continued growth without capitalism.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8yvecf wrote

> But when growth at all costs is not the tentpole of your “ideology” it frees you up to look at other things.

Is that the tent pole? Capitalism is based more on private property and capital than “growth at all costs.” We aim for growth because it can be done, not because it has to. When growth temporary decreases, the concepts of private priority and capital aren’t actually threatened.

Plus, if we do something like market socialism, wouldn’t the workers have the exact same incentives as the previous owners? Why wouldn’t they vote for continued growth?

If you’re thinking of authoritarian ideologies like command economies, then that’s also not inherently better for the environment and there’s no promise the government will enforce degrowth if the populous doesn’t want it. I suppose we could send out the tanks to stop any protests but I’d that actually sustainable? If we’re going this far why not just implement environmental rules in capitalism? Seems easier/less maniacal.

I don’t think any other ideology except specifically an “environment-first” ideology actually prioritizes the environment. It’s easy to blame the current system, but that isn’t automatically insightful.

Capitalism is a red herring.


Gagarin1961 t1_j8yrtbo wrote

> We already could become sustainable in a lot of ways and choose not to because of capitalism.

I’ve always been curious. What exactly is it about every other ideology that will force people to prioritize the environment?


Gagarin1961 t1_j8yk0jg wrote

When a priest writes a sermon, they’re taking inspiration from all these existing works anyway. It’s rare they offer something totally unique. But that’s not what people are there for.

People don’t go to church to just have a sermon be communicated to them. Otherwise they would just read the sermon on a big teleprompter. The point is going there and listening to another human offer insight, whether they thought of it themselves or read an old sermon from long ago.

If pastors can actually communicate better with AI, then that could actually improve a lot of things and allow people to get more out of it.

People that want a TV pastor already have that. The people who want an experience with other people are going to continue wanting that.


Gagarin1961 t1_j71bhi8 wrote

You should read Nick Bostrom’s Superintelligence.

There are multiple theoretical paths to AGI, and one of them is “full brain emulation.”

This would essentially be scientists recreating a brain down to the neutron in electronic form. By its nature it would be faster than a human brain and could be expanded upon and improved.

I don’t know enough about the brain to say it will happen for sure, but obviously it’s an example of how there are different ways of achieving AGI that you may not have considered.


Gagarin1961 t1_j6n5nys wrote

I think ChatGPT is made just with the API. I believe it would work pretty similar if you just include all the previous responses and questions in the newest prompt/request.

That obviously gets pretty expensive quick, which is why the pro version of ChatPGT is $42 a month.


Gagarin1961 t1_j6kwkn8 wrote

Yeah you can talk to it generally like ChatGPT in any of the prompts by erasing the examples. They’ve just never had a “general” preset playground before, which was a huge mistake.

The basic API won’t remember the previous question/answer like ChatGPT unless you include it in the next question, but that’s why the chat Pro version costs so much more than the API (and is more capable).


Gagarin1961 t1_j6khmaz wrote

It’s true, this isn’t too much different than the API they’ve been offering for a year. The difference is their “playground” was hard to use and was confusing. It made it seem like you needed to provide an example for each prompt.

I’m guessing these guys aren’t the UI/UX-minded part of the company. People who aren’t in that mindset can struggle to understand to why users are seeing their product differently than they are.