Is the author trying to say that all that work falls into the 5% left over after you replace the stock brokers, programmers, artists, etc.?
I understand no offence is meant, but this feels extremely naive. At best the work programmers do is in the minority of "economical valuable" work that we strongly rely on for our world economies to keep chugging along.
Quick and dirty searches show that some 12% of employed people are in healthcare in the USA, 9% in leisure and hospitality, and 2% in education. 23% of people in the USA are employed in economically valuable work that is very personal, and very difficult for technology to fully replace.
Sorry if I'm rambling, I think I just did not enjoy the complete lack of mention of blue-collar workers here. I don't think I'm yet in the camp betting on AGI coming out of the woodworks in the next few decades.
Accelerating programming and information jobs also means accelerating the creation of robots that can do these trade jobs
edit: he can also turn the crank to keep it powered maybe
The following is a recent video from the youtuber "Two Minute Papers" about some researchers (Clemens Schwarke, Victor Klemm et al.) who have created a highly mobile autonomous robot running software trained via simulated reinforcement learning models.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nnpm-rJfFjQ
i think it demonstrates the potential for the kind of motile finesse that could be used by robots to complete trades-like tasks.
Not an easy problem, but the assumption is that AGI makes solving such problems tractable.
Japan has been working on healthcare robots for decades.
I think the key word is that the robots "could" replace 95% of economically valuable work, not that they will. Using an example from today: we can and have replaced fast food order takers with kiosks, but there are still a lot of people employed as fast food order takers because that's what customers prefer.
There are unknown issues down that road. Given 1000 years AI could probably replace all work, but I think we’re all on the same page of “could AI replace 95% of work within a timespan that’s meaningful to people alive today?”, and in that term the realization of an AI-powered machine doing all manual labour (even an AGI one) still has a too many unknowns for a meaningful answer.
We were “going to have flying cars in X” for a long time, but it turned out that building a flying car was not actually the problem that needed to be solved in order to make them viable.
I personally don't think they'll be economically viable in the foreseeable future, but they do represent a possible bridge to ubiquitous robot labor.
I'm not saying it's correct or fair that a trader sat at his desk can contribute £20 million to a country's "output", while a builder, working his backside off could maybe add £100k, but that's the world we live in...
But anyway about it, if there is suddenly an influx of manual/physical labor poured into the market, labor prices will drop far below the living cost and all hell will eventually break loose.
A good chunk of the value in the "trades" is in the experience and in the management.
If I can make anyone a painter by giving them a headset [1] and having an "AGI" model tell them exactly how, where, what to paint, how much of the value is the model collecting and how much of it is left for the human being?
[1] https://www.ptc.com/en/resources/augmented-reality/infograph...
There will be zero work, humans will be completely useless economically and we'll just have to hope that some how, all of this wealth is fairly distributed and we don't lose our minds from feeling completely useless.
What you can't imagine happening now, will be possible by deploying the AGI. Things we can't even dream of will be possible. It will be all chaotic and completely unpredictable over night. Eternal life ? No problems, pickup the phone and place your order.
What's appealing about this? I don't know, but billions and upon billions are being poured into it and many "smart" people are striving for it.
Men's way to "give birth"?
That's delusional on a disturbing level. It's as if those people have no clue about the real world, or are willingly lying. All the wealth we have now, is not fairly distributed, and just having more to distribute won't change this. Unless they speculate on putting enough stress on the system to break it, and think it will lead to something better, because...?
I'm pretty sure 95% in that definition would include trade workers.
5% could be something like teachers, babysitters, because you want children to have that human to human connection.
I think it could be thought of as "95%+", meaning even if computer is more intelligent, we'll still want humans because they are humans for some things, because we, ourselves are humans and that's what we want.
Things like healthcare should be fully automated, except for a small percentage again. You have a health problem, you go in, you don't need that human connection unless you have a very specific need, some of the times.
Maybe it's for the best that we start meeting each other in meatspace.
Is
"The Physically Embodied Bear" "95%+ will include taking physical, real-world actions."
not a mention of "construction, manual labour, mechanics, welders, painters" and "blue-collar workers" ?
Others seem to mention it is a sort of feedback look, once we get to 50% AGI I guess that AI itself can help us overcome the physical limitations. I'm sceptical that it is as simple as that, but at the same time can see it as very much possible.
How much do current AIs contribute to their own development? Likely quite a bit, but then again I don't know any AI researchers to ask.
I have the strange feeling that it will be those jobs that will be automated further. There is no need for manual workers in construction - you can have bots build houses, and bots painting them inside. Mechanics are like to be phased out by EVs, there's not even a need to manually change wheels and tires. Everything they do can be automated, and will be automated.
In short -- current AI approaches are great at interpolation and still perform poorly at most extrapolation exercises that a human can take on.
Even at today levels of AI a very large amount of work can be optimized if the domain experts knew how to use the ai tools. As people become more used to using them I don't see an ai winter coming.
Ignoring the fact that wild science fiction has become totally mundane within the last 10 years is putting your head in the sand.
Joseph P. Kennedy, 1929 (paraphrased)
Everyone is attributing high level reasoning and intelligence to LLMs and quite frankly there is little evidence for this being the case.
There is almost certainly an AGI winter coming.
When applied to the correct domains, AI is incredible.
Not disagreeing, just curious what makes you think this is so incredible ? Did you not have enough to watch before ?
Yes it’s easy to guess the job the involves mostly moving information around would be automated but that’s not all jobs by any means.
His AI timelines haven't sped up, only clarified
Is there a way to actually mathematically quantify this better? When people make predictions with percentages like this, I understand what they’re trying to communicate, even if the math isn’t precise. There’s a reason all his percentages are in clean multiples of 5.
Everyone is providing the greatest training set you can now find (since all other venues for training data will gradually disappear behind walls and fees)
http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/history/dartmouth/dartmou...
The target of 95% is still 2070, the 50% is still 2045, means the progress between 2035 and 2045 is now less than before.
So the timeline has sped up and slowed down at the same time
Let me do his job for him: 90% AGI will happen by 2030.
Apple used to use Helvetica, and even an ultra thin version of it, but I wouldn't say they started the trend of using Helvetica.
