It's actually the opposite. People who are "born smart", will leverage AI to get more knowledgeable even faster, use it to learn new things faster, use it to churn through data to find patterns and opportunities, and use it to do labor for them, so they can make even more money than those not born smart, who will just use AI to ask it what's 3x3 and if the earth is flat.
Inequalities have been growing for a while now, either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works, probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
>either we have less and less smart people, or it just does not work like you think it works
How do you think I think it works?
All I said was that AI will increase inequality as smart people will use it as an amplifier of their skills and intelect to get wealthier. The rampant inequality we already had before AI is mostly due to government fiscal policies revolving around endless currency inflation increasing assets prices of asset holders while devaluing wages and savings of the working class, but this is a entirely different topic I didn't cover because I was only talking about what smart people will do with AI to get wealthier, the same way how home computers and the internet allowed smart people to become wealthier 20+ years ago. You then spinning this into some accusations I never said without a an argument to back it up, feels in bad faith and breaking HN rules.
Also, even smart people can also become/remain poor because it takes more than just raw intellect to get wealthy, even with AI, but in general, smart people are orders of magnitude more likely to become financially successful than dumb people, fact.
> probably because your take is super naive and barely scratches the surface of first order effects while ignoring everything else
Please, explain what you think my take and what I'm ignoring. Because i feel like you missed my point entirely and are going on tangents parallel mostly unrelated to what I said. Or do you enjoy throwing accusations in disagreement without a counter argument to back up your PoV?
You seem to think "being smart" will matter in a society which doesn't need the labor output of "smart people". You'll be lumped in with all the rest. Nothing will matter but who controls the capital now.
>You seem to think "being smart" will matter in a society which doesn't need the labor output of "smart people". You'll be lumped in with all the rest.
And you seem to think "being smart" just means being another replaceable college-educated white-collar corporate drone dependent on someone giving you the job you want, while mine and the general accepted definition of a "smart" person is one that can make their desired outcome happen regardless of circumstances, education and place of employment, and hence avoid being "lumped in with all the rest" because they always find a way out of any difficult situation to come out on top, both personally and financially.
Like a friend of mine without even a highschool degree became a tree surgeon and his business is making enough money now that rivals the rates of tech and finance bros in London. That's what being smart is. You adapt and find lucrative opportunities on the market.
> Nothing will matter but who controls the capital now.
When was this ever NOT the case? Without inherited generational wealth you're at the mercy of the capital/asset owning class to make a living.
> Like a friend of mine without even a highschool degree became a tree surgeon and his business is making enough money now that rivals the rates of tech and finance bros in London
Intelligent or "smarts" is not measured by how successful you are or how much money you make.
Also great for your friend, but no one would hire him to do that if machines could do it for them
> When was this ever NOT the case? Without inherited generational wealth you're at the mercy of the capital/asset owning class to make a living.
What are you talking about? The capital class always relied on the professional class just as much. A wealthy person who owns a machine shop relies on machinists to make money. :/
Yeah, but what if we are at the point we don’t need machinists any more?
The rich get richer, even if you’re enriched solely with an above-average intelligence. The bar for break even just moved up. If the US thought 13 million unemployed/underemployed people was problem, just wait until it’s 30 million. They could afford a 10% drag on the economy, who wants to bet they can double it to 20%?
>Intelligent or "smarts" is not measured by how successful you are or how much money you make.
I never said that. I side intelligent people are adaptable to environmental challenges to not worry too much about being left out economically. You're just doing a bad faith interpretation of my comment.
>A wealthy person who owns a machine shop relies on machinists to make money. :/
>No, general accepted definition of "smart" is not "whoever is capable to amass the most money/power/manipulate with no regards to anything else".
I never said that, you're just putting words in my mouth at this point. I side intelligent people are adaptable to challenges to not worry too much about being left out economically. You're just doing a bad faith interpretation of my comment.
>Most of those are sociopaths, narcissists and such.
Source for this? Sounds like cope losers being left behind tell themselves.
There is one thing worth pointing out here though. Being smart doesn't necessarily mean you've got the ability to make money from said intelligence.
Like on average it probably helps, but if your interests don't lie in what makes money in the current economy, then even being the next Einstein won't really change much. If you're a genius that wants to help teach people in a school or university, you're going to make a lot less money than if your interests lay in setting up a business or getting into finance.
AI can help you do things faster, but it won't make you financially successful if the things you're interested in don't have a lot of economic demand.
It’s more of a barrier than a sufficient condition. I know a bunch of smart people who just have no interest in a renumerative career. But I don’t know anybody who has a lucrative white collar job who isn’t at least top 10% cognitively.
It's actually the opposite and more complicated than that. AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
> AI-developed nootropics and germline editing will saturate human intelligence across individuals.
This is a forum, not a Bayesian-updating machine. So common courtesy is for you to take up the burden of proof for your own statements. Why do you think this is the null?
