> $150/month/resident

Was this supposed to be negligible?

Google AI suggests the rents there run from $5k to $9k a month, so, is 1.7% to 3% of the rent negligible?

I pay this much for a trash collection service that doesn't seem to ever show up and fines me if I get the unlisted rules wrong.

The unit I was looking at was listed $6k a month, so that’s about right.

Maybe negligible was a strong word but I’ll say “a good value” instead.

The building I randomly picked out wasn’t particularly large, either. The larger the building, the smaller this cost becomes.

I know someone living in a 900 unit tower. A doorman is an obvious benefit in that building.

Compared to many condo fees that is tiny, yes

Welcome to new york

I've tried to do this but with learning poker, and it's sort of a mixed bag. You kind of have to know what you don't know before you can get anything useful out of it. It can sort of help going from "I understand this concept, but not instinctively" to "I've drilled this enough that I could do things like this in my sleep", but it takes a lot of iteration and asking questions before it can settle on a series of instructive examples that each build on top of each other. You're still much better off with a well-written textbook.

I think it makes sense that the largest practitioner and beneficiary of a bad thing takes the brunt of the blame. No one can go around memorizing every factory that does bad stuff and which products originate from them.

I want to shop on your version of Amazon

> If I feed in 15 crown/root canal invoices into AI asking it it's opinion, it will tell me I have a very bad mouth

This is just blatantly made up. This doesn't even slightly resemble something an LLM would say

This is just not how math has ever worked and seems like a completely incorrect lens to apply to this situation.

Someone has no hobbies

> or that crops in the rest of the world are particularly resistant to mechanization

The causality is somewhat mixed up here. People in the US don’t, for the most part, grow rice because it doesn’t pay a competitive wage in the US. So parts of the world with lower wages end up growing most of the rice.

The US is one of the largest rice exporters in the world. We just don't eat so much here.

Comparative advantage.

> economy is 100% automated?

People thought tractors would automate everything too. They didn’t. There’s more to life and work than being able to generate text.

There has been a dramatic shift in the role of agriculture in the US economy. As a share of it, in 1820 72% of workers were in agriculture, in 2017 this had shrunk to 1.6%. Tractors played a big role in this transition.

People keep bringing up other revolutions, but those never had the infinite regress properties of “if it gets a bit better, your job will be gone, too!”

What are all those other new jobs? What do you do with all the people who have been laid off?

Robots are around the corner for the physical part.

There’s no evidence that superhuman robots are around the corner, and even less evidence that such robots will be price competitive compared with human labor.

It is a given. At the very least they will be used as soldiers since they are tireless and less costly to lose.

I bet my bottom dollar we will see it in a decade or two, tops.

Quadcopters are way cheaper and more effective at warfighting than a humanoid bot. I'll bet my bottom dollar it's never.

Why do people like you continue to say stuff so wrong in the face of the extremely rapid and accelerating progress in AI development from 2022-2026.

Delusional. Pure delusion.

We're talking about robotics, not AI? AI-driven robotics so far has zero practical applications

This is absolutely not true. The reason nearly every mathematician believes the Riemann hypothesis is true is because out of zillions of discovered non-trivial zeros, so far 100% have been located at (0.5, ). If we had only discovered 3 such points, nobody would give it much credence.

There is a difference between formulating a hypothesis based on observations and treating it as true. As I understood it, things that are not proven yet will not be used to formally prove other things.