Item — HN Reader

We don’t eat intelligence: bikes, bottles, food, energy… have room for improvement but I hardly see how AGI would replace them.

Same for physical services like labors, miners and cooks, even taxi/bus drivers for +99% of the world. Automation immensely improve their efficiency and the Modern Times is the past for half of the globe, but AGI isn’t the main facilitator.

Replace all (most*) Silicon Valley -and cousins- similar "products" and services, perhaps yes !

1 comments

You don’t see how robots would replace all these roles? I take it you never seen a Waymo or read about how agriculture needs a tiny fraction of humans in the US vs a couple of decades ago? And those aren’t even “AGI-level” solutions…

Waymo aren’t build, maintained and disposed by robots only. Even if they were we’ve still to see how that can be deployed (and make sense economically) to more than a couple percentiles of the richest people in the top cities. That has nothing in common with "replacing the humans".

Agriculture efficiency mainly comes from last century fertilizer. The modern robot trucks are also limited to some richest countries and farmers and have nothing to do with AGI.

Your vague dream of AGI solutionism missed the barriers to technologie deployment: raw ressources availability, politics, demography, energy… IA can have a small impact there but it certainly won’t replace ALL products. How would a computer replace a mining truck or a reactor turbine?

You’re missing the point so completely, I don’t see why I should keep engaging.

If I missed your point you’d be wonderful to clarify it, perhaps by detailing the first post "replacing all products":

- what do you consider a product?

- ALL as in Everything (obviously not I guess)?

Regarding "don’t you see how robots…" I clearly see the theory but also can’t see how it would happen in reality for the reasons I mentions in my precedent post: mainly access to ressources/energy to build/maintain those robots for a signifiant time scale and socio-politico barriers.

I’d be glad you reconsider explaining your point because I only see vague allusions, but if you want to stop the conversation here that’s all up to you.