FR is filled with gullible people who prefer never to read more than a headline.
Sam Altman has stated that he loves capitalism. He thinks it can be improved upon.
There are plenty of us around here who consider the concept of a UBI to be somewhat compatible with free-market capitalism. Personally, I believe it is connected to intellectual property or, as I prefer to call it, artificial property.
Intellectual property predates America in British common law and is encoded into the Constitution as a power reserved to the federal government through laws written by Congress and treaties made by the president and ratified by congress. But this property borrows value from the people and their natural rights (e.g. the right to copy a method or device that embodies someone else’s innovation).
The people should be justly compensated for the “limited time” suspension of their natural rights. UBI could be tied to taxes on IP, levies, or even the GNP. For it to work, it cannot be means tested. The only test must be whether the recipient is a citizen and under the appropriate taxing authority. Perhaps residency should be a factor.
I personally doubt that it will improve upon capitalism. Based upon the data available, it may, but then if the person or people who come up with the input data are listened to in the first place, would the same changes suggested not do the same?
To me AI is somewhat of a scam. Because it is not intelligence. What it is, is some finely crafted algorithms that simulate a degree of intelligence based upon the data available to it. The improvements that he mentions are to refine those algorithms even more, if that is even possible. What computers do perform much faster than humans, is the collection of data, and the ability to assemble the data into a format. The way the data is formatted is again done by formatting algorithms provided to it.
Without people designing these algorithms, as well as, the data coming from the minds of humans and then entered by humans into databases using other programs designed by humans, there would be no AI whatsoever. I'll give credit to those who have done these tasks and those who have been wise enough to build upon what existed to bring them all together. However, it was only made possible by humans. The computer could never have done it on its own, and will never be able do so, without the assistance of humans. Computers do not think, and will never have the capability of thinking. It can only do what it is told to do by one or more humans assisting it, period. However, there are many humans who are deceitful and will work to convince people that machines are gaining their own intelligence. This is where the word gullible does come into play. Even very smart people can be gullible.
What happens when AI is given data from both sides of all arguments for it to examine. What if more than two sides of an argument exist and AI has all of those arguments to take in as input? Would it start to contradict itself?
Just like I take exception to your term of labeling people as gullible. For you have no way of knowing if they are gullible or not. People have varying amounts of time that they can devote to gaining more knowledge about a subject of which they know little to nothing about, such as the topic of AI, for example.
Now, I'll readily admit that my response was made by reading the headline, because if he did say he hopes to break capitalism, which it turns out that he did say, then I'm interested to know what he hopes to replace capitalism with. As it turns out, he does admit that capitalism is the best form of government ever conceived. For that I will give him credit, but as you can see I will also admonish him for his poor choice of words. Not very bright for a person who does exhibit degrees of intelligence, but alas, he is only human after all and prone to making mistakes as all humans do. None in the species are perfect, though some come closer to perfection than others. 🙂
A better choice for you, would have been to use the words, quickly triggered. 🙂
I think we need to start calling it by a more accurate name, SIDCAF, for simulated intelligence data collector and formatter. 🙂
Now ask yourself, who or what actually created this response? 🙂