undifferentiated to the laymen perhaps, just as I'm sure programmers are to the uninitiated. Guessing if you dug into their past cases, their degrees, grades, etc, you would see differentiation. If you were facing life in prison or the death penalty, you would probably want to know the specifics and not just "lawyers are interchangeable, give me a script to read in court -- its something we should have automated already."

Perhaps a more apt approach would be to expose more information about lawyers to the public, so they can make a better decision. There are sites that do this (showing average win rates, average payout, response time, years in practice etc).

But maybe people don't know about these sites, or there are other reasons people select based on advertising rather than cold logical analysis.

The kind of data you refer to make for bad metrics, and if widely used would create incentives that are at odds with established legal ethics.

You know how study after study has shown that when selling your house, real estate agents always push you to accept early offers regardless of price, but when selling their own house, they will keep it on the market longer in order to get more favorable offers? The real estate system has a built-in conflict of interest. The legal system has a lot of enforceable ethical rules to prevent such things. But the metrics you want to use subvert that.

I’m not going to take your case - the potential payout is too low. I’m not going to take your case - it will take too long to get a resolution. Let’s not examine this line of thinking - it might blow the case wide open. You want the other side to change their behavior? No, it’s better if you demand money. Etc…

Everyone in this thread keeps treating human learning and art the same as clearly automated statistical processes with massive tech backing.

Analogy: the common area had grass for grazing which local animals could freely use. Therefore, it's no problem that megacorp has come along and created a massive machine which cuts down all the trees and grass which they then sell to local farmers. After all, those resources were free, the end product is the same, and their machine is "grazing" just like the animals. Clearly animals graze, and their new "gazelle 3000" should have the same rights to the common grazing area -- regardless of what happens to the other animals.

I'm not sure why you are replying to me. I made no such treatment of them.

The analogy isn't really helpful either. It's trivially obvious that they are different things without the analogy, and the details of how they are different are far too complex for it to help with.

Isn't this expected of late stage capitalism?

Isn't what to be expected? And define late stage capitalism.

This sentiment is constantly echoed on this site -- "just look at past times where tech removed jobs, this is no different". But the difference now is that we will soon have super-humans in terms of intelligence, dexterity (robots), and cost (cheaper, no healthcare, etc.).

I put the onus on the yay-sayers, can you name a job that a human can do that this new AI / robot cannot (or will not soon) do? Otherwise, I think its time to stop drawing false equivalence with agriculture, luddites, etc. Those were "narrow" machines, incapable of coding, writing a symphony, or working in a factory. In the next decade we're talking about building a better human.

I think a better example is to draw a parallel to horses. There is nothing left for them to do; we keep a few around for sport and entertainment, as a novelty. At one time, they were indispensible, but there's no rule that any organism (including humans) has infinite economically viable uses. At some point, everything worth doing (economically) might be automated to the point that human labor no longer makes sense (and hence we have high unemployment). There is no cosmic law written that "if jobs are replaced by tech, new jobs shall fill the space!" Just look at areas in the rust belt where literally nothing replaced the lost jobs -- there is just rampant unemployment, black market dealing / drugs, and despair.

That's a very different argument about a hypothetical future problem that may or may not ever actually materialize. (I'd argue given the current trajectory of AI it probably won't for the foreseeable future.)

But yes, if we develop artificial superinteligence to the level where humans become literally useless (e.g. we don't just automate 90% of everything, but 100%, and there's actually no tasks left in the world that humans can do better or cheaper than computers) then assuming humanity survives we'll need a different economic system for distributing the nearly-unlimited resources resulting from that. Probably in that situation the best thing to do would be to ask the AI to design our new economic system, since it would obviously do a better job at that than any human.

Couldn't it get a lot worse much sooner than that? Even if a handful of industries collapse, its not clear we have more jobs for 100M displaced workers. I just haven't seen any proposals of what that future looks like that seem good, but I do hear "don't worry more jobs will appear". But can anyone say where 50-100M workers will go? All the answers I think of or see seem like things that can easily be automated.

Depending on how much gets automated and how quickly, yes that could be a temporary, short-term problem. I personally think the transition will happen slowly enough that it'll barely be noticeable, but if I'm wrong and we somehow automate 50M people out of a job in the space of a few years, that will indeed lead to an oversupply in the labor market, temporarily resulting in high unemployment and low wages for workers with the affected skillsets (including unskilled workers).

Where displaced workers will go though is not something that can or should be planned out in a centralized fashion, because the best answer to that question is different for each individual and depends on their skills, preferences, and life situation, balanced against the needs and desires of other consumers in the unimaginably complex web that is the global economy.

Despite not knowing exactly where everyone will end up though, I think I can still be confident that they will find something, because the incentives to do so are very strong, both on a personal level (needing to find work) and the entrepreneurial level (finding useful things for displaced workers to do could make you very rich).

As another commenter put it a while back, unemployed workers are an unused resource, and the economy is very good at finding uses for unused resources.

Unintended side effect might be that congress would use their power to make bonds a more profitable avenue of investment, creating a very reliable, high-interest retirement vehicle for average people (rather than getting into the roulette wheel of the stock market). Imagine if USG-backed 15% treasuries were a thing?

Where do you think the money for those 15% interest payments would come from?

There are historical examples of what happens when lawmakers mandate high amounts of money creation. It doesn’t end with the people being better off. It usually destroys the economy.

Unintended side benefit -- those with power are incentivized to raise bond interest, creating a safe investment for others to use.

Just to clarify, the total dimension of birthdays is 365 (Jan 1 through Dec 31), but a 768 dimension continuous vector means there are 768 numbers, each of which can have values from -1 to 1 (at whatever precision floating point can represent). 1 float has about 2B numbers between -1 and 1 iirc, so 2B ^ 768 is a lot more than 365.

I may have misunderstood — don't they test for orthogonality? Orthogonality would seem to drop much of the information in the vectors.

The TLDW : In the 90s clippy was a symbol of a friendly product feature that wanted to help you do one thing (but you could opt out). Clippy wasn't stealing your data, serving you ads, or anything malicious, it just wanted to help you do one specific thing (e.g. write a letter). The clippy movement is about sending a message to big tech that we don't appreciate ads in our start menu, having our data scraped and sold, being forced into dark patterns, having AI try to take jobs and/or destroy industry, blatant theft of work, etc. Basically, "make computers friendly again".

And yet, at the time, everyone (at least devs) hated Clippy!

I liked clippy. You could make him dance.

Yeah, Clippy was one of the early examples of infantilization and annoying anthromorphization in software, no better than the "cutesy" error messages or engagement popups that plague us today. It should be an example of what not to do but I guess nostalgia is a powerful drug.

HN equivalent: someone sees a link to an article and says "why would I read it, when all relevant information has already been incorporated into the comments?" Its the "efficient comments" hypothesis, all information relevant to a rational HN user about the article is already in the comments.

Honestly I feel my skills atrophying if I rely on AI too much, and many people I interact with are much weaker still (trying to vibe code without ever learning). To take your analogy further, having a single speed bike lets you go further faster and doesn't have a big impact on your "skills" (physical in this case), but deferring all transport to cars, and then to an electric scooter so you never have to walk definitely will cause your endurance / physical ability to walk to disappear. We are creatures that require constant use of and exercise of our capabilities or the system crumbles. Especially for high-skill activities (language, piano, video games, programming), proficiency can wane extremely quickly without constant practice.