> The tech succeeds at the goal - humans are mostly not needed anymore other than for menial low-paid work. Economy slows, then almost completely stops.
Economy slows or stops when AI robots are producing goods and services for much lower cost than human workers? Perhaps, but I think the obvious next development would be massive deflation: even on welfare or UBI, you would be able to afford the same quantity of goods/services than with normal wage today, because the stuff produced by robots would be significantly cheaper. Just like stuff produced in factories is much cheaper than hand-made stuff we had before factories were invented.
Who is going to have the income to pay taxes to support that enormous welfare state that covers the needs of 99% of the population? The AI company owners? Why would they allow that? Presumably, if they own all the robots in the world, that includes the military drones.
LLMs fundamentally work by predicting the next word (token). But that should not be used to diminish their potential capabilities. It's like saying that human brains "just predict (or produce) the next electrical impulse". Fundamentally correct, but says nothing about the potential emergent capabilities of scaled-up systems that work like that.
Emergent properties of complex systems should not be diminished just because the underlying operating principle is simple.
So much this - so many people seem to miss the forest from the trees that emergent properties are not bound to the complexity of the underlying mechanics.
All of life arises (maybe) from very simple subatomic particles, and at each stage you can repeat this refrain, complexity increasing as you stack.
I use similar workflow. Here is my refactoring and code quality prompt that I regularly run:
Perform a thorough analysis of the <project_name> project (the code and the documentation).
- Explore the project, go over all important files one by one and look for any mistakes or possible bugs.
- Look for refactoring opportunities and ways to improve code quality and organization.
- Identify any potential cruft/bloat, to ensure our code is clean and logically laid out. Keep in mind that efficient and good quality code needs to avoid over-engineered constructs and needless complexity. Avoid complicated logic where simple solutions would be more elegant.
- Pay attention to comments: There should be enough of them to document the intent and provide high-level overview of the code logic, but not too much; avoid/remove excessive comments that simply restate the code logic or do not provide any useful information.
- Every important function should have a top-level docstring comment that clearly explains its purpose, high-level logic overview, arguments, and return values.
- Analyze the names of constants/variables/functions/classes and other code elements: could some of them be renamed to make their purpose more clear?
- Analyze the documentation, uncover any potential inaccuracies/omissions and ensure the docs reflect the code.
- Brainstorm ideas for improvements of the code and docs.
After you finish the analysis, save an analysis report into "<project_name>_analysis_report.md" in the project root folder.
> Maybe when I can have the same interaction as with my fellow humans, where I can describe the issue (which is not the problem) and they can go solve it and provide either a sound plan to make the issue disappear.
I don't know what LLMs are you using, but frontier models do this regularly for me in programming.
Without prodding it along and giving it “hints”? And monitoring it like a baby trying their first steps? If yes, please give me the name of the model so I can try it too.
Yes, mostly without those things. I regularly use Claude Opus 4.6/4.7, Gemini 3.1 Pro and GPT-5.4/5.5. For diagnosing and planning, I always use the highest thinking setting, perhaps with the exception of GPT, where xHigh is pretty costly and slow, so I tend to use High unless the problem is really hard. After the plan is done, for implementation I often use cheaper models, like Sonnet 4.6.
I don't think it's possible to clearly separate personal vehicles from commercial ones. The technology is the same. Any regulation that tries to ban the one while allowing the other would be a huuuge clusterfuck.
I mean sure, they both have engines and wheels, but they're already distinguishable in the eyes of the law. Commercial and personal vehicles are registered separately
Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing banning cars. Just would be good to provide alternatives
> Anyway, I don't think anyone is proposing banning cars.
Following the conversation, the subject has not ever been a yes/no referendum on cars.
It was if there has been a moral net positive/net negative for vehicular technology (as a comparable technology to AI)...which has consistently been walked back to a nebulous "personal vehicles are a net negative because of how they make people think". That's eerily close to the views on AI today.
> I don't think it's possible to clearly separate personal vehicles from commercial ones
What? Of course it is, you can easily impose rules that apply to personal vehicles that don't apply to public transport, logistical vehicles or emergency vehicles.
As an example in my neighborhood in the Netherlands, there's basically no streets around me where personal vehicles are allowed, but there are no restrictions to buses, delivery vehicles, moving vans, or ambulances.
> Any regulation that tries to ban the one while allowing the other would be a huuuge clusterfuck
How? You don't even have to go fancy with specialized license plates or anything like that, it's literally just common sense.
> "Other people's cars" facilitate thousands of aspects of modern living and society that you apparently take for granted. You can choose to ONLY look at the negative impacts, but the comment as stated is ridiculous.
THIS! I am shocked that some people don't realize that modern civilization and our modern quality of life depends on cars to a huge degree, even for people don't personally drive. Such a lack of knowledge about modern industry and logistics..
In aggregate, benefits of cars outweight the cons for 99% of people. Perhaps if you live right next to a busy highway, you might the the exception..
> THIS! I am shocked that some people don't realize that modern civilization and our modern quality of life depends on cars to a huge degree, even for people don't personally drive. Such a lack of knowledge about modern industry and logistics..
I'm more shocked that somebody thinks that modern civilization and logistics depend on personal cars. Can ypu expand on your statement that modern industry and logistic depend on persobal cars?
The distinction between personal and commercial cars is too small to allow effectivelly banning one while keeping the other. Any country that tries to do so will inevitably overshoot in one of the directions: either the ban will be too permitting, so people will still use personal cars, just less as today, or the ban will be too broad, which would negatively affect the commercial or logistical use cases and the economy will suffer.
I don't think anyone is arguing about banning ALL vehicles, much less all personal vehicles, but rather to simply become less car-centric. Most cities which top the list of highest quality of life worldwide all have fairly good public transportation options and/or are very walkable.
With respect, a few people are indeed making that argument.
Many car haters constantly play this motte-and-bailey game where they insinuate that cars are evil and should be eliminated, then they pull back and say “oh no, we don’t want to ban them” when confronted. But it’s clear that some subset really would prefer to eliminate civilian vehicles.
I like smart urbanism and pedestrian-centric development, but the anti-car culture annoys me to no end. It is self-defeating. The average person in the US has a car, and likes having a car, so you should start every argument with that assumption. We made a lot of progress on improving pedestrian access in the early 2000s by focusing on a positive message. But I guess there’s no room for non-adversarial messaging anymore.
> Personal cars are not the same as using them for logistics.
Yes, they are in fact, the same. You cannot introduce such massively useful technology into the world and then say that it would be used only for logistics and not for personal transportation. Short of a worldwide totalitarian government, such arbitrary restriction would be completely unenforceable.
It is possible to shape things with regulation, but only to some degree. With any great technology, you have to take the good with the bad. And the good outweights the bad in any historical technology. AI will be no exception.
Exactly. These arguments are all buttressed by the "if everyone would just..." argument [1]. In fact, everyone will not just. And so if you want to build your Utopia, it will have to be compelled by force.
Sure, on your own land, just like you can drive more-or-less whatever you want as long as you stick to your own property, today, including vehicles that aren't "street legal".
On public roads? No reason we'd have to license private cars for that, at least not for just any purpose.
How about the fact that any country that tries to ban private ownership of cars would completely fall behind in all car-related technologies, infrastructure and services, which would very soon negatively affect all those commercial or logistical use cases that our civilization vitally depends on?
Trying to ban all private cars while keeping our car-dependent civilization working is unrealistic, no matter how you look at it.
Any country that tries to ban private ownership of nuclear weapons would fall completely behind in all nuclear-weapon-related technologies. Should we therefore encourage the private ownership of nuclear weapons?
Our civilization does not depend on aviation very much, it's a specialized service. If all planes disappeared tomorrow, we will weather it pretty well. Cars are a completely different animal: they are ubiquitous and don't really have an alternative in many cases.
Yeah we red-queens-raced ourselves into a position where now we have to have private cars, because if we don't we're screwed. Turned cheap 25-minute bike commutes into expensive 25-minute car commutes that can't safely or practically be biked, and shoved everything so far apart on account of giant parking lots and big highways cuttings straight through cities that the nearest bus stop is a half-mile away and that 25-minute car commute would take ninety minutes by bus, so now we have to have cars.
There's no quick fix at this point, it'd be a century-long project to undo the damage now, but a hypothetical world where we'd harnessed only the good parts of cars and not let them completely reshape the places we live down to the neighborhood level would sure be a lot nicer.
I'd argue that's /because/ we regulated aviation (and also some annoying physics limitations), so we never had the option of becoming fully dependent in the way lots of places have on cars.
Less than a century ago, so within living memory (albeit only just), literally nowhere on Earth was car dependent.
UBI only means you won't starve or die of exposure. It doesn't mean that people who are already rich today won't become so obscenely rich tomorrow they are above the law or can change the law (and decide who gets medical treatment or even take your UBI away).
Uhm... yes? The cost of downloading pirated music is essentially zero. The only reason why people use services like Spotify is because it's extremely cheap while being a bit more convenient. But jack up the price and the masses will move to sail the sea again.
The cost of stealing has always been essentially zero. Same argument can be made for streaming, and yet Netflix is neither cheap nor struggling for subscribers.
Economy slows or stops when AI robots are producing goods and services for much lower cost than human workers? Perhaps, but I think the obvious next development would be massive deflation: even on welfare or UBI, you would be able to afford the same quantity of goods/services than with normal wage today, because the stuff produced by robots would be significantly cheaper. Just like stuff produced in factories is much cheaper than hand-made stuff we had before factories were invented.
reply