You are still underestimating what AI can and will do. Those 30 million jobs can also be automated. The only job which can't be automated is owner because the owner isn't based on what they do but the fact that they real the profits. An economy that is just Gates and Elon isn't an economy.

Also, the other 7.97 billion of will riot if we are all told to go die. Those 30 million will not be able to stand up to that. The sea of humanity will demand the means of survival, which will be UBI. We did it in Rome, we did it in COVID, and we'll definitely do it with an AI induced layoff. That assumes of course that humans are still in charge of anything.

They'll just makes it a tool doctors use. The doctor will get your symptoms, and ask relevant questions, feed it to the AI which will spit out a diagnosis, and then the doctor will read off what the AI said.

There will be websites that say things like "this is only for informational purposes, please seek actual medical assistance for an emergency" while walking you through the process of performing great surgery.

Doctors? I would say doctors are one of the few high paid professions that really deserve it.

Most of the money stolen by the medical system goes to hospital administrator and insurance companies.

Doctors literally save lives and it's hard work. The people who will resist AI doctors will most likely be patients who don't fully trust AI. I think we'll have a human mouthpiece for an actual AI doctor for quite a long time.

Palm-E already showed that putting our current AIs into ribbit bodies works decently well. As we get smarter bots more people will try this and come to the same conclusion. I don't think robotics is as far away as it seems.

I am so opposed to make-work jobs. If we can support all of humanity then we MUST do so. People can take up hobbies (and should be encouraged to) like painting and running.

As for the fact that it will one day be immoral to let humans do work which puts them in charge of human life, instead of leaving it to a more competent computer, I completely agree.

Who is going to buy their products?

Also, TRUE wealth is the ability to make the world into what you want it to be. Money is only useful insomuch as it lets you shape the world, whether that is through transforming a building into your dwelling or convincing a senator to pass a law you like.

The only reason we dislike billionaires is because their wealth gives them outsized influence on society. If all it did was buy them extra stuff no one would care.

I think it was the mention of retirees going back to work that made everyone think you were on the side of people need bosses and paychecks to feel valuable.

Businesses already pay employees. When they don't have employees they can pay that same amount of money directly into a UBI. Businesses can't exist without summertime buying their product so the government will quickly start instituting UBI, just like they did during the pandemic.

Yes, but the work we'll do will be fundamentally different. One summer I'll build a garden. That winter I'll learn carpentry and build a chair. Since I don't have to use my carpentry to survive I can do things which interest me and when I'm bored of it I can move into something else. We will definitely DO things but we'll do them because we want to and they make us happy rather than because someone is forcing us to on pain of death.

The effectiveness is more about seeing if the AI says it is 40% certain does that make people trust it or not.

You need at least three states: I am certain (somewhere between 80 and 90%)

My best guess is (somewhere between 60 and 80%)

I don't know (less than 60%)

I agree with all of these. My only complaint was that I want to do whatever harm reduction we can while we work towards implementing these ideas.

What is the solution then? Do we let the poor starve hoping it will active everyone else's empathy centers in just the right way? Do we start a violent revolution that ends with an oppressive dictatorship that makes everyone's life worse? I get that saying "we've got philanthropy so our work here is done" isn't good but why would we try to stop them from helping? If I'm dying of cancer I'd really like medicine to help me, but I'm not going to turn down the person who is patching up my gunshot wound even if it is delaying me getting my cancer meds.

I agree that we need to fix there economic system and the existence of billionaires proves that we are broken.

I'm not, however, going to get mad at the ones who are trying to make the world better when there are so many trying to make the world worse.

The goal is to reduce human suffering and create a more equitable world. ANYTHING which furthers that goal is good. So Bill Gates foundation is good and should be recognized as such. Having no need for philanthropists would be better but that isn't the choice we are offered right now.

Getting rich of stocks isn't hoarding anything. That wealth doesn't actually exist, is all based on how much they could theoretically make on the open market if they sold their stocks. Of course if he did sell those socks they would lose value.

The government could choose to prioritize taking care of it's citizens. Those of us in democracies could view for politicians who support these priorities (and I do). Unfortunately we, as a country, don't view for these politicians. The existence of philanthropists isn't causing the government to do anything.

The ideal situation is that a democratically rejected and accountable government should be doing this work. They aren't though so someone needs to step into the breach.

The misalignment is of course undesirable but to act as if it's some evil plot is ridiculous. His work on ending malaria will do more to help humanity than we can possibly imagine. Tackling the single biggest cause of human death is more than enough to justify his philanthropy.

How dare he want to save children's lives. Every single philanthropic organization has funds that make money. If they didn't invest and grow a fund, they would quickly die, and the goal they were set up for would suffer.

Any of these countries could kick him out, just like they could kick out any business or other NGO that was trying to operate in the country.

He's doing a good job of redistributing his own assets so this isn't the gotcha you imagine it to be.

Even moving is acting. I think you'll just want to replace the whole thing and don't have any actors at all. That will require the system to know what emotions you are trying to convey and be good at it.

Actors are not cheap and your friends likely have no idea how to act.

Yes all of those are good goals we should strive for, but what should we do regarding technological advancement while we work towards those goals?

So what is your solution? What do we do in this world you believe we live in?

This argument is just socialism (which I'm in favor of BTW).

Governments control out lives, determining love and death. Therefore we should have the right, as a people, to control those governments. Thus arises democracy.

Businesses control or lives, determining what we can and can't acquire obvious those things necessary for life. Therefore we should have a right, as a population, to control business. Thus arises socialism.

The argument here is exactly the same. AI will have such a powerful impact on our lives that we the public deserve the right to control it and therefore it must be nationalized.

Agreed. It's a stupid opinion but they did ask for what would possibly cause it to slow down and, of they were right, this would slow it down.

The down votes are probably for saying it's true rather than saying it's a method by which a show down could happen.

Absolutely 100%. We will be the casualties when the AIs go to war over whatever they think is important. They won't even notice when they step all over our species and squish us like bugs.