Surprised this is on top. Human beings have been using tools to augment memory since writing. Lots of these tools are faulty but then so too is memory.
If you want to remember everything good luck, but I am not convinced.
I've reached my limit and I'm going to tap out of reading the blogosphere. It almost exclusively contains half-baked musings and overly reductive conclusions of little value.
Ultimately it seems the question ought to be “is the code they wrote with AI buggier than the code they would have written without”, not “is the code they wrote with AI 100% bug free”. I doubt that any team doing a significant refactor from a language they don’t know could make bug free code on any reasonable timeline, AI or not.
If the question is the former, though, unless it’s horrendously buggy then I wonder if the speed increase offsets the “buggier code” (if the code even is buggier) because if they finish early they can bug bash for longer.
I guess it depends on wether the devs are able and willing to even still try to look at the old code, when they have a nice and easy to understand description in front of them what they're supposed to implement. And sure, at the end of the day management just cares about what costs less, including any accidents caused by AI giving the wrong description. Might also depend on who'll use that tech. If it's a bank, this could cost millions, if not billions. If it's a medical device (yeah I really don't think it is. I mean I really hope it isn't), it could cost lives. But at least then we can blame the AI, so nobody is at fault.
I think the diagram on a linear scale makes the stark point that to Elon Musk, there is not really a difference between someone worth $499 and someone worth $499M, even though to me there is a massive difference between those people.
Whenever I have to make a big decision I think about what’s important to me. I give 3-8 things like money, learning, commute time, etc. a score from 1-5. Then I score different alternatives 1-5 based on how well I think they do on those things. Then I multiply and add the numbers together and I have a sense of what I should do. Usually it’s the highest score but sometimes I change a number because I realize something is more/less important than I thought.
Only you know what is important to you, and I bet lots of folks here can help inform how different options might score.
I disagree, it’s too soon to tell whether the prediction is accurate. Maybe it’s obvious to you, but I’d at least like to see that prediction justified. I don’t see how accepting an unjustified opinion is thinking.
The future world population can be predicted fairly far in advance (many decades) because it depends on current fertility rates and the fact that life expectancy doesn't change drastically. And even fertility rates follow predicable trends.
That assumes that new humans can be only by women.
There is no reason, why artificial womb, possibly with multiple selection box for genes, is not a very realistic possibility, along with state funded child rearing services. (see Norway)
1. Reproduction is already heavily subsidized in many countries, be it direct grants, tax breats and so on. This is nothing new.
2. Most people actually want children. Getting someone to actually procreate with that will share burden.
3. Investing in children should hel to fund future pension payments. There is pretty good case for self-interest.
4. China won't care, neither will Russia or other parts of world.
5. Countries that will do that will have a better outcome than countries full of retirees. Unless AI takes over, natural selection will take care of rest
If this happens, I assume Chinese breeding facilities will optimize for producing children with high cognitive ability. Via selective breeding, embryo selection, or genetic engineering.
If you want to remember everything good luck, but I am not convinced.