Let's think this through

1: AI automates software production

2: Demand for software goes through the roof

3: AI has lowered the skill ceiling required to make software, so many more can do it with a 'good-enough' degree of success

4: People are making software for cheap because the supply of 'good enough' AI prompters still dwarfs the rising demand for software

5: The value of being a skilled software engineer plummets

6: The rich get richer, the middle class shrinks even further, and the poor continue to get poorer

This isn't just some kind of wild speculation. Look at any industry over the history of mankind. Look at Textiles

People used to make a good living crafting clothing, because it was a skill that took time to learn and master. Automation makes it so anyone can do it. Nowadays, automation has made it so people who make clothes are really just operating machines. Throughout my life, clothes have always been made by the cheapest overseas labour that capital could find. Sometimes it has even turned out that companies were using literal slaves or child labour.

Meanwhile the rich who own the factories have gotten insanely wealthy, the middle class has shrunk substantially, and the poor have gotten poorer

Do people really not see that this will probably be the outcome of "AI automates literally everything"?

Yes, there will be "more work" for people. Yes, overall society will produce more software than ever

McDonalds also produces more hamburgers than ever. The company makes tons of money from that. The people making the burgers usually earn the least they can legally be paid

It is entirely possible that silicon is just strictly not capable of reaching the computational capacity of meat

It is almost certain that silicon cannot reach the complexity of a human brain in the same "fits inside a human skull" footprint that brains have to adhere to

We already have machines that do the jobs of many people, with only a single human operator. Think of a simple excavator. Using it, a single human can move more dirt per hour than dozens of people with shovels possibly could. Arguably the human pilot is operating as a stand-in for the machines "brain"

I think you have mistaken "understanding the problem" with "knowing a solution to the problem"

I disagree, but I'm open to being convinced

I just don't think you can solve a problem in any way without understanding it first, at least at a high level

I think if you know a solution you want to reach then you can work backwards from it in a brute force way to reach the solution you want

But I don't think you can take a problem where you aren't sure what the solution is and brute force the solution without understanding the problem

For example does your definition of problem demand a problem only exists if a human consciously thinks of it?

If no, then almost every single 'problem' that's ever existed was solved by the random walk of genetics. Nature has 'solved' some of the most difficult energy conservation optimizations in living systems with nothing but time and randomness. Think of how many problems had to be solved over time to go from an animal that swims to one that flys?

First off, tech salaries vary wildly between cities. Between the US and Canada you will also find much different salaries

Startups in particular are difficult to analyze because they might have very different resources and funding

Often startups that don't have a lot of funding will offer equity in exchange for a lower base salary. Well funded startups may offer higher salaries, but probably offer less equity

My advice is to pursue jobs you want to have and see what they offer you. If you are still excited to work for them after you hear the number, go for it.

Then many who do get that chance choose not to, they choose a less risky path

It is very few people who even can attempt to flip the coin ten times

And "the 1%" can flip it as many times as they want until it lands on heads 10 times in a row

Most people are never even given an at-bat. They're born without money/opportunity (on the bench), and they will have to stay on the bench for life.

Some working / middle class people get one or two at-bats. They swing and maybe hit the home run, but maybe instead have a safe base hit or they strike out. That was their chance. Afterwards they're out of money/opportunity.

The top 0.1% or so get as many at-bats as they want. Their parents own the team and the ballpark so they just keep swinging until they get their home run, and then spend the rest of the game talking about how life is a meritocracy, and you succeed by being the best.

Computers, and knowledge in general, is the the most accessible it’s ever been, in the history of mankind.

So you’re claiming that the trillions of dollars that have been spent trying to uplift the youth of yesteryear were a complete an utter waste?

Or has social media been the somma Huxley was talking about all along?

Nothing stops anyone from reading and learning, having hope for the future, and pursuing it. WhatsApp had a staff of like 15-25 people. Linux wa started by some dork with an idea and a lot of time.

Treating the world like victims that need protecting isn’t the play.

Well, take a look around?

The youth cannot buy homes. They aren't starting families. The wealth gap between the older and younger generations is enormous

Do you really think we have been successful in "uplifting the youth"?

That’s me, asking the same thing.

Having well connected parents and family is huge, and a big part of why a lot of these people are so wildly successful

Her father was head of a Federal govt agency at one point and a VP at Enron (I know, I know).

Also, a direct descendant of the Fleischmann yeast family.

Her mother also had worked as a Congressional aide.

People like to say that success is right time, right place, but that's not all there is to it. You also need sufficient resources to take advantage of opportunity

Sitting on a gold mine does not matter if you don't have a shovel

Having a shovel doesn't matter if you don't know where to dig

And you need to have enough time ('runway' in startup speak) to actually try digging for gold in the first place

1: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/the-wireless/373065/the-pencilswo...

https://www.gog.com/en/ https://store.epicgames.com/en-US/

People forget there's nothing inherently wrong with monopolies. It's only when they abuse their monopoly position that there's issues.

Steam's customers are game publishers. Steam provides a service to connect publishers to their audience. Their business model is not "takes money from customers in exchange for goods". It is "takes a cut of each sale that a publisher makes on their platform"

Given that there is no real friction for end users to install Epic Launcher or GoG launcher, is Steam really a monopoly to their customers, the publishers?

If Steam tries to muscle a publisher, they can refuse to publish on Steam and still have options. When popular games aren't on Steam, it does seem like people have absolutely no problem installing another launcher/storefront to access it

Look at the massive success of Fortnite, which is only on the Epic Launcher

They could probably lock this hardware down to only allow steam games, but they don't

Yes, for sure we are limited by our biology. Someone born crippled will never be an olympic body builder. Someone born stupid will never be a math researcher.

And of course we have a lot of inputs like family, upbringing, schooling, culture, etc which all shape us

However, humans are capable of being inputs into our own system as well. It is not easy, necessarily, but I do strongly believe that we are capable of shaping our own identities as a result of being able to be our own inputs.

We can also choose to relocate, change friend groups, change careers, whatever else we need to do to change our external inputs as well

Of course we are limited by physical reality and limited by things like money and opportunity, our intelligence and aptitude and such, but as long as we can find something within our capabilities, we can shape ourselves into it

For example, I am nearly 40. I have ice skated my whole life but never used to play ice hockey.

I'm never going to play in a pro league, I'm already too old even if I was phenomenal somehow. But it is well within my capability to join a beginner old timers league and play with people my skill level if I want to

There are psychological tricks that can be used to manipulate people into acting in certain ways. They're not niche experimental techniques. They're widely used in PR, advertising, politics, and business.

Virtually all of them create the illusion of free choice where none exists.

Almost everyone can be convinced they made a free choice, when in fact they were influenced into it without their awareness.

The irony is that the people who do this to others aren't any more free than their victims.

Which ends up in an interesting place, where everyone feels free but most choices are forced.

What really drives all of these "conscious" choices?