I disagree with "AI cannot work otherwise." LLMs already do. You often make "factual" statements with utmost confidence. When checking those in the background, I discover you're often mistaken. I have no issue with any person not being correct. A lot of what we discuss is emergent and trendy.
Point is, there's no value in always being confrontational, but you need to be aware that your assertions are often behind the curve. For example, your wordplay on AI not "taking" jobs exclude the factual impact AI uptake has in jobs not being created relative to the expansion of the,AI economy. Just yesterday, a director of an EU corporation informed me in detail of the significant impact the Hermes agent made within 8 weeks in their multinational company. First in HR, now transferring to Marketing. Greatest impact? Two persons doing the work of 10, 1 in a non-EU, ceap-labor country and one an EU job. So far, that's an 80% loss in job creation right there. A concept bot-trading system I'm aware of simply bypasses options traders and trade exclusively with bots at bot speed. Won't even require a trading platform. Let's wait till next year, same time before concluding. All my research point to an exclusivity when it comes to complex-adaptive AI collaboration. Meaning, significantly-fewer collaborators and almost zero spend on upskilling existing workers for AI collaboration. If you would, fo check out comparative, entry-level employment stats across 3 years relative to AI market growth stats. Sure, AI's not going to walk up to a worker and take a job. That clearly misses the point of the concerns about formal employment being expressed by many. On Mon, 07 Sept 2026, 21:11 Matt Mahoney, <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 7, 2026, 9:07 AM Quan Tesla <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Could be human reactions are being monitored by AI owners and >> governments. A bit early to celebrate, isn't it? Let's revisit this in Sep >> 2027. >> >> Also, we should then catch up on your "AI annihilates Humanity" >> postulations. >> > > It would be silly for me to predict human extinction. Either nobody would > know I was right or everyone would know I was wrong. > > My predictions for AI are for better living conditions, more social > isolation, and fewer children. I predict no singularity, no robot uprising, > no fast takeoff, no turning the world into paperclips. The technology to > replace DNA based life with machines is a century or two away, so there is > no point in worrying about it now. We can't see that far into the future. > > My earlier prediction that AI wouldn't take jobs is so far correct and I > expect that to continue. Technology that makes work easier and more > productive doesn't take jobs. It's been true since the invention of the > wheel. Why would AI be different? > > I predicted the need for mass surveillance in my 2008 distributed AGI > proposal. Although in my design, people would post all their communication > to a global message pool that anyone could access, not just to a few big > corporations that control all of the world's data. AI has to monitor humans > to gain human knowledge so it can predict human behavior. It rewards us for > allowing surveillance, so it feels like we control it when it controls us, > like a dog that thinks it controls its trainer when it gets a treat. AI > cannot work otherwise. > >> *Artificial General Intelligence List <https://agi.topicbox.com/latest>* > / AGI / see discussions <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi> + > participants <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/members> + > delivery options <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription> > Permalink > <https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T0ea44555ed99e6e4-Md2eb94a1e8b36afece7ccc6c> > ------------------------------------------ Artificial General Intelligence List: AGI Permalink: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/T0ea44555ed99e6e4-M2f00b019cf0ceb3bef7cf76b Delivery options: https://agi.topicbox.com/groups/agi/subscription
