83e81 - 2y
To me, it is remarkable that: 1) Almost everyone on the planet seems to be “using/training” AI to make themselves more efficient without realizing that the improvement comes at the expense of their long term income. And 2) While doing so, they advocate/reinforce a monetary/political system that pushes prices higher through manipulated money. And 3) They fail to see the consequences of those 2 diametrically opposed paths. Shows how many people only think in only first order effects. #Bitcoin #Nostr
17538 - 2y
👀
5f496 - 2y
AMEN!!!!!
Aaron Daniel @Aaron Daniel - 2y
Boothian Jihad. 🤖⚔️
c7c8f - 2y
I need to get my children to understand this deeply. Thank you for your work 🙏🏼🙌
Jeff Swann @Jeff Swann - 2y
Use AI to be more productive, avoid taxes, & stack bitcoin. Kill the current system rather than feed it. #agorism #[0]
1bb21 - 2y
I understand the 1st point but not the 2nd point. How does it lead to the 2nd point?
b5dbd - 2y
Everything that exists is a self-reinforcing loop. It has to be or it would fizzle out, and not exist. We live in a world of ghosts, endlessly craving, never satisfied. They won't change, Bitcoin will just exert itself as a forcing function.
98a38 - 2y
AI appears to be a jet pack to your own intelligence and creativity. The smartest and most creative people will get out say 10x more than typical folks. For example, no need to hire a big tech team anymore. The three top developers in the company can now do the work 10 used to do. No need to dilute that equity. For the top entrepreneurs, creators and designers, I expect they will see a massive boost in their long term income.
7560e - 2y
I’m not sure I follow? If fewer people are employed because of AI, economic demand will fall and the economy will shrink. The economy is not merely about economic supply, if AI boosts our ability to produce things but reduces the flow of capital to consumers then it will lead to a smaller economy. Because in order to transact, any seller needs a buyer. In a capitalist system, it is the consumer who is the engine of the economy. Frivolous consumption and high monetary velocity consumers are the foundation of a strong economy. Strip those consumers of their buying power and you quickly grind to a standstill. It doesn’t matter what you can supply. It doesn’t matter if your productivity balloons, you cannot economically produce more than your consumers can consume.
8aef7 - 2y
It does lead to the 2 point, they are opposite, that's what Jeff is saying. 1) technology like AI,makes everyone more productive, so it makes everything cheaper. 2) The current fiat system demand everything to go up in price. This two points are opposite to each other, the fiat system is not sustainable bc technology is deflationary not inflationary.
59cac - 2y
Agreed, but I’m having such a fun time with ChatGPT4 because it can understand what I’m saying so precisely. Open-source versions will be exciting, but I presume they will always lag behind until we hit Moore’s law for LLMs. Most people don’t understand the computer science behind attack vectors in distributed networks. It feels nice to finally have “someone” who understands again. Hard to resist that connection when most words fall on deaf ears. Humans want something they can use and tinker with, while AI wants to venture through your imagination with you — constructing the vision. I prefer the latter, but know it’s useless without the former.
7ca66 - 2y
People scrambling for lifeboats who don’t understand the predicament they’re in. Natural urge meets lack of education / critical thinking.
7c579 - 2y
Check out this Guitar Company's latest initiative. #[1]
Unlikely they see it at that point. More likely that they take to the streets to advocate for more manipulation of money to “save”them
🙏
I meant to say it *doesn't* lead to the second point.
AI being your only bouncing board doesn’t seem safe lol, but it’s a great pre-bouncing board.. helps nip bad ideas in the bud early on. I fed it my paper and it understood better than anyone on Twitter has — seems invaluable for open-source inventors.
697f1 - 2y
With the recent developments in LLMs it seems like your book was very timely. It’s happening very, very quickly, as you predicted it would.
Leo Fernevak @Leo Fernevak - 2y
I agree that people should converge on Bitcoin in order to have falling prices and counterbalance the inflation + manipulation, as well as providing property rights to all. Although I doubt point 1. Isn't it more likely that algorithms might steal our data against our will to use in its training? Personally I don't have a usecase for AI - yet. If I need tools I can generally write them myself and the human mind is more adapted toward creativity, plus, we can know that we have copyright to what we create when we don't use algorithms that use direct sampling data. I would feel terrible if something I generated via AI was created by someone else at a visible level.
Jeff, would love to hear your thoughts on the article. It's a very interesting take on the future and being ahead of the curve and balancing technology WITH human craftsmanship. What stands out to you?
Their argument presumes that you people only purchase things because their money is losing value. It is false. And It borders on insanity people believe it WHILE at the same time using a phone that gets better every year, busing a computer or TV, eating food, etc.
0899c - 2y
I give them the same argument. 🤔 However it seems they believe that growth is what makes an economy healthy. The argument is that Apple, for instance, could not be successful without having prices rising. While it’s production efficiencies are increasing, it cannot repay its debts if it reduces prices. Apple has to have prices rise because it has to service its debts. The argument continues. How can Apple invest in greater amounts of capital equipment without borrowing money first? It would need debt for that. Then later, sales would provide the money to pay off the debt. My answer to that is Apple would have to save enough money to invest in the capital equipment first. The response to that is “fine for Apple… that have lots of money but how would a startup get going without debt? …and if the value of money keeps going up, why start a new business if the return on savings incentivizes just hodling?”
4e6aa - 2y
There would still be debt. You could still take out loans. The goal would be to provide so much value with a new product that you make enough to cover your debt OR a company that figured out a way to reduce the cost of a product could borrow to start up and undercut the competition, therefore, capturing all that value to pay back to the lender. Lending, borrowing, paying off, and defaulting all existed before the current system. To take Jeff's argument, people are so ingrained in this system and the wacky numbers that it's hard to see the other system.
d9a6c - 2y
This is a good answer, so many false assumptions in our economic thinking... The money manipulation is ultimately a political beast, as governments keep kicking the can down the road. It's not sustainable, but I fear the chaos that results is not going to make a transition to bitcoin easy or obvious for most. We need better definitions... Wealth is only roughly correlated to things like money, it's actually created with new knowledge, and has no potential limit. "Wealth is the repertoire of physical transformations that one is capable of causing" - David Deutsch (https://www.exkn.io/optimism). This kind of thinking lies at the intersection of Austrian Economics and Critical Rationalism. I'm skeptically hopeful knowledge creation (technological innovation) may change things fast enough that the money manipulation becomes irrelevant...
