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?
jimbocoin 🃏 @jimbocoin - 2y
I think Stu is saying that for a producer, it’s unprofitable to overproduce (make more than your customers can buy). Booth’s response is that Stu’s argument assumes a depreciating fiat currency. Stu talks about the “size” of the economy, which implies an econometric frame of mind whose objective is to grow GDP. In an appreciating money regime (#Bitcoin), an overproducer has to lower prices to move product. This is OK, because the producer’s own costs are also falling in money terms. The result is that everyone is better off. By the fiat, economic numbers (GDP) it looks like the economy is shrinking. The reality is an age of abundance.
matata @matata - 2y
thank you so much for the elaborated recap jimbo😍
That’s not quite it. Let’s use oil as an example because it’s easy to understand in the following terms. Every day the world consumes 100m barrels of oil, this is ~ 36.5 bn barrels a year (approx 1 cubic mile of crude oil). Let’s assume Scenario A where the market is perfectly supplied and the price of oil is thus $80, and the value of the cube is $2.92 trillion. Now in Scenario B the industry produces 2% surplus oil (102m barrels per day), that’s 37.23 bn barrels a year and in this scenario the price of oil is low settles at $40. Now the suppliers are producing 2% and the value of this 2% larger cube is $1.489 trillion. Now I’m Scenario C the industry produces a 2% deficit of oil (98m barrels per day). That’s 35.77 bn barrels a year. In this scenario the price of oil is $120. So the value of the smallest cube of the 3 is actually $4.29 trillion. The abundant (oversupply) scenario is the worst scenario for suppliers. These are REAL examples based on real data, and you get the same result in any monetary system. It works the same if demand varies by +/- 2% If AI causes aggregate demand to fall by 2% yoy then the market will be oversupplied and each marginal additional unit of production has NEGATIVE REALISED VALUE for the suppliers. Every surplus unit destroys the value of ALL previously produced units. Prices are vastly more sensitive to supply / demand imbalances than they are to the money supply. Diverging commodity prices prove this.
