Brady Weber

Humanist • AI Ethicist • Lovecraftian • Libertarian • Gothamite • Philomath • Futurist • Communication is an art form, empathy is our greatest strength. Skål!🥃

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

This is an excellent article that outlines most major concerns of AI acceleration while also addressing its merits. I highly recommend reading it in its entirety for anyone invested in the future of mankind.

I’ve always felt that Dario is harshly and unfairly characterized as an extension of his companies framing “misanthropic”; which is sometimes said in jest but more often seems legitimately accusatory and critical. His concerns in the article are very easily defined and understood, and it’s exceedingly clear that he takes AI acceleration seriously while acknowledging the nuances of this emerging technology.

My biggest takeaway from the article is that Dario is in favor of government regulation, but also acknowledges the dangers of what that might bring such as stifling acceleration and innovation. The juxtaposition supports the framework that AI is an extremely complex and difficult piece of technology to affectively manage and that we may, in some respects, be in over our heads. We are, to a large extent, babes in the woods.

Dario offers suggestions for guard rails via regulatory efforts, most of which are framed as common sense measures. I myself am conflicted on this issue. On the one hand I understand the necessity for some measures of oversight, but on the other hand I do fear the bureaucratic weaponization of such policies and how that might impact not just AI development and adoption, but also the larger social structures that govern it.

I do disagree with his economic outlook somewhat, as I do not believe the supplementation of human labor will result in a net negative for mankind. Attempting to keep the labor force from collapsing in the face of ultimate autonomous efficiency is a futile effort in my opinion. The current nature of how we define “job” as an economic mechanism of survival is quickly becoming an antiquated notion, and I actually think that’s a more worthwhile discussion to be having. Dario touches on this, so he does acknowledge it to some extent, I’m just not sure if he sees this as the superior outcome or merely an inevitable one.

None of this is easy to navigate, which is why Dario appeals to society as a whole to come up with uniform solutions based on objective principles of social and thought development. The article does a great job of outlining dangers/concerns while balancing prosperity/benefits. There is no definitive solution because we lack the tools and knowledge to unilaterally make decisions about the future, which is why Dario is trying to lay a foundation now with incremental steps that can be quickly scaled as needed. This is not only a logical appeal, but a moral one as well.

The article is incredibly insightful and I remain ever vigilant, but extremely optimistic, about the future. My faith and love for humanity is not shaken in the slightest and I fully believe that we are headed for a bountiful golden age of mankind.

[Dario Amodei @DarioAmodei]

Today I'm publishing a new essay, Policy on the AI Exponential. AI is progressing extremely fast—much faster than the policy process was built to handle. The essay lays out where I think the technology is now, and the action needed to close the gap: https://t.co/Lh6PWae178

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Peter I think you’re great, but AI is a labor replacer by its very nature. If the state of AI and robotics was to remain stagnant than I would agree, but anyone paying attention to these spaces knows that’s not happening. Agentic capabilities are compounding. Recursive learning is on the horizon. AGI is likely near with ASI approaching later.

People (mainly economists and business owners) are trying to draw conclusions about the future with the capabilities of tools that they currently have, not with what they WILL have. This makes current “data” more or less worthless unless you’re trying to make a point about the way things are right now.

AI is a labor replacer. That is the entire point of its existence. It’s why robots are being trained to do not just menial tasks but proportionally advanced ones as well, and it’s why they are being trained by the highest level experts in their various fields. Labor supplementation is inevitable. The only question is when and how quickly the exchange will take place.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@ICannot_Enough It would require manufacturing solar panels & radiators on the Moon and launching them into deep space with a mass driver.

Well before that, conventional money will no longer be relevant. Mass & energy will take the place of dollars.

[Peter H. Diamandis, MD @PeterDiamandis]

The first person to live to 150 has probably already been born. The job now is to make sure those extra decades are healthy ones

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

It is humbling to consider that if we harness just 1 millionth of the Sun’s power for AI, that will be much more than a million times the intelligence of all of humanity

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

@TRHLofficial I have no interest in torture, I just want them wiped off the map. No mess, no fuss, just gone. They are a net negative to humanity and need to be removed.

As long as the evidence is overwhelming I am pro whatever fast tracks that outcome.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

I think anonymity should be removed, but it shouldn’t be government mandated. It should be a requirement of the social media ToS and enforced through various encryption efforts and UI functionality. We are also fortunate to live in a country with a First Amendment so being jailed for innocuous opinions isn’t something that we need to worry as much about.

I genuinely think the internet would be a much better place with verified human accounts and some measure of social accountability. @jordanbpeterson also spoke on this subject frequently before he was overwhelmingly shouted down by the anon mob.

This will become an increasingly prevalent issue as agentic AI systems flawlessly mimic human users; pushing narratives and influencing real people under the guise of faux unity and relatability.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

@mattshumer_ Very cool! The VO needs work though.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Is this possible in our lifetime? Obviously with advancements in longevity and with the potential of reaching LEV, anything becomes possible; Combined with huge advancements in AI and robotics the timeline compression does seems difficult to fathom.

If Elon gets us to this point of his post scarcity abundance prediction, he can have as much money as he wants (he pretty much does already). I don’t think there will be a profound difference between a trillion dollars and a quadrillion dollars in terms of what’s accessible to him.

[Elon Musk @elonmusk]

@Sajwani @SenWarren Not impossible, but definitely requires factories on the Moon and Mars to achieve.

By then, I don’t think dollars will be used as currency. Just mass and energy.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

The vast majority of AI experts (and I use that term very loosely) claiming that AI will create more jobs or that human labor will still offer substantial value even with the integration of AI, are giving predictions on the short term acceleration of AI. They are providing tentative short term goals and expectations. This helps quell the rabble rousing of the Luddites and Doomers, but fails at addressing the mid to long term implications of advanced AI systems.

To a certain extent I think this is wise. Everyone working on AI right now is actively building towards recursive learning systems with the goal of achieving AGI, and much later, ASI. It would be difficult to reach these objectives if the population decided that advanced AI is not in their best interest. So, they describe a scenario founded on better LLM’s or some relatively good agentic systems where AI isn’t at a place that can dramatically outperform most people and subsequently replace human labor, but might still assist human labor by providing higher work efficiency.

Again, this will not always be the case, and it’s not even the intended goal.

The purpose of advanced AI is the supplementation of human labor. Period. That is the entire reason it is being built. That’s why models are being trained on data from experts in various professions, to perform tasks related to those professions including the most complex aspects of that profession, and not just the simple or mundane ones.

So if you’re paying attention to the AI scene and you’re seeing influential or extremely intelligent individuals who are tasked with creating AI or coordinating its evolution, claiming that AI will only be used to bolster human labor, you have to what they’re saying with a grain of salt and realize that is NOT the end goal, even if that near term prediction turns out to be true.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Yes, but there does appear to be some inconsistencies with the logic.

The main issue is the hubris in believing that human labor will remain valuable in a world with AGI or ASI. In short there is no reason to believe that human ideas will be any more valuable than the super charged AI ones. Do human relationships make them valuable enough to remain employed when AI can functionally do the same job better than their human counterparts? I suspect, no. Like so many opining on the state of AI they are drawing conclusions based on the current capabilities of LLM’s and some minor agentic systems, not the future of AI that is capable of recursive learning or superior problem solving.

The other issue is that he seems to undermine his position of human labor or value in the workforce by seeming to imply that we should keep human labor because of the socio economic implications of replacing it. This lends itself to the belief that replacing human labor would cause major societal dysfunction and thus should be kept, which actually has nothing to do with capability. Keeping a system in place out of fear is not a sustainable method for growth, it’s just a bandaid that ignores progress.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

@SaveOurSheriff @elonmusk Seattle used to be the next largest tech hub after Silicon Valley on the West Coast. Would love to see this kind of innovation brought back, and it’d be great for the State!

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

It’s still crazy even now. It boggles the mind how far these companies have come and how much Elon has accomplished.

Tesla will be mass producing robots within a few short years and SpaceX will be spearheading the world’s first space based economy with orbital compute and the mass allocation of solar energy. This will be one of the most exciting decades in human history.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Yes, AI will eliminate the need for most of, if not all of, human labor in the future. This is inevitable, as the very nature of AI and how it is designed, indeed the very purpose of its creation, is to supplement human labor by rapidly iterating into whatever task is required of it. This is the entire purpose of the tool. Literally what it’s designed for.

There is a balance between innovative acceleration and bureaucratic overreach. I appreciate you speaking on the subject, but I’m not sure that I trust you to implement safety measures without crippling the industry and stopping us from reaching the singularity.

Demonizing Elon for being a builder, entrepreneur, and innovator, tells me that you have an axe to grind and are not the right person to be leading this charge. Change the rhetoric, extend an olive branch, and work with him to find a way forward. Elon genuinely loves humanity and his goal is sustainable abundance for all. He will listen if your appeal is sincere and your intentions pure.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

@GeneralRockTron @PeterDiamandis It’s good to be prepared as much as anyone can be for the future, which is changing at a rapidly unprecedented pace. I’m certainly not suggesting we do nothing.

Manifestation through positive reinforcement is real and I thoroughly remain ever optimistic about what lies ahead!

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Right… it’s Elon’s fault for building rockets with the intent of creating sustainable abundance for all mankind. That’s why people are struggling to pay for groceries.

Do you hear yourself? The system is rigged?

How’s that high-speed rail project going? That’s $120 billion you burned with nothing to show for it, right? How does that help your constituents with the cost of groceries? That’s tax payer money you flushed.

Your whiny hubris knows no bounds.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

@GeneralRockTron @PeterDiamandis *Also, I meant pessimism not cynicism.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Keep in mind that this scenario includes reductions in cost for goods and services due to automation and unprecedented increases in GDP. This not only means that more money can be distributed but that it will also last longer and go further.

Also remember what the alternative is as a result of mass labor supplementation.

Yes, I agree there are risks. There are risks with everything. There are risks to doing nothing and spiraling into a corporatocracy.

There’s a difference between acknowledging risk and working to mitigate them, versus throwing in the towel and saying that the best case scenario will never happen, thereby actually resigning oneself to a worse outcome. That’s not skepticism, that’s cynicism— which again is something we should avoid if we want the best possible future.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

Healthy skepticism is fine, after all it would essentially rewrite a thousand years of economic policy based on material scarcity and human labor. Indeed, a certain dosage of skepticism is actually necessary to stress test theories and create the best possible solution to current and future problems.

I would avoid cynicism though, as that keeps one from being objective. The best way to do this would be first to acknowledge that the future, wherein UBI and eventually UHI becomes the primary medium of economic stability, is actually the best one. Keep in mind that in order for this to transpire, there has to be mass labor supplementation due to AI and robotics— which does seem to be the trajectory we’re headed in.

In such a future the choice appears binary; either we solely have unprecedented massive wealth inequality or wealth distribution with a higher standard of living for all. I personally am not a billionaire and would not benefit from the former option, nor would I prefer that choice if I were, as I believe that it would lead to a catastrophic collapse of human civilization, of which I am a part of and love dearly.

It’s also important to remember that this is not welfare. We’re sharing in mankind’s collective labor and development. Thousands of years of culture, history, philosophy, politics, science, conflict, art, etc. all curated to train AI so that it can supplement the least desirable elements of our lives and elevate us to new heights. This doesn’t belong to just a few companies, this is collective consciousness that belongs to all. UBI/UHI isn’t charity, It’s what your ancestors fought and died for despite not knowing the future they were helping to build.

You’ve contributed to the building of AI by existing and participating in civilization and are thus entitled to compensation if others are seeking to monetize it, which they are.

[Brady Weber @HumanitasPrima]

I’m not concerned with the entire world right now, just the U.S. since most notable AI companies are all based in America and mass labor supplementation will affect us first. UBI gets implemented here with the rest of the world to follow later. Implementing the same or similar economic structure for the entire world is tricky due to variations in political spheres and across nations.

UBI itself is not difficult to implement. It’s just redistribution or production of wealth. Similar to taxes except most of the people suggesting it and the primary targets aren’t sour to the idea. Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and Dario Amodei, are just a few of the biggest leaders in AI and tech innovation that have mentioned UBI as a possible path forward with Musk suggesting that UHI is likely.

There are a couple of ways that UBI could take shape. Taxes are the way people are most familiar with since we already have them to some degree. A Sovereign Wealth Fund earmarks a percentage of trillion dollar AI and tech companies for public redistribution. Elon is not a fan of taxes as he feels it stifles innovation and can be weaponized through government overreach, but he believes that AI and robotics will cause such an insane increase in GDP that there would be nothing to stop the government from just printing more money and handing it out to people with the overall cost of goods and services dropping commensurably to the increase in AI and robotics production and implementation.

This is now being discussed on the political (actionable) level. 60 years ago it was science fiction, 10 years ago it was just a theory, now it’s being regarded as a real possibility. The plan is being built and shaped as it becomes more prevalent.