> * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today
If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.
The value of labor i.e. wages depend on labor demand (the marginal product of labor) and bargaining power, not output per worker. If AI is a substitute for many tasks, the marginal value of an additional worker, and what a company is willing to pay for their work can fall even if each remaining worker is more productive.
What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business. Instant massive recession is by no means a "sure bet" with technological improvements, especially those that make more kinds of work possible than before.
I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!
> My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.
People have been singing that since the industrial revolution started.
What makes you think it's different this time? Other times increased productivity yielded fewer people doing what a machine suddenly can do. But never fewer people employed or smaller overall economy.
You can argue that our populations are older than ever before. There aren't enough kids, and consumers are saturated with consumption opportunities.
That's maybe never happened before during the industrial revolution. But it's orthogonal to AI.
> On the insurance front - expect your insurance to decline this forever unless you are at serious risk of diabetes. It would make you cost them $3-6k/yr more. Insurance premiums would rise for everyone if insurance was subsidizing this - no free lunch.
It's often up to the employer whether these meds are covered - many insurers just offer it as an option to check or not check.
That said, even at 3-6k/year, it wouldn't surprise me if these drugs were net savings to cover for a lot of patients due to their extremely positive effects as preventative care.
Yeah, my employer changed insurance a few months ago from UHC to Cigna.
Cigna is terrible, even worse than UHC, I'm not happy that we have them but that's a whole separate rant I don't care to get into right now, but one thing I was really annoyed by was that UHC covered Zepbound, but then Cigna didn't. They actually wouldn't cover any GLP-1s unless you are already diabetic, so my wife had to stop.
I initially blamed Cigna for this, but eventually I found out that my employer deliberately opted out of it, so now I'm mad at my employer and Cigna.
We've had to use a compounding pharmacy for my wife to continue her terzepazide, which has worked fine and at least thus far hasn't been an issue, but I knew that these things were on borrowed time due to their kind of gray legality.
These forums still exist. Typically with much older and mature discussions, as the users have aged alongside the forums. Nothing is stopping you from joining them now.
My Something Awful forums account is over 25 years old at this point. The software and standards and moderation style is approximately unchanged, complete with 10 dollar sign-up fee to keep out the spam.
In general free open-source Wine has been developed with the philosophy of of not allowing application-specific code. Crossover (and presumably Photon), however, allows such patches for supported applications.
Patches can be motivated by specific apps, of course, but generally the requirement is to complete the patch implementing/fixing some API in a generic way, proven by additions to the test suite showing the same behavior on Windows.
The opposite it true too. Wine doesn't allow any code that isn't used. You have to find a specific app that uses it. If you don't know an app that calls a portion of a API you can not implement it even if the official documentation and behavior of using it on Windows makes it obvious how it should be implemented.
That's pretty smart, though. There's no way to truly prove that the stuff you're implementing actually works if there's no software that runs it. Synthetic examples don't actually prove the API you implement works in a useful way for arbitrary software in the wild, it just proves that the pieces you've tested behave how you think they should.
It was definitely not just balancing rules patches for gameplay purposes - there was a clear deliberate intent to force people to buy new models. Complete with arbitrary changes to the game lore itself that accompany those updates: when I first started playing Warhammer Fantasy only the smaller lizardmen could ride the dinosaurs, and in the next edition only the larger ones (with entirely different new models) could.
By way of comparison, Games Workshop updates their Warhammer rules about twice as often as Wizards of the Coast updates Dungeons and Dragons.
> From the article: “Uber has said it is one of the safest ways to get around, with the vast majority of its trips in the United States — 99.9 percent — occurring without an incident of any kind”
Another way of phrasing this is that if you take Uber to and from work, you'll likely have an incident within 2 years.
I would like to know what incident entails too. Knowing the very minor things that would also happen to you while driving would really narrow down if Uber is a murder wagon or if it's about the same as driving yourself.
If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.
reply