Unfortunately that's not how it works. Productivity gains have already increased tenfold in the past, yet still all work full time.
It used to be that 80+% of the population worked in agriculture. In developed countries that number is now around 1-2%. Some of the freed labour was funneled into improving living standards, some of it was funneled into new jobs created by the increasingly complex society (the "intermediate economy").
With AI, the same is true: labour is freed by the productivity gains (which I doubt are 10x sustainably but whatever), more labour is needed for power generation, mineral extraction, maintaining this new extra layer of complexity in the intermediate economy, etc. In the end we might see, say, a net 3% increase in global productivity per year over the next 10 years, which will be funneled into increasing living standards and increasing economic inequalities, but not in reducing working hours.
If you accept living below average standards, you could easily work a single day of the week for the rest of your life. But why would an employer hire 5 people working one day a week, instead of one working 5 days a week? They won't, hence we don't see a reduction in working hours.
The alternative is to work full time but retire earlier, much earlier, than you would otherwise, which in the end is the equivalent of having worked one day a week for your whole life.
I highly recommend reading Lean Logic by David Fleming, it explores several of these concepts in a very interesting way.
I enabled it and I had to read carefully to check if it was really active... turns out I never read the words that caveman omits, so to me it makes zero difference.
Yeah, makes sense. The appeal is is more to cut output tokens for cost, than downstream reading experience. But the benchmark suggests it doesn't offer as much benefit as "be brief.".
> The report estimates that carbon emissions from models with the least efficient inference are over 10 times as high as those with the most efficient inference. DeepSeek’s V3 models were estimated to consume around 23 watts when responding to a “medium-length” prompt, while Claude 4 Opus was estimated to consume about 5 watts.
This makes absolutely no sense. I suppose they meant watt hours, and that's a weird way to explain carbon emissions...
Not offended and I find it funny, though you nailed my itching:
> "Veganism is a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude—as far as is possible and practicable—all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of animals, humans and the environment. In dietary terms it denotes the practice of dispensing with all products derived wholly or partly from animals."
My personal take is yes, assuming there's no animal exploitation or cruelty involved.
That said AFAIK there is no consensus: some abstain from all animal inputs while others focus on avoiding harm, which itself can be interpreted in different ways. It's more a philosophy than a rulebook, lab-grown meat kind of sits in a gray area. I'd be curious to try it :-)
Nice philosophical point. To iron-on more irony, zooming out a little, one could also argue much real historical experience was first erased when it was written down with the presumption of authority.
It's impressive how much details they give in the release notes, down to the filenames of added sprites and changes to the shaders. I can't think of another game that does that.
Java Minecraft has always been super transparent. I remember being shocked when I signed up for their early modding SDK prior to Microsoft and it was literally just the source code for Minecraft that I could compile against.
In science fiction maybe. We're hitting real limits on compute while AI is still far from a level where it would harmful, and FHE is orders of magnitude less efficient than direct calculation.
It used to be that 80+% of the population worked in agriculture. In developed countries that number is now around 1-2%. Some of the freed labour was funneled into improving living standards, some of it was funneled into new jobs created by the increasingly complex society (the "intermediate economy").
With AI, the same is true: labour is freed by the productivity gains (which I doubt are 10x sustainably but whatever), more labour is needed for power generation, mineral extraction, maintaining this new extra layer of complexity in the intermediate economy, etc. In the end we might see, say, a net 3% increase in global productivity per year over the next 10 years, which will be funneled into increasing living standards and increasing economic inequalities, but not in reducing working hours.
If you accept living below average standards, you could easily work a single day of the week for the rest of your life. But why would an employer hire 5 people working one day a week, instead of one working 5 days a week? They won't, hence we don't see a reduction in working hours.
The alternative is to work full time but retire earlier, much earlier, than you would otherwise, which in the end is the equivalent of having worked one day a week for your whole life.
I highly recommend reading Lean Logic by David Fleming, it explores several of these concepts in a very interesting way.
reply