The counter argument to that is what happened with horses. Since domestication every advance of human civilization lead to having more horses. Until cars were invented and improved - which eliminated overnight 90% of the number of horses used.
So the fact that in the past new technologies have created new jobs is not a guarantee that AI will create new jobs.
On top of that have a look what happened say during the industrial revolution in Britain. You'd have a village with 2000 workers producing clothes or materials to make clothes. A rich guy opens a factory in that village that employees 200 people and produces more than the whole village before that. 90% are unemployed, the 10% that work in factory have far worse working conditions. Studying graves from that time shows the height of people went down during the industrial revolution - as the conditions in the factories were far worse than what they had before. Hence the luddite movement - but as the reach people owned the mass media, the luddites were portrayed as crazy. Eventually, many years later, new better jobs did appear.
I think you're right, the many worlds interpretation makes the most sense. Unfortunately out current technology is very far from delivering any experimental confirmation or denial of any of the mainstream interpretations.
You are right, but I think there is a more positive viewpoint.
All experiments agree with the many worlds interpretation (again, better described as a quantum web interpretation), and it is the plain Occam's Razor interpretation.
No additional flourishes are needed. That is strong theoretical support. It is the default (plain reading) interpretation already.
And it is the interpretation that doesn't just conserve in one history (i.e. conservation of energy etc.), but conserves information universally.
So again, very strong specific theoretical support.
It is the conjectures about experimentally unmotivated elaborations, like "collapses", that would also break universal conservation of information, for no theoretically necessary reason, that need dramatic new evidence to prove themselves.
If I lack any optimism, it is for conjectured complications with no evidentiary support and weaker explanatory/conservation powers. In any other context, nobody would be entertaining the need for such conjectures.
The "Quantum Collapsers" are right up their with the "Flat Earthers", or solar system "Epicycle Theorists", for not being happy with accepting a working and successful theory as is. Even though their imagined shivs introduce more questions than they answer, and would dispense with its unique advantages.
What if we create a situation in a lab that can be labelled as a collapse of the wave function by interaction with a macroscopic object. Except the macroscopic object is under our control and we can reverse the collapse.
Are the Mysteries of Quantum Mechanics Beginning to Dissolve? I don’t think so.
Zurek’s Decoherence and Quantum Darwinism is thought-provoking, but it’s still speculation without broad buy-in from researchers. We might need ASI to crack these mysteries — our brains weren’t built for this kind of problem.
I think the brains of our stone age ancestors were not built for relativity either. In the end the normal sequence of generations (having children and then die at some point) offers "re-trainings" of the brains. So, besides waiting/hoping for artificial intelligence, we should continue to make (and train) children. Worked great so far.
What we need are tractable experiments to test these theories.
Maybe ASI can help design these. Until it can, it will just be another voice arguing for one position over another on pretty weak arguments. Right now my money would be more on human researchers finding those experiments, but even among those few are even trying
He built a team, that in turn designed and built the rocket. IMHO his political views are borderline crazy, but can't deny that Mr Musk has mad skills to attract and motivate top talent to work for him.
reply