Lifeboat Foundation: Safeguarding Humanity
Toggle light / dark theme

Blog

Category: employment

HUGE: Elon’s “Macrohard” AI — His CRAZIEST Idea Ever

Questions to inspire discussion.

Industry Disruption.

🏢 Q: How might traditional companies be affected by AI simulations? A: Traditional firms like Microsoft could see their valuation drop by 50% if undercut by AI clones, while the tech industry may experience millions of jobs vanishing, potentially leading to recessions or increased inequality.

🤖 Q: What is the potential scale of AI company simulations? A: AI-simulated companies like “Macrohard” could become real entities, operating at a fraction of the cost of traditional companies and disrupting markets 10 times faster and bigger than the internet’s impact on retail.

Regulatory Landscape.

📊 Q: How might governments respond to AI-simulated companies? A: Governments may implement regulations on AI companies to slow innovation, potentially creating monopolies that regulators would later need to break up, further disrupting markets.

Continue reading “HUGE: Elon’s “Macrohard” AI — His CRAZIEST Idea Ever” | >

The AI revolution: facilitator or terminator?

We’ve all heard the arguments – “AI will supercharge the economy!” versus “No, AI is going to steal all our jobs!” The reality lies somewhere in between. Generative AI1 is a powerful tool that will boost productivity, but it won’t trigger mass unemployment overnight, and it certainly isn’t Skynet (if you know, you know). The International Monetary Fund (IMF) estimates that “AI will affect almost 40% of jobs around the world, replacing some and complementing others”. In practice, that means a large portion of workers will see some tasks automated by AI, but not necessarily lose their entire job. However, even jobs heavily exposed to AI still require human-only inputs and oversight: AI might draft a report, but you’ll still need someone to fine-tune the ideas and make the decisions.

From an economic perspective, AI will undoubtedly be a game changer. Nobel laureate Michael Spence wrote in September 2024 that AI “has the potential not only to reverse the downward productivity trend, but over time to produce a major sustained surge in productivity.” In other words, AI could usher in a new era of faster growth by enabling more output from the same labour and capital. Crucially, AI often works best in collaboration with existing worker skillsets; in most industries AI has the potential to handle repetitive or time-consuming work (like basic coding or form-filling), letting people concentrate on higher-value-add aspects. In short, AI can raise output per worker without making workers redundant en masse. This, in turn, has the potential to raise GDP over time; if this occurs in a non-inflationary environment it could outpace the growth in US debt for example.

Some jobs will benefit more than others. Knowledge workers who harness AI – e.g. an analyst using AI to sift data – can become far more productive (and valuable). New roles (AI auditors, prompt engineers) are already emerging. Conversely, jobs heavy on routine information processing are already under pressure. The job of a translator is often cited as the most at risk; for example, today’s AI can already handle c.98% of a translator’s typical tasks, and is gradually conquering more technically challenging real-time translation.

Microsoft Releases List of Jobs Most and Least Likely to Be Replaced by AI

Researchers at Microsoft tried to determine which precise jobs are most and least likely to be replaced by generative AI — and the results are bad news for anyone currently enjoying the perks of a cushy desk job.

As detailed in a yet-to-be-peer-reviewed paper, the Microsoft team analyzed a “dataset of 200k anonymized and privacy-scrubbed conversations between users and Microsoft Bing Copilot,” and found that the occupations most likely to be made obsolete by the tech involve “providing information and assistance, writing, teaching, and advising.”

The team used the data to come up with an “AI applicability score,” an effort to quantify just how vulnerable each given occupation is, taking into consideration how often AI is already being used there and how successful those efforts have been.

SRS Lessens Rate of Neurologic Death vs WBRT in SCLC and Brain Metastases

In all patients, the median overall survival (OS) was 10.2 months (95% CI, 8.5−12.2); there was a total of 20 neurologic deaths compared with 64 non-neurologic deaths. Between the 2 reviewers, agreement was 98% regarding neurologic death and non-neurologic death, with disagreement requiring a tie occurring in 2%.

The 1-year and 2-year neurologic death incidence was 11.0% (95% CI, 5.8%-18.1%) and 20.3% (95% CI, 12.7%-29.1%), respectively. The trial investigators noted that the historical incidence of neurologic death with WBRT was 17.5% at 1 year and 35.2% at 2 years. The 1-year and 2-year incidence of non-neurologic death was 48.0% (95% CI, 37.9%-57.4%) and 61.7% (95% CI, 50.8%-70.8%).

Via the Fine and Gray regression analysis, age, number of brain metastases, size of largest brain metastases, presence of neurologic symptoms, presence of distant extracranial metastases, and employment of neurological resection before enrollment were not associated with neurological death (P .05 in all cases).

New brain metastases were developed by 61.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 59.0% (95% CI, 48.6%-68.0%); at least 1 course of salvage stereotactic radiation was received by 39.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 37.0% (95% CI, 27.5%-46.5%); WBRT was received by 22.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 21.0% (95% CI, 13.6%-29.5%); and leptomeningeal disease was observed in 9.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 7.0% (95% CI, 3.1%-13.1%).

Overall, systemic disease progression occurred in 65.0% of patients, with a 1-year estimate of 58% (95% CI, 47.6%-67.0%).

Additionally, in aggregate, at least 1 local recurrence in a metastasis treated in the study was experienced by 13.0%, with a 1-year estimate of 15.0% (95% CI, 8.8%-22.7%); the respective per-patient rates of radiographic and symptomatic necrosis were 9.0% and 5.0% in total, with 1-year estimates of 6.0% (95% CI, 2.4%-11.9%) and 3.0% (95% CI, 0.8%-7.9%), respectively.

“Despite being the historical standard, whole brain radiation might not be necessary for all patients,” stated first study author Ayal Aizer, MD, MHS, director of Central Nervous System Radiation Oncology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, and a founding member of the Mass General Brigham healthcare system, in a press release on the study.2 “Our findings demonstrate that targeted, brain-directed radiation may be a viable treatment for patients with limited brain metastases from SCLC and potentially spare them from the [adverse] effects of whole brain radiation.”

Continue reading “SRS Lessens Rate of Neurologic Death vs WBRT in SCLC and Brain Metastases” | >

Figure AI founder Brett Adcock says there will soon be as many humanoid robots as humans

Other major players in the humanoid robot space include Tesla, which has Optimus, a 5-foot-8 humanoid robot that can dance, clean, and take out the trash. The company is working to deploy its first fleet in its factories by the year’s end. Boston Dynamics has Atlas, which can run, crawl, break dance, and do cartwheels. Agility Robotics has Digit, which Amazon once tested in its warehouses, though the e-commerce giant now uses its own set of in-house, non-humanoid robots designed by Amazon Robotics.

Many of these humanoid machines move with fluidity, exhibiting a suite of motor skills that allow them to augment the human labor force. Figure says its mission is to “develop general-purpose humanoids that make a positive impact on humanity and create a better life for future generations,” especially ones that can “eliminate the need for unsafe and undesirable jobs — ultimately allowing us to live happier, more purposeful lives.”

The company already has robots mingling with humans at its offices, asking employees if they want water or coffee, or simply patrolling the premises, he said. So, it’s not hard to imagine a time when “you’ll see as many humanoid robots as you see humans,” he said. “It’s literally going to feel like a sci-fi movie.”

What It’s Like Using a Brain Implant With ChatGPT

The potential of chat gpt and neural link is limitless. Really chat gpt with agi would automate even an entire world and even do all work by itself basically taking the forever mental labor of work forever scenario away from humans so we can sit and drink tea or other leisure activities. Then if we miniaturize even chat gpt, neural link, and agi all in one whether it is in the neural link or even on a smartphone it could allow for near infinite money 💵 with little to no effort which takes away mental labor forever because we could solve anything or do all jobs with no need for even training it would be like an everything calculator for an eternity of work so no humans need suffer the dole of forever mental labor which can evolve earths civilization into complete abundance.

We spoke to two people pioneering ChatGPT’s integration with Synchron’s brain-computer-interface to learn what it’s like to use and where this technology is headed.

Read more on CNET: How This Brain Implant Is Using ChatGPT https://bit.ly/3y5lFkD

0:00 Intro.
0:25 Meet Trial Participant Mark.
0:48 What Synchron’s BCI is for.
1:25 What it’s like to use.
1:51 Why work with ChatGPT?
3:05 How Synchron’s BCI works.
3:46 Synchron’s next steps.
4:27 Final Thoughts.

Never miss a deal again! See CNET’s browser extension 👉 https://bit.ly/3lO7sOU

Continue reading “What It’s Like Using a Brain Implant With ChatGPT” | >

Silicon Valley investor Vinod Khosla predicts AI will replace 80% of jobs by 2030—and take much of the Fortune 500 with it

Tech entrepreneur and investor Vinod Khosla’s prediction of AI automating 80% of high-value jobs by 2030 coincides with a reckoning for Fortune 500 companies.

/* */