alt Hacker NewsI didn't say they weren't improving. My point is that if our justification is comparing the top 10% of performers to AI to justify human performance, that speaks poorly for the replacement of the bottom 10% of humans.
I didn't say they weren't improving. My point is that if our justification is comparing the top 10% of performers to AI to justify human performance, that speaks poorly for the replacement of the bottom 10% of humans.
And why not the top 1% or the top 0.1% or the top 0.001%? Either AI stops improving, or we're in for a grim future for people.