The software Revolution we're in

Note: The technological revolution helps human progress because it can always help people solve some old problems. But it will also introduce more intractable new problems, and the new Cominator Sam Altman is worried that the software revolution we are in is likely to bring two

Note: The technological revolution helps human progress, because it can always help people solve some old problems. But it will also introduce even more intractable new problems, and the new Cominator Sam Altman is worried that the software revolution we are currently in is likely to pose two significant risks, and our response now seems to be lost in the right direction. Here, we will compile his article as follows for everyone to think about.

There have been 3 great technological revolutions in human history-the Agricultural revolution, the Industrial Revolution, and the software revolution we are in.

These great technological revolutions affect what most people do every day and the organization of society. The last industrial revolution created a lot of jobs because the new technology required a huge amount of manpower to carry it out. But this is not the conventional way of development of technology, it is abnormal. It also gives people (and perhaps subconsciously) the idea that the technological revolution is always good for most people's economic conditions.

The software revolution also seems to be the same as what technology usually produces-creating wealth but destroying jobs. Of course, we may be able to find new things to meet the endless human needs. But we should not delude ourselves into thinking that the software revolution itself would be good for middle-income earners.

Technology provides leverage for ability and luck, a process that concentrates wealth and leads to unfairness. I think the extreme inequality between rich and poor will be one of the biggest social problems in the next 20 years. We can and can redistribute wealth, but it still does not solve the real problem that people need something meaningful to do.

Stubborn insistence on worthless work is a scary but very popular idea. The idea of finding a new job is good for billions of people, but it's obviously hard because whatever new job it is, it's probably not the same as any of the previous jobs, so it's almost impossible to plan meaningful planning. But the current strategy is not the right answer-"Let's Travis the Uber founder's remarks about automatic cars replacing drivers and uber creating millions of jobs."

The second major challenge of the software revolution is the concentration of power in small groups. This is also true of most technological revolutions, but the latest truly frightening technology (atomic bombs) has been a bad demonstration of the technological revolution and the increase in posts.

It is difficult to build an atomic bomb, not to be limited by knowledge (though it is), but because uranium enrichment requires a huge amount of energy. This requires kingdom.

Again, this is not the conventional route of technology, but the nature of nuclear research. The software revolution may still be as technological as ever, concentrating more power on a clique.

I think the software revolution has two greatest risks, one is artificial intelligence, the other is synthetic biotechnology. Both of these technologies will bring amazing destructive power to a small group or even individuals. A small laboratory may have been designed to create a terrible disease; the development of artificial intelligence to terminate human life may require only hundreds of people in any one office building in the world, and the devices needed by these people are just a notebook.

These new existential threats do not need the power of the nation to produce them. In the past, some of the things that needed national resources, such as rockets, can now be done, at least in part thanks to software. But rockets can destroy everything on earth.

So what are we going to do? We cannot make the knowledge of these things illegal, and this does not work, and technological progress is unstoppable.

Personally, the best strategy is to legislate sensible safeguards, but at the same time try to ensure that the technical advantage is on the good side. If we can synthesize new viruses, we may also be able to synthesize vaccines. If we could create artificial intelligence that would do evil, it might also be possible to invent good artificial intelligence to stop it.

The current practice is a very bad misleading. This time it won't be like an atom bomb, but the sooner we stop fooling ourselves, the sooner we can get out of the crisis. The fact that we are not seriously trying to combat biosynthesis and artificial intelligence is alarming.

To be pointed out, I'm actually a fan of the software revolution, and I'm lucky to live in this age. But I'm afraid we've learned the wrong lesson from the recent examples, and we're lost in the massive destruction and the centralization of super power.