101–110 of 139 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> AI bros promise us that this will reduce inequality and make human society better, somehow It is going to make human society better. And it already is doing it. The problem is neither you nor me are a part of the society. The AI bros are.
I love this comment. Yeah. "their" society is succeeding and we're in a fish tank. It's really like that.
It's a big club and you ain't in it. (C)
Everytime I see something like this I wonder how much of a repeat it is of when the first steam powered monstrosity started to gain some public traction, or electricity, or... Hate it or love it, something's inevitably coming. Literally no way to stop it when it's ultimately China vs US, which wasn't even a concern during previous technological revolutions.
The question is how to handle it and what do we do with society. Right now, seems like we are heading directly towards "hoover towns" [1]. The US government has abandoned any notion of protecting or providing for the citizenry. We got out of hooverville last time through massive government investment into the general public. A "new deal" where the government provided good paying jobs to the unemployed for the public…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The question is how to handle it and what do we do with society. Right now, seems like we are heading directly towards "hoover towns" [1]. The US government has abandoned any notion of protecting or providing for the citizenry. We got out of hooverville last time through massive government investment into the general public. A "new deal" where the government provided good paying jobs to the unemployed for the public…
Way I see it, there will ultimately be no profits to protect, as human labour will eventually have 0 economic value, triggering an end to the flow of capital and markets. Serious structural changes will be needed to deal with what comes next, the kind of thing I strongly suspect China is far more prepared for than the US (it's not must an economic shift, but a psychological one as well). Whether or not it comes down…
Capital will still flow, it will just be between the people that already own things who are willing to trade. If the government doesn't take a more active role in the economy, then we are looking at one where every bit of capital is extracted from those that have little and where the majority of the flow of capital happens in between those that have it.
IE, those that can afford a yacht will be able to buy one from the yacht company whose owners can then turn around and buy private jets.
The average joe who wasn't in "yacht" society will be left to fend for themselves, ideally for the yacht owners, they'll just die because they are a "waste" on society.
Before that happens, I expect some of the average joes will be able to find work propping up the lavish lifestyle of the yacht owner. Polishing their yacht, making their food, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Way I see it, there will ultimately be no profits to protect, as human labour will eventually have 0 economic value, triggering an end to the flow of capital and markets. Serious structural changes will be needed to deal with what comes next, the kind of thing I strongly suspect China is far more prepared for than the US (it's not must an economic shift, but a psychological one as well). Whether or not it comes down…
> triggering an end to the flow of capital and markets. Capital will still flow, it will just be between the people that already own things who are willing to trade. If the government doesn't take a more active role in the economy, then we are looking at one where every bit of capital is extracted from those that have little and where the majority of the flow of capital happens in between those that have it. IE, thos…
Even then there still won't be capital per se, as that system is rooted in humans' economically valuable labour. There can always be bartering of course, but it'd be pretty meaningless as all the "owners" will be able to create their own X, where X is a jet, yacht, or anything else that one with the access to the means of production (AI+robots) desires.
As to those without access, they'll just die out; there will be no fending at all unless one is given or takes access.
Anti-AI propaganda is false-flag. AI is going to happen. The only question is whether it will benefit everyone or just the rich. Best way for the rich to ensure they own it is to convince the poors that AI is a monster, so they don’t demand it for themselves, and instead fight pointless battles they are guaranteed to lose. Folks need to wake up and start talking about a post-scarcity world where machines do all the w…
Why would AI providers benefit from anti-AI propaganda?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that the creepiness of the tech CEOs that show up in media has a ton to do with this too, as they seem like cartoonish villians. Alex Karp, in particular, has some of the most absolutely horrifying clips of his TV appearances circulating all over video social media. But Musk has broader reach, and is even more oblivious and has tied himself to someone who he himself accused of pedophilia. Andreesen, Thiel, Sa…
It might not be your intention, but your comment seems to imply that the problem here is more image than substance. The problem isn't that these people are simply inarticulate and incapable of expressing their views in ways that appeal to people. It's that their views are unappealing (if not downright objectionable) to most people.
I bet you there are people equally repulsive and influential but face little public backlash because they never show up in front of a camera.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This has nothing to do with reality, where reality means "what people have", rather than "the economy".
"What people have" is robustly measured, well-understood, and pretty much all available evidence suggests that people (at least in the US and developed countries) are doing better than ever on most important metrics. But it is not as seductive as "everything is terrible"!
I'd say the most important metrics are those that matter to people, not those that other people say should matter to them. Births are going down, suicide is going up, but they're just drama queens, we ran the numbers... that is what turns mere criticism into hatred.
Less and less people own a bigger and bigger share of wealth, and they're too often not decent people who respect democracy and the fact that they're still just one person, not a particularly special one, and still only have one vote. No, many of them are not content with that, and have assaulted the people ever since they successfully fought for the few worker's rights they have now. That is bad enough, and not even close to the full picture. That "it used to be worse" in some metrics isn't relevant, what matters is now, how it is because of robber barons, and how it would be without them.
If someone steals most of your shit but leave you with more than "people used to have, on average, in historic times", you wouldn't be placated by that. Because, weirdly enough, you don't view yourself as a mere abstraction to be talked about that way, and billions of other people don't view themselves that way either.
Anti-AI propaganda is false-flag. AI is going to happen. The only question is whether it will benefit everyone or just the rich. Best way for the rich to ensure they own it is to convince the poors that AI is a monster, so they don’t demand it for themselves, and instead fight pointless battles they are guaranteed to lose. Folks need to wake up and start talking about a post-scarcity world where machines do all the w…
> Anti-AI propaganda is false-flag. Why would AI providers benefit from anti-AI propaganda?
1. AI owned by everyone
2. No AI
3. AI owned by billionaires
If you can make the poors fight for 2 instead of 1, then you guarantee that you don't get 1. If instead, the poors fight for 1, they've got a chance of getting it. You present AI as a false dichotomy: no AI or AI for billionaires.
Any of us arguing for (1) get shouted down by the very people who would benefit most from it. The poors do the job of the billionaires.
An AI hate wave is here, yet when I opened the link: > Axios AI+: Catch up on what's new and why it matters in just 5 minutes. > Sign up for Axios AI+ to continue reading for free.
Madison Mills = reporter (no control over Axios)
AI wave timeline:
Investors throw money at AI and companies using AI
Company X sees investors throwing $$$ and starts dancing too
Axios (monkey see monkey do)
Future:
Investors stop throwing money then dancing stop.