Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The dead economy theory

owenmcgrann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#461

Post by ilaksh »

All that is really required to prevent the rise of AI and humanoid robot technology from being used to transition from mass exploitation to mass starvation is to stop being so racist and classist and treat everyone fairly. Then we can raise everyone's standard of living.

Or there may be a very bloody revolution.

I think the hatred for AI is really misdirected survival instincts. People have unfortunately come to see every tool as a tool of exploitation. The most powerful tool in their eyes can only lead to more mistreatment.

Re: The dead economy theory

#462

Post by MagicMoonlight »

Or alternatively, you fire all your staff for agent subscriptions. Then Anslopic realises they have you by the balls. They ratchet up your contract cost every month until they’ve choked every single bit of shareholder value out of your companies lifeless corpse.

And you can’t get your employees back or go back to how you used to do it, because all of your institutional knowledge is gone.

Re: The dead economy theory

#464

Post by hunterpayne »

mullingitover wrote: post #456

Relatedly: a tip for writers. When an article has an obviously AI-generated slop image followed by a wall of text, I immediately know that the wall of text is also a mechanical product and I stop reading. There's nothing worse you can do to tarnish your personal brand than to open with obvious zero-effort graphics. The text might be insightful, who knows, but the AI slop images are such an immediate red flag that the…

You are probably right but if you think it through, you would probably realize that's no different from using stock photos. Also, this piece you should really read. Its a bit better than the majority of opinions on this topic.

Re: The dead economy theory

#465

Post by leoc »

fsckboy wrote: post #347
graemep wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The industrial revolution was enabled by more efficient agriculture feeing labour to do other work.

> The industrial revolution was enabled by more efficient agriculture feeing labour to do other work you're not wrong, but that's not exactly what happened. Agriculture itself was mechanized by the industrial revolution, affordable tractors (tillers, farrowers, etc.) and harvesters. mechanized railroads put more perishable agricultural goods "closer" to urban areas, etc. if you look at the growth industry before that…

The big productivity gains of the Agricultural Revoution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Agricultural_Revolutio... started considerably before the Industrial Revolution, though naturally the Industrial Revolution in turn fed back into agricultural productivity, in time.

Re: The dead economy theory

#466

Post by beepbopboopp »

jonners00 wrote: post #173
beepbopboopp wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean you could have written this article for mechanization word for word, I think the difference is that its coming for the white collar folks this time, who also are the folks writing the think pieces and media.

You couldn't have. Mechanical machines couldn't organise themselves into human-free supply chains that are economically productive for the owners of capital. AIs could.

Any machine with an on-off switch is functionally an organized and automated work flow.

If I understand correctly youre talking about reactive adjustments, but thats not completely accurate either. There is a lot of projection that this MAY happen, but currently, the capital owner/stewards are going to constantly watch outputs and adjust to them based on the results. You're probably correct in that they will spend far less time doing so, but anyone with a vested outcome is going to have to adjust these things as the responsiblity for the outcome will always land on the owner not the machine.

Re: The dead economy theory

#467

Post by hkpack »

rootusrootus wrote: post #226

I know this isn't exactly related, so maybe a low value comment, but it itches in my mind. Years ago I talked with a recruiter at Facebook and they bragged about how many floors of developers they had working on Messenger in just one location (Seattle). What on earth do you do with that many devs on a project like Messenger? I mean, really? I feel like in a way, AI just adds to that weird situation of overcapacity. M…

> Before the AI craze, Musk chopped an awful lot of headcount at Twitter, right, and proved it was overkill, has that panned out?

He basically killed the Twitter as a business. The only lesson here is that it is really hard to fail having infinite money.

Re: The dead economy theory

#468

Post by sp1nningaway »

Aurornis wrote: post #446
omcgrann wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't what the piece argues. It doesn't claim people need jobs to be happy, and the word "happy" doesn't appear in it. The argument is structural: when capital depends on labor, labor has political, economic, and democratic leverage. When that dependency ends, the leverage ends with it. Whether people find meaning in work or outside of it is a separate question the piece doesn't take a position on, because it's…

> Whether people find meaning in work or outside of it is a separate question the piece doesn't take a position on There’s an entire section in the middle about this exact position. Search for “opioid” to find the part where he says people fall into suicide, drug use, and despair when they lose their jobs.

I unironically love arguing on the internet, because you're replying to the author of the essay, but I think the text supports your comment and not his hahah.

"We lose any sense of economic purpose, and with that, social status and a perceived future." Sure sounds like someone weighing-in on the meaning of work and life outside of it...

Re: The dead economy theory

#469

Post by 542458 »

Animats wrote: post #248

India has the problem with farming that the US is starting to have with AI. Farming in India is still far too labor intensive by world standards. 43% of workers still work in agriculture. [1] For the US, that number is under 2%. China is at 22% as of 2023, and dropping steadily. This inefficient agricultural system is not by accident. It is supported by heavy subsidies. Attempts to cut the subsidies resulted in riots…

From your Wikipedia link:

> Demands: […] Government to ensure at least 50% profit over their overall cost of production.

They demanded 50% guaranteed annual RoR on all farming activities? That’s a wild demand.

Re: The dead economy theory

#470

Post by yaur »

coffeemug wrote: post #157
ekidd wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is this time different? If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts. The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock,…

The future you're describing doesn't seem likely to me because in this event the public will force redistribution through political action.

One signficant difference this time is that they can rely on empathyless murder bots to quell riots instead human police.
Post reply on HN