181–190 of 288 posts
Is it me or does this seem like naked corruption at its worst? These tech CEOs hang out at the White House and donate to superfluous causes and suddenly the executive is protecting their interests. This does nothing to protect working US citizens from AI alien (agents) coming to take their jobs and displace their incomes.
You aren't missing anything. This is oligarchic capture of the government.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But humans aren't more productive for the most part. What had made people more productive is, for the most part, mechanization, computerization, and other tech tree improvements. Even though everyone didn't get rich from the industrial revolution, ultimately people led easier lives, more stuff, and less work.
I read that a peasant in the middle ages typically worked less and had much more leisure than a worker in the 21st century.
Instead, they hoped the food stores would last and the kids wouldn't die so they could help work the land next year.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the Administration is likely to get its toys taken away soon. the Major Questions Doctrine, the end of Chevron deference, the mandate for Article III courts from Jarkesy , have been building towards this for a while. the capstone in this program of weakening the administrative state, overturning Humphrey's Executor when Trump v. Slaughter is decided, will likely revive the Intelligible Principle Doctrine, as…
I don't know where you get the confidence that any of that matters to SCOTUS. They know their role, and they are playing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is the strongest argument. Every technological revolution so far has initially benefited the wealthy and taken a generation or two for its effects to lift the masses out of previous levels of poverty, but ultimately each one has. To me the stronger argument about AI is that this revolution won't. And that's because this one is not really about productivity or even about capital investment in things…
I don't know about for all perpetuity. If history has shown, anyone that reaches the pinnacle eventually becomes complacent, technology improves by becoming faster/cheaper/smaller. That just means it is prime to always be susceptible to a new something coming along that stands on the shoulders of what came before without having to pay for it. They start where the current leader fought to achieve.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it should be. The system here in the US has produced some great innovations at the cost of great misery among the non-wealthy. At a time when technology promises an easier life, it only seems to benefit the wealthy, while trying to discard everyone else. The light at the end of the tunnel is a 1%-er about to laughingly crush you beneath their wheels.
I don’t know about that. The poor from just about every other country in the world seem desperate to live in America. While American capitalism has many faults, oppressing the bottom quintile is not one of them. The US median income is consistently top ten globally.
Immigration to the USA, both illegal and legal, has cratered.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we need a hyper-productive world where someone working a few hours a year generates enough wealth to secure a comfortable lifestyle up there with the best of them. This is naive, productivity increases had decoupled from compensation a long time ago. See https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/ for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. I…
> for example. AI certainly can create wealth, and in fact already did (hey NVDA), but somehow that did not trickle down. The millions of people who use NVDA’s products do not get value from it? Isn’t it making their lives richer?
And the richness of life it's another philosophical discussion altogether...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, the USA is in the top five in terms of median income. They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cost-of-l...
> They are also tied for first for having the highest cost of living. Who cares? Absolute savings rate and net worth are what matter. Any European will gladly live in America for US$1 million/year income even if the cost of living is US$300k/year.
https://www.ft.com/content/653bbb26-8a22-4db3-b43d-c34a0b774...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We regulate medicine, nuclear technology, television, movies, monopolies, energy, financial services, etc. because these things can be harmful if left solely to the market. Americans value honest work, dignity, prosperity and equal opportunity. Innovation is useful in so far as it enables our values - regulation is not counter to Americans interests, it protects them.
I feel like anyone making this argument hasn't studied how those regulations happened. They ALL happened AFTER people got hurt. That's how we do things here. We always have. It's kind of messed up, but the alternative is a bunch of rules on things that wouldn't be a real problem.
It's funny to me that they categorise AI and crypto together like this, two technologies that have nothing to do with each other (other than both being favoured by grifters).