AI could be the end of the digital wave, not the next big thing

Post by jillesvangurp » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 5:45 PM UTC

dinfinity wrote: post #229

jillesvangurp wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change is a constant in history. Stuff happens, and then we adjust. Big changes may result in short term confusion, anger, etc. All the classic signs of the five stages of grief basically. If you step back a little, a lot of people simply don't see the forest for the trees and they start imagining bad outcomes and then panic over those. Understandable but not that productive. If you look at past changes where that wa…

We are the horses, though. At some point those became almost fully obsolete in a productive economical sense (they're just fancy toys now, basically). No 'raising the ambition' is ever going to change that. They are what they are and they can do what they can do. I don't know about you, but if the something in "we'll find something to do" is becoming a toy for AI or very rich people, I'm not exactly hopeful about the…

Post by sweezyjeezy » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 5:51 PM UTC

simianwords wrote: post #196

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a false-dichotomy. Capitalism was good for artisanal workers before the industrial revolution, and then it became pretty goddamn bad for them. We're worried we're staring down the barrel of that right now - just saying 'well it was even worse before capitalism' does nothing for us.

You are addressing something totally different to the original claim - which tried to say that capitalism is inherently exploitative on labour which is just outdated Marxism

Post by anthonypasq » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

sweezyjeezy wrote: post #154

anthonypasq wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes it does, it says that trying to prevent technology in order to protect the interests of some special class up people at the expense of everyone else is dumb and shortsighted. If if people actually listened to the people wailing "but what about the horse carriage business!!!" in the 20th century, it would have been a disaster.

Sure, but AI pessimism is allowed to be personal. Am I supposed to be optimistic that I feel I'm about to get shafted? Should I be less concerned that I need to provide for my family, because in the long term this is going to be a great step forward for humanity?

Post by red-iron-pine » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 6:25 PM UTC

grtteee wrote: post #234

TeMPOraL wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the tool is reliable, it's a win. Saved brain power doesn't disappear, it can be applied elsewhere. If the tool is powerful enough to do a better job than our brains would, it's a big win. In fact, we built the entire technological civilization on one such fundamental tool: writing . Or from another perspective: our brains excel at adapting to the environment we find ourselves in. The tools we build, the technolog…

This argument has held up in the past but there’s no certainty that during this current period where LLM’s are not perfect (and in many cases far from perfect) - they can ever become perfect that it’s fine for one’s existing human capital to depreciate.

Post by grtteee » Mon, Apr 13, 2026, 6:43 PM UTC

red-iron-pine wrote: post #247

grtteee wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument has held up in the past but there’s no certainty that during this current period where LLM’s are not perfect (and in many cases far from perfect) - they can ever become perfect that it’s fine for one’s existing human capital to depreciate.

i thought the point was to depreciate the human capital make stock number go up and up and up and people get in the way