> Because if spread equally and used responsibly That ‘if’ is Atlas carrying the entire world on its shoulders. It should be clear by now that at global scales and with competing interests, the entire premise is impossible.
Not really, western countries were doing a lot of that in the 20th century (amongst themselves, anyway). Then the 80s happened. Or what, do people think that the boomers were all that good, that they genuinely earned everything they got? The generations before just worked out how to govern properly.
The 80s happened because of the stagnation of the 70s.
Because if spread equally and used responsibly, it raises quality of life for everyone. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people alive today have far easier lives than hunter-gatherers. There is less famine and starvation. There is less fatal disease, etc.
> Because if spread equally and used responsibly That ‘if’ is Atlas carrying the entire world on its shoulders. It should be clear by now that at global scales and with competing interests, the entire premise is impossible.
I think the point hodgehog was trying to make is that overall wellbeing increased. Famine is down, disease is down, wars are down, security up, well-being up. Innovation overall benefits everyone in the long run. Global scales aren't the problem---goods once reserved for the wealthy are being copied and produced at markedly lower prices, with examples such as EVs and drones. I realize that "overall" is doing some heavy lifting but I think it's rather unreasonable to dismiss the entirety of human technological progress as only benefiting the elite.
More often than not, money is never truly lost; it is just passed from one person's hand to another. I believe that with the help of the big tech companies, governments have found faster and better ways to move money from the hands of the many with little into the hands of the few with a lot. The layoffs are an example of this as coders, assitance and other white-collar workers are replaced by AI for low prices so as…
This kind of thinking is the root of most populist rhetoric - that money and wealth is zero sum and it just shifts hands. This is false and a dangerous rabbit hole of an ideology to get into.
How is money not zero sum? I agree prosperity as such isn't, but money, land, other things are limited. And wealth is only wealth because not everybody else has as much, right? As in, it doesn't matter if you have a dollar and I have 100, or you have 1 trillion dollars and I have 100 trillion dollars, it's the same difference.
More often than not, money is never truly lost; it is just passed from one person's hand to another. I believe that with the help of the big tech companies, governments have found faster and better ways to move money from the hands of the many with little into the hands of the few with a lot. The layoffs are an example of this as coders, assitance and other white-collar workers are replaced by AI for low prices so as…
This kind of thinking is the root of most populist rhetoric - that money and wealth is zero sum and it just shifts hands. This is false and a dangerous rabbit hole of an ideology to get into.
This kind of thinking is the root of most populist rhetoric - that money and wealth is zero sum and it just shifts hands. This is false and a dangerous rabbit hole of an ideology to get into.
How is money not zero sum? I agree prosperity as such isn't, but money, land, other things are limited. And wealth is only wealth because not everybody else has as much, right? As in, it doesn't matter if you have a dollar and I have 100, or you have 1 trillion dollars and I have 100 trillion dollars, it's the same difference.
I think that wealth is pretty much comparative, as you said, but I think that money (which I'm interpreting as an indentifier of worth, tell me if that's wrong) isn't zero sum. Price is (generally) proportional to value, measured in how much you stand to benefit by owning/selling/using an asset as compared to doing nothing. The physical dollar bill may have limited circulation at a moment in time, but value fluctuates. Supply up, value---and then price---down, assuming all other factors are constant. Value can be created and dissolve in weeks as it is intriniscally subjective---think fads and trends. One pair of jeans could be worth a couple hundred one day and be worthless the other. Thus, value and thus money is not zero sum.
Innovation has pretty much always heightened the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the poor. A classical example would be the Industrial Revolution and America's guilded age, and another could be the circular investments between modern AI corpos (the whole nVIDIA, Microsoft, and OpenAI funding loop), which is probably a bad thing in the long run (systemic violence and class revolt). We have to walk this tightr…
> Innovation has pretty much always heightened the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the poor. In absolute terms however most poors in, say, the EU today live better than any king ever lived up until, say, the early 20th century (quality of clothes / bed, medicine, communication, knowledge, etc.). I'd rather be working 8/5 at a gas station today (and then enjoy gaming or watching TV at home) then be an emperor…
True, I'd agree that my wellbeing today (as a member of a rich western country) is far more preferable to someone who lacks modern innovations. However, these innovations continue and will continue to help the rich far more than the poor. For example, medical treatments for life threatening conditions are still incredibly expensive. Even insulin, something so cheap to manufacture, is being gouged to eyewatering prices. The danger is that the disparity becomes so large that the rich become the only people who can afford these innovations, thus leading the innovations becoming only avalible to the rich and not the poor. Structural violence ensues and pretty bad things happen.
Innovation has pretty much always heightened the wealth disparity between the wealthy and the poor. A classical example would be the Industrial Revolution and America's guilded age, and another could be the circular investments between modern AI corpos (the whole nVIDIA, Microsoft, and OpenAI funding loop), which is probably a bad thing in the long run (systemic violence and class revolt). We have to walk this tightr…
More often than not, money is never truly lost; it is just passed from one person's hand to another. I believe that with the help of the big tech companies, governments have found faster and better ways to move money from the hands of the many with little into the hands of the few with a lot. The layoffs are an example of this as coders, assitance and other white-collar workers are replaced by AI for low prices so as…
Money can be lost - if lots of it are invested in endeavors that don't pan out, a good chunk of it simply gets wasted. As in: we really did have a bunch of money that we could have spent on many valuable things, but we didn't, so instead of food on the table we collectively get bupkis for it all.
"[CCP General Secretary] finally commits fully to the big AI push he had previously tried to avoid. He sets in motion the nationalization of Chinese AI research"
Because if spread equally and used responsibly, it raises quality of life for everyone. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people alive today have far easier lives than hunter-gatherers. There is less famine and starvation. There is less fatal disease, etc.
> Because if spread equally and used responsibly That ‘if’ is Atlas carrying the entire world on its shoulders. It should be clear by now that at global scales and with competing interests, the entire premise is impossible.
only if you assume capitalism is the only stable economic system. without wealth differences there is nothing other than your own abilities that can make access to tech unequal.