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

The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 99 posts

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#81

Post by skeledrew »

dangond wrote: post #54
rayiner wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but just accept it and displace the quasi-slaves? Well, the quasi-slavery is the problem, right? And replacing the Bangladeshi slave labor with robots and AI solves that problem, no?

What happens to that labor if everyone that would hire them previously is now using cheaper artificial labor? They don't exactly have the capital to make use of artificial labor themselves, nor do they have the skills to work other jobs. The problem is solved for the 10% who are citizens. Great! They don't have a moral quandary regarding slave labor anymore (notwithstanding that there are other ways to prevent being…

You don't let it get to the point where only 10% has access to artificial labor. But also it should be pretty difficult for that to happen as the transition is gradual, not instant, so there will be a soft tipping point where access to artificial labor will be provided voluntarily or there will be revolution. Or mass death by deprivation.

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#82

Post by skeledrew »

general1465 wrote: post #64
blacksmith_tb wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but I think the implication is you can't run a consumer economy if the consumers aren't making any wages to buy the products and services those cheap and efficient robots are churning out. Or pay taxes. So the entire socioeconomic system we currently enjoy/endure vanishes, robotic factories included.

Exactly. Economy of scale will cease to exists. Thus the demand for robots in the factories will stop making sense - what they would be making for whom? Nobody have money, nobody can buy anything. So next step, business go bust, because there is just not enough billionaires to keep all of them alive. Another step is states go bust because there is no income to be taxed and there is no capital exchanging hands in buyi…

There are economic systems which aren't based on the concept of "money".

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#83

Post by tim333 »

jmyeet wrote: post #46

Transhumanism doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations. I'm glad this article does mention it but it doesn't really do it justice. Transhumanism is very big with Silicon Valley billionaires but it's actually pretty dark. First, it's an extension of meritocracy (in the capitalism sense where poverty is a personal moral failure) as well as Protestant prosperity gospel. That is, you are superior if you're ric…

You've got an unusual idea of what transhumanism is. I think the general understanding, as Wikipedia puts it is

>Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies to enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being.

Nothing about being rich, doing eugenics or Elon cranking out kids.

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#84

Post by port11 »

andai wrote: post #34

> Since they believe AIs could become our moral superiors, they argue it’s actually wrong to try to keep the machines down, or even to align them with human values, as most AI companies aim to do. It's possible that human morality is not sufficient to solve the problems with the world. It wasn't designed to operate at that scale. It's also quite likely that a "superior" morality — the one that's actually built for a…

> We already know what we need to do and we're already not willing to do it.

Those in power are not willing to do it.

(I think most of humanity would be okay with, say, heavily taxing super wealth to protect nature, fight climate change, or feed the poor. They’d also be okay with regulating pollution or not allowing 3M to ruin Belgium’s groundwater.)

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#85

Post by general1465 »

skeledrew wrote: post #82
general1465 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. Economy of scale will cease to exists. Thus the demand for robots in the factories will stop making sense - what they would be making for whom? Nobody have money, nobody can buy anything. So next step, business go bust, because there is just not enough billionaires to keep all of them alive. Another step is states go bust because there is no income to be taxed and there is no capital exchanging hands in buyi…

There are economic systems which aren't based on the concept of "money".

If you mean bartering, then what people which has been pushed out by AI into uselessness are going to barter?

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#86

Post by jmyeet »

tim333 wrote: post #83
jmyeet wrote: post #46

Transhumanism doesn't get mentioned enough in these conversations. I'm glad this article does mention it but it doesn't really do it justice. Transhumanism is very big with Silicon Valley billionaires but it's actually pretty dark. First, it's an extension of meritocracy (in the capitalism sense where poverty is a personal moral failure) as well as Protestant prosperity gospel. That is, you are superior if you're ric…

You've got an unusual idea of what transhumanism is. I think the general understanding, as Wikipedia puts it is >Transhumanism is a philosophical movement that advocates the enhancement of the human condition by developing and making widely available new and future technologies to enhance longevity, cognition, and well-being. Nothing about being rich, doing eugenics or Elon cranking out kids.

Keep reading Wikipedia [1]:

> The tradition of human enhancement originated with the eugenics movement that was once prominent in the biological sciences, and was later politicized in various ways. This continuity is especially clear in the case of Julian Huxley himself.

> The major transhumanist organizations strongly condemn the coercion involved in such policies and reject the racist and classist assumptions on which they were based, along with the pseudoscientific notions that eugenic improvements could be accomplished in a practically meaningful time frame through selective human breeding. Instead, most transhumanist thinkers advocate a "new eugenics", a form of egalitarian liberal eugenics. In their 2000 book From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, non-transhumanist bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler have argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements. Most transhumanists holding similar views nonetheless distance themselves from the term "eugenics" (preferring "germinal choice" or "reprogenetics") to avoid having their position confused with the discredited theories and practices of early-20th-century eugenic movements.

> Health law professor George Annas and technology law professor Lori Andrews are prominent advocates of the position that the use of these technologies could lead to human–posthuman caste warfare.

More [2][3][4].

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism#New_eugenics

[2]: https://academic.oup.com/book/31995/chapter-abstract/2677640...

[3]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/28/nick-bost...

[4]: https://cne.news/article/2163-three-women-ten-children-how-e...

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#87

Post by theptip »

blacksmith_tb wrote: post #63
theptip wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is only a bargaining chip until the robot workers come online. Once capital can fully replace labor it’s game over. (And once the robots outpower the humans, you can’t even protest or overthrow your new overlords.) Important to know when your cards must be played.

Not the OP, but I think the implication is you can't run a consumer economy if the consumers aren't making any wages to buy the products and services those cheap and efficient robots are churning out. Or pay taxes. So the entire socioeconomic system we currently enjoy/endure vanishes, robotic factories included.

Right, perhaps true, but my point is that you don’t need a consumer economy if/when you have fully replaced labor with automata.

I agree this would represent the end of the current socioeconomic system, and that many/most would not enjoy the neo-feudalistic-at-best system that would replace it.

The robot factories don’t require consumers as inputs. They don’t necessarily vanish if the consumer economy vanishes. (I agree they would vanish if you tank the economy in, say 2027.)

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#88

Post by danaris »

chrncirurp wrote: post #27
jleyank wrote: post #21

No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call.

> No well-paid workers (or UBI), no consumer economy. Their call. Maybe you’re right. Maybe you’re wrong. No point wasting money on UBI before it’s a problem. Let’s wait and see if UBI is actually required. That is, do people actually protest and vote. Probably not.

Yeah; after all, if we went and gave people money when it wasn't absolutely required for living, we'd just have made everyone's lives better, made the economy more robust, and given people a real chance who were struggling, all for nothing![0]

[0] cf. https://www.insidehighered.com/sites/default/files/2023-07/H...

Re: The people who actually want AI to replace humanity

#89

Post by danaris »

ImJamal wrote: post #62
rightbyte wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No tech people should be allowed near politics in any capacity. No we need more politics. The 'no politics' is a petite bourgeoisie moral escape hatch.

The dehumanization push is coming from the tech people.

Honestly, they're both partly right (the GP and GGP, not the techbros doing the dehumanization).

What we need is for there to be no such thing as a "tech person" who has never taken a humanities class in their life. In particular, we need all our tech people to have a solid grasp of ethics and the value of human life and dignity.

On the flip side, we absolutely need our politicians to have a solid grasp of technology, so they can't be hoodwinked into letting the tech sector just do its own thing unregulated as if it's separate from "real life".

Post reply on HN