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

The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 185 posts

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#91

Post by mrhottakes »

Balgair wrote: post #90
tenacious_tuna wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some friends and I read "A People's History of the United States" a while back and were surprised at how true this is. US classroom history textbooks hold civil disobedience up as the One True Way to bring change, but it's alarming how often the backdrop of famous acts of civil disobedience was in fact incredible violence. Our conclusion in our impromptu book club was that made sense: why would the state schools give…

Tomas Rick's Waging a Good War: A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement 1954-68 should be required reading at this point https://www.amazon.com/Waging-Good-War-Military-1954-1968/dp... Ricks kinda beats a dead horse as he goes over and over again that non-violence is not unaggressive. It is typically quite militant when done well. Non violence is a tactic, one that is typically better at achieving results tha…

Your "poor internet comment" got me to check the book out, so I'd say it's a pretty good comment!

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#92

Post by mrhottakes »

ryanackley wrote: post #67
garciasn wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m always amazed that when I tell people I intend to retire in my 50s, they tell me that I can’t possibly mean that and actively wonder how I could possibly fill my time. It’s as if we could not possibly function as humans without meaningless shifting of tangible/intangibles from one place to another. Society is so hellbent on the idea that we need our job to be our identity, they lack the imagination for another ot…

Sure working sucks, but have you tried not working? I think this is from lived experience because I've gone for stretches of not working (intentionally). It can be challenging to find a sense of fulfillment. I know it seems counter-intuitive but if you do succeed in your dream of retiring in your 50's I think you'll understand what I mean when you get there.

I think you need to do better at not working. It's great actually.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#93

Post by mrhottakes »

ryanackley wrote: post #82
JohnFen wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this varies wildly from person to person. I've also intentionally gone long stretches without working and those are the times when I've had a dramatically increased sense of purpose and fulfillment. Working for others reduces those things for me. I'm in the age group where a lot of the people around me have retired. Some of them have fared very poorly, some have straight-up blossomed.

Ok but one of the great things about retiring when everyone else does is you have a community. If you stop working when you're young, everyone else in your network is probably still working. I'm not against early retirement. One of my points was that, in general, it's harder to find fulfillment as a working age adult outside of work. Not impossible, just more challenging.

It's harder for -you- to find fulfillment outside of work. This is not a true statement for most or "in general".

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#94

Post by mrhottakes »

bcjdjsndon wrote: post #72
pelotron wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We shouldn't be surprised people have a negative view of AI when Altman et al. have stated on stage that the goal is to replace everyone.

Because it's not even logically possible, let alone practically

Maybe the Altmans and Amodeis should stop saying otherwise all the time then.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#95

Post by ToValueFunfetti »

onedognight wrote: post #68
skybrian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s an example where they took a side on taxes?

Support for Trump, or even Republicans writ large, means support for reducing taxes (both estate and income) on the wealthy, while increasing them on consumers (via tariffs). Musk has been an ardent supporter of Trump.

While I don't disagree with your conclusion, this line of reasoning makes no sense in a two party state where each party offers a menu of positions. Supporters are forced to make tradeoffs and pretending otherwise just gives you an incoherent picture of reality.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#96

Post by lorecore »

bluecheese452 wrote: post #84
lorecore wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Finite means not free. Who will pay?

If your magic robot is magic enough you own anything you want. You pay with the oldest currency in the world. Might.

I don’t think pillaging the earth’s natural resources (even more than we already do) is going to go down well.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#97

Post by general1465 »

variadix wrote: post #47
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #2

> They want to replace workers A simple question none of the ai-doomsayers can answer... who buys anything when nobody has a job cos robots do everything?

The consumer economy only exists to extract value from common people and funnel it up the wealth ladder. If robots and AI take over all the production, you don’t need a consumer economy, the robots produce and their output directly goes to the top. The rest of us are left to starve.

Eh, no? If everything goes to top, then economy of scale just don't work and whole automation is pointless, because you can make the goods in artisan way.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#98

Post by general1465 »

gypsy_boots wrote: post #39
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #2

> They want to replace workers A simple question none of the ai-doomsayers can answer... who buys anything when nobody has a job cos robots do everything?

Take any econ 101 course, and you'll realize that this isn't a factor in the capitalist system. Capitalism is simply concerned with maximizing profit, and in this case, returning shareholder value. It's just simply not in the purview of the system to think about what happens when you completely get rid of your labor force. Envisioned another way, the future of labor might look the way it did for laborers over 100 yea…

No wages -> Nobody buys stuff and services -> Companies are going bankrupt -> No taxable income from consumers nor companies -> States are going bankrupt.

You can either go through UBI taxing automated work by 90%+ and pretend that capitalism is still a thing, or just nationalize everything and go with communism.

Henry Ford understood this problem with his Model T and realized that if he wants to sell it, he also needs to pay workers to be able to afford it.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#99

Post by general1465 »

hamdingers wrote: post #27
bcjdjsndon wrote: post #2

> They want to replace workers A simple question none of the ai-doomsayers can answer... who buys anything when nobody has a job cos robots do everything?

Fully automated luxury space fascism doesn't really need buyers. A risk of high automation/post-scarcity is that abundance exists but remains under the control of people who are not interested in justice or equality or freedom. Lots of people feel that describes the leadership of most AI tech companies. If they don't need your labor, and they don't need you as a customer, and they don't care about you as a person...…

But that also assume that peasants do not have agency and won't trigger another French Revolution.

Re: The AI Backlash Could Get Ugly

#100

Post by dehrmann »

mrhottakes wrote: post #34
skybrian wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s an example where they took a side on taxes?

Elon's companies famously pay very little in taxes, he spent last year attempting to gut the federal government, he complains constantly about how much he pays in taxes, and he's been very vocal about California's recent efforts to tax very wealthy people.

The California Billionaire Tax is a bad idea. It's not that wealth taxes can't work (most of the US taxes property just fine), it's that taxes need to be fair and predictable. The phase-in is too narrow and its implementation is too arbitrary. Why $1B? Why $5%? Why won't CA voters hit up billionaires again?
Post reply on HN