4 ms·

That would be a threat solely if AI were very expensive and only realizable by a very small group of people. Computers have caused significant damage to our so

That would be a threat solely if AI were very expensive and only realizable by a very small group of people. Computers have caused significant damage to our society because of mostly cultural reasons that are going to work themselves out over the next decades. Once people realize that the exact computing technology which made their jobs redundant is equally effective at competing against their prior employers, and that they have the stupendous advantage of having near nil overhead while their ex-employer is a monolith unwilling to adapt properly, that harm will be ameliorated, IMO. With AI, though, I think we have good reason to believe that the change would be much more sudden, and much more widespread. You can freeze wages and scalp every bit of productivity increase for yourself and shareholders as a corporate owner and get away with it for 30+ years (as has been done). But if even, say, 15% of the total workforce were laid off in the first year... things would change rapidly. It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly. Nothing motivates like fear of starvation. Computers were only able to result in the problems we're facing today because it was a slow constriction of suffocation, cost of living gradually chipping away at the frozen median wage, rather than a brick to the back of the head as the introduction of generalized AI would be.

s986s 11y ago
Honestly, another 99% protest is more likely then a massive showing of competition in hypothetical markets. The average person isnt that technologically inclined. on top of that, technology costs money. Rasberry pis wont be cheap forever and even then, the expectation a person is going to understand the tests they want to run, have masive use case data and the time to surpervise will probably be a fraction of those interested in it. Im all for decentralization of manufacturing and development in software. But realistically, money isnt going anywhere and far scarier things may occur than an AI takeover
gnaritas 11y ago
> It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly. I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter who winds up running the AI, the AI is still doing all the work many people used to do, all of those people are still out of work, even if some of them displaced the old boss running lower overhead, most will still be unemployed due to the collapse of the demand for human labor. Increased productivity in the AI age means human jobs lost with no replacements coming.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
>> Once people realize that the exact computing technology which made their jobs redundant is equally effective at competing against their prior employers, and that they have the stupendous advantage of having near nil overhead while their ex-employer is a monolith unwilling to adapt properly, that harm will be ameliorated, IMO. This hasn't worked anywhere nearly that well in the past, why should it work any better in the future? The reason it can't is that we can't both all use new technologies _and_ expect that we can make a comfortable living out of it. The reason is good old supply and demand. If everyone can use a technology, then the ability to use it is not something you can sell very highly. Take writing for example. Back in the time of the pharaohs, priests were the only ones who knew writing and reading and they had immense power as a result. Today, knowing how to read and write is more of a prerequisite to be able to find work, not a skill you can sell in and of itself. Also, it happens that of all the people I know who work with computers, I can't think of anyone, off the top of my head, who switched from a different kind of job. I'm sure there are some, but they'll be few and far between. For most people, losing their job to a computer means just that: that they lose their job. To a computer. And think of all the McJobs that keep unemployment low in most western economies: flipping burgers, stacking shelves, cold-calling, part-time stuff. _That_ is the kind of job most people do in the information age.
YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago
Also, this bit: >> their ex-employer is a monolith Aye, a monolith with the capital to buy them out of the market, if they look even remotely threatening, just to be sure. Then that same boss can take the tech they bought for a tiny cost (to them), encase it in patents and copyrights and leave it to rot where nobody can get big ideas about using it to give power to the people and all that.

s986s 11y ago

Honestly, another 99% protest is more likely then a massive showing of competition in hypothetical markets. The average person isnt that technologically inclined. on top of that, technology costs money. Rasberry pis wont be cheap forever and even then, the expectation a person is going to understand the tests they want to run, have masive use case data and the time to surpervise will probably be a fraction of those interested in it. Im all for decentralization of manufacturing and development in software. But realistically, money isnt going anywhere and far scarier things may occur than an AI takeover

gnaritas 11y ago

> It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly. I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter who winds up running the AI, the AI is still doing all the work many people used to do, all of those people are still out of work, even if some of them displaced the old boss running lower overhead, most will still be unemployed due to the collapse of the demand for human labor. Increased productivity in the AI age means human jobs lost with no replacements coming.

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

>> Once people realize that the exact computing technology which made their jobs redundant is equally effective at competing against their prior employers, and that they have the stupendous advantage of having near nil overhead while their ex-employer is a monolith unwilling to adapt properly, that harm will be ameliorated, IMO. This hasn't worked anywhere nearly that well in the past, why should it work any better in the future? The reason it can't is that we can't both all use new technologies _and_ expect that we can make a comfortable living out of it. The reason is good old supply and demand. If everyone can use a technology, then the ability to use it is not something you can sell very highly. Take writing for example. Back in the time of the pharaohs, priests were the only ones who knew writing and reading and they had immense power as a result. Today, knowing how to read and write is more of a prerequisite to be able to find work, not a skill you can sell in and of itself. Also, it happens that of all the people I know who work with computers, I can't think of anyone, off the top of my head, who switched from a different kind of job. I'm sure there are some, but they'll be few and far between. For most people, losing their job to a computer means just that: that they lose their job. To a computer. And think of all the McJobs that keep unemployment low in most western economies: flipping burgers, stacking shelves, cold-calling, part-time stuff. _That_ is the kind of job most people do in the information age.

YeGoblynQueenne 11y ago

Also, this bit: >> their ex-employer is a monolith Aye, a monolith with the capital to buy them out of the market, if they look even remotely threatening, just to be sure. Then that same boss can take the tech they bought for a tiny cost (to them), encase it in patents and copyrights and leave it to rot where nobody can get big ideas about using it to give power to the people and all that.