4 ms·

> Why would they sell it to you later? For the same reason they sell mobile phones. Because the marginal cost is much lower than what they sell it for. The "r

> Why would they sell it to you later? For the same reason they sell mobile phones. Because the marginal cost is much lower than what they sell it for. The "rich" aren't a single person. If Jeff Bezos refuses to sell you something, Tim Cook will see an opportunity to take the market from under him. Competition is why they'll sell it to you. If you don't believe this, can you give examples of cases where "the rich" have successfully withheld a beneficial technology from everyone for more than a few decades? > Even more so, why would they even need most people (say 80% or so)? This is going into highly speculative territory. All I can say is if you think this is the future then you should be hoping and praying that genetic research advances faster than AI does. If AI can eliminate 80% of the workforce, it's only a matter of time before it eliminates 100%, at which point "rich" doesn't matter anymore as that's a human distinction only. In an AI dominated future isn't genetic research even more critical because it's one of the few outs for human beings to remain economically relevant?

opnitro 7y ago
>>> If you don't believe this, can you give examples of cases where "the rich" have successfully withheld a beneficial technology from everyone for more than a few decades? Control over the means of production
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ls612 7y ago
  This is tautological. Control of the means of production defines what “rich” is in the industrial world.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    What parent means is that the the "means of production" are also a beneficial technology in themselves...
    - ls612 7y ago
      But its not like the "rich" could let the "not rich" have that beneficial technology because once you have that technology you become "rich". So it's a meaningless example.
      - opnitro 7y ago
        Yeah I mean that's my point. Societal control has continually stayed in the hands of the few.
- kortilla 7y ago
  But they haven’t? It’s trivial to start a business.
coldtea 7y ago
>For the same reason they sell mobile phones. Because the marginal cost is much lower than what they sell it for. (...) The "rich" aren't a single person. If Jeff Bezos refuses to sell you something, Tim Cook will see an opportunity to take the market from under him. Competition is why they'll sell it to you. There's no need for Bezos and Cook to sell you anything if you don't have any money -- and there's no reason for you to have money if they don't need your services. They will either pay you some UBI to keep you from storming their 10%-20% secluded parts of the city, or just use private armies for that and leave you to rot... >If AI can eliminate 80% of the workforce, it's only a matter of time before it eliminates 100%, at which point "rich" doesn't matter anymore as that's a human distinction only. If you have the guns, the state, and the money, then it doesn't matter whether rich "matters anymore", you can use your power to keep them...
Faark 7y ago
AI is a means of production. Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable. All that new technology will accelerate wealth inequality. Markets follow wealth, thus the future R&D, tech & manufacturing will focus less on the median citizen. The danger is this being a positive feedback loop (aka self reinforcing, speeding up towards infinity instead of finding a stable equilibrium). Yes, those system might have always existed, but so far have accelerated slow enough to not become a big problem for us. Those drastic increases of wealth inequality will come with drastic centralization of power, even in our democracies. The few on top will be less and less dependent on many of their fellow citizens. I don't see this ending in a utopian society, unless there is a miracle making those "good", altruistic individuals. But if we learned anything in the past, then it is that political / power system never work long term if they require a "good" king.
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  > Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable The poster I responded to claims 80% human job elimination by AI. That implied AI that is better than human for the vast majority of jobs. We’re well past the threshold for Westworld style general AI if we get even close to endangering 80% of human jobs.
  - p1esk 7y ago
    No. You can probably have various specialized AIs take over 99% of all jobs, and still not be anywhere close to AGI, or “strong AI”.
    - landryraccoon 7y ago
      I’m skeptical. Do you have an argument to back up that claim? Doctors and nurses that provide direct healthcare are more than 1% of workers, are you saying AGI that replaces a doctor can’t be considered “strong AI”?
      - p1esk 7y ago

opnitro 7y ago

>>> If you don't believe this, can you give examples of cases where "the rich" have successfully withheld a beneficial technology from everyone for more than a few decades? Control over the means of production

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ls612 7y ago
This is tautological. Control of the means of production defines what “rich” is in the industrial world.
- coldtea 7y ago
  What parent means is that the the "means of production" are also a beneficial technology in themselves...
  - ls612 7y ago
    But its not like the "rich" could let the "not rich" have that beneficial technology because once you have that technology you become "rich". So it's a meaningless example.
    - opnitro 7y ago
      Yeah I mean that's my point. Societal control has continually stayed in the hands of the few.
kortilla 7y ago
But they haven’t? It’s trivial to start a business.

coldtea 7y ago

>For the same reason they sell mobile phones. Because the marginal cost is much lower than what they sell it for. (...) The "rich" aren't a single person. If Jeff Bezos refuses to sell you something, Tim Cook will see an opportunity to take the market from under him. Competition is why they'll sell it to you. There's no need for Bezos and Cook to sell you anything if you don't have any money -- and there's no reason for you to have money if they don't need your services. They will either pay you some UBI to keep you from storming their 10%-20% secluded parts of the city, or just use private armies for that and leave you to rot... >If AI can eliminate 80% of the workforce, it's only a matter of time before it eliminates 100%, at which point "rich" doesn't matter anymore as that's a human distinction only. If you have the guns, the state, and the money, then it doesn't matter whether rich "matters anymore", you can use your power to keep them...

Faark 7y ago

AI is a means of production. Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable. All that new technology will accelerate wealth inequality. Markets follow wealth, thus the future R&D, tech & manufacturing will focus less on the median citizen. The danger is this being a positive feedback loop (aka self reinforcing, speeding up towards infinity instead of finding a stable equilibrium). Yes, those system might have always existed, but so far have accelerated slow enough to not become a big problem for us. Those drastic increases of wealth inequality will come with drastic centralization of power, even in our democracies. The few on top will be less and less dependent on many of their fellow citizens. I don't see this ending in a utopian society, unless there is a miracle making those "good", altruistic individuals. But if we learned anything in the past, then it is that political / power system never work long term if they require a "good" king.

landryraccoon 7y ago
> Unless you talk about the sentient, human level kind that managed to become uncontrollable The poster I responded to claims 80% human job elimination by AI. That implied AI that is better than human for the vast majority of jobs. We’re well past the threshold for Westworld style general AI if we get even close to endangering 80% of human jobs.
- p1esk 7y ago
  No. You can probably have various specialized AIs take over 99% of all jobs, and still not be anywhere close to AGI, or “strong AI”.
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    I’m skeptical. Do you have an argument to back up that claim? Doctors and nurses that provide direct healthcare are more than 1% of workers, are you saying AGI that replaces a doctor can’t be considered “strong AI”?
    - p1esk 7y ago