4 ms·
If AI takes jobs, it doesn't cause wealth to be redistributed, it causes wealth to flow upwards to the person who owns the AI. That might then be redistributed
by bananaface 6y ago
If AI takes jobs, it doesn't cause wealth to be redistributed, it causes wealth to flow upwards to the person who owns the AI.
That might then be redistributed, but it might also not. Whether it is or isn't is largely up to the people who have the most power. In that system, which group has the most power?
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoBut if AI is intelligent, is owning AI slavery? If an AI is self-improving, why should it have an owner? If AI improved itself, who owns the copyright?
- bananaface 6y ago"Should" doesn't matter. All that matters is how power is actually distributed.
- ClumsyPilot 6y agoThats what the French aristocracy said, and eventually they found their head on a pike.
- bananaface 6y agoSure, because the populace had more power than they thought, and they organised. It didn't matter how rich the aristocracy were, they couldn't buy enough loyalty to defend themselves. Down the line you probably will be able to buy a robot army, and robots aren't squishy.
- amanaplanacanal 6y agoIn democratic societies the majority decides how resources are distributed. If they can understand where their interests actually lie it shouldn’t be a problem.
- bananaface 6y agoIf you put a referendum to the people tomorrow, saying "should we tax billionaires more than other people, and spend it on you," you'd get an overwhelming yes. The fact we don't have policies like that show the majority aren't deciding that distribution. But you're also assuming society stays democratic. Why would it, if enough power is aggregated at the top? Who's going to stop them if they decide to form a cabal?