5 ms·

It’s called the “world in chains” scenario, where, like the preceding thought experiment, a global totalitarian government uses a novel technology to lock a maj

by a_imho 6y ago

It’s called the “world in chains” scenario, where, like the preceding thought experiment, a global totalitarian government uses a novel technology to lock a majority of the world into perpetual suffering. Why would anyone do that? If the answer is profit how it is different from $smallpercent holding $bigpercent of all wealth, while the majority of the people must work until death to make them slightly richer?

austinjp 6y ago
Societies get larger and more interconnected, so there's always a comparatively small ruling class and an increasingly larger subjugated class. Zero sum end-game: the subjugated class comprise the entire world. (I'm not sure I actually believe this can happen.) Also, there isn't always a determined individual or cadre that decides on a goal of total domination. There are structural societal issues that tend to progress in one direction. It's politically harder to repeal laws that were put in place for reasons of "security" and were built on fear. Not always, but often. This tends to secure power in the hands of the few, over an expanding swathe of the public.
bleepblorp 6y ago
Unhinged people have a bad habit of seizing power and building authoritarian despotisms that impose the consequences of their psychological defects on others. Neither Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot did what they did out of an overwhelming desire for personal enrichment. Sociopaths don't have to have reasons that make sense to the rest of us.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
The difference, argued by Bostrom and missed by the article, is the $smallpercent approaching and eventually reaching 0%, while the $bigpercent reaches 100% and then 0% - as the automated economy becomes a self-sustaining system with no need for any humans inside of it. Forever mining and building and trading, but with no one there to enjoy the fruits of robots' labor. A Disneyland with no children.

by a_imho 6y ago

austinjp 6y ago

Societies get larger and more interconnected, so there's always a comparatively small ruling class and an increasingly larger subjugated class. Zero sum end-game: the subjugated class comprise the entire world. (I'm not sure I actually believe this can happen.) Also, there isn't always a determined individual or cadre that decides on a goal of total domination. There are structural societal issues that tend to progress in one direction. It's politically harder to repeal laws that were put in place for reasons of "security" and were built on fear. Not always, but often. This tends to secure power in the hands of the few, over an expanding swathe of the public.

bleepblorp 6y ago

Unhinged people have a bad habit of seizing power and building authoritarian despotisms that impose the consequences of their psychological defects on others. Neither Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot did what they did out of an overwhelming desire for personal enrichment. Sociopaths don't have to have reasons that make sense to the rest of us.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

The difference, argued by Bostrom and missed by the article, is the $smallpercent approaching and eventually reaching 0%, while the $bigpercent reaches 100% and then 0% - as the automated economy becomes a self-sustaining system with no need for any humans inside of it. Forever mining and building and trading, but with no one there to enjoy the fruits of robots' labor. A Disneyland with no children.