4 ms·

The people who are on this forum are cogs in a machine that, over the next 40 years, will displace millions of American workers. It seems where we are headed in

The people who are on this forum are cogs in a machine that, over the next 40 years, will displace millions of American workers. It seems where we are headed into a bifurcated society part overeducated technocrats part gig economy task rabbits. Seeing the former group beginning to consider the effects of their work is dystopian. I'm not sure what you mean by "mistake."

giantg2 6y ago
Where did you get your number for AGI? An adjusted gross income of $2060 seems extremely low (very far below average). It's not dystopian to consider the possible effects of one's work. If you don't consider them, then how can you make adjustments/improvements? It would be dystopian to maximize the negative impacts. We are doing the opposite - questioning what the best course of action might be.
- ConcreteGidget 6y ago
  By AGI I meant Artificial General Intelligence. There is no stopping or meaningful slowing of the machine.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago. These sort of estimates are highly inaccurate. Even then, do we just ignore the average people for the next 40 (your median) years?
    - ConcreteGidget 6y ago
      "They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago." My number comes from a collection of AI researchers from the future of life institute so I can't imagine a better "they" to defer to. That said, we are bad at predicting the future so who knows? I never said we should forget about the average people or normal people as Yang calls them in his book "The War on Normal People." Even if we don't have AGI we will have narrow AI such as self driving/factory stuff/textiles which will displace millions. I'm all for UBI or some sort of equivalent social safety net (I'm not an economist so I don't want to be prescriptive here as I have heard some drawbacks to UBI). The technocrats have already created platforms that are tearing our social fabric apart by promulgating conspiracies and radicalizing our youth while reducing long-form literacy an increasing anxiety and depression. What we need is some sort of social revolution that in my opinion could only be obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves and the exploitive tech corporations. Ban facebook to reduce conspiracy promulgation. Ban tiktok and ever increasingly addictive video games to prevent our youth from becoming dopamine junkees. Ban drugs so the listless and ever-growing welfare class remain mostly docile. None of these changes are feasible in a country whose identity revolves around personal freedom/choice.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        "obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves" Why fight nature? Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. Let it take its course. The stupid people should reduce through natural attrition. It's controversial, but it's the way the natural world works.
        ConcreteGidget 6y ago
        We can definitely make systemic changes that help people make better "decisions." I don't believe in free will and you clearly do so we're kinda approaching this problem from fundamentally different frameworks. Stupid people shouldn't be culled but rather shepherded. Governments are artificial constructs so asking them to act "naturally" doesn't make sense to me as they have no natural state. Also reducing human suffering seems to be a pretty good thing to do and your natural system doesn't seem to do that.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I never said they should be culled. I'm saying let the problem take care of itself. The actions you were proposing weren't things to help people make better decisions (if they were, it would still be free will). They were to make laws to outlaw activities. If you don't believe in free will, why do you propose helping people make better decisions? Do you really think imposing someone else's will over others is more benign? The government imposes its will through force or threat thereof (causing human suffering). Government and politics is not really artificial. They form naturally whenever there are groups of people - similar leadership and power dynamics exist in the natural world too (look at bees, ants, wolves, etc).
        ConcreteGidget 6y ago
        The government imposes its will all the time. It prevents you from shooting me or overthrowing the government. Surely this imposition is just? Surely this is more benign then letting you shoot me or letting you overthrow the government. Why? Because it reduces human suffering. Also surely with better technology we will be able to transform prisons into rehabilitation centers and thus reduce our countries prison populations and thus become a FREER country, albeit one with less rights? I think comparing our government to a beehive or a pack of wolves is ridiculous I guess you can call governments "natural." Even if we consider this government natural, surely it doesn't have a natural state. What is the "natural state" of a government of 350 million people?

giantg2 6y ago

Where did you get your number for AGI? An adjusted gross income of $2060 seems extremely low (very far below average). It's not dystopian to consider the possible effects of one's work. If you don't consider them, then how can you make adjustments/improvements? It would be dystopian to maximize the negative impacts. We are doing the opposite - questioning what the best course of action might be.

ConcreteGidget 6y ago
By AGI I meant Artificial General Intelligence. There is no stopping or meaningful slowing of the machine.
- giantg2 6y ago
  They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago. These sort of estimates are highly inaccurate. Even then, do we just ignore the average people for the next 40 (your median) years?
  - ConcreteGidget 6y ago
    "They also estimated we would have flying cars 20 years ago." My number comes from a collection of AI researchers from the future of life institute so I can't imagine a better "they" to defer to. That said, we are bad at predicting the future so who knows? I never said we should forget about the average people or normal people as Yang calls them in his book "The War on Normal People." Even if we don't have AGI we will have narrow AI such as self driving/factory stuff/textiles which will displace millions. I'm all for UBI or some sort of equivalent social safety net (I'm not an economist so I don't want to be prescriptive here as I have heard some drawbacks to UBI). The technocrats have already created platforms that are tearing our social fabric apart by promulgating conspiracies and radicalizing our youth while reducing long-form literacy an increasing anxiety and depression. What we need is some sort of social revolution that in my opinion could only be obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves and the exploitive tech corporations. Ban facebook to reduce conspiracy promulgation. Ban tiktok and ever increasingly addictive video games to prevent our youth from becoming dopamine junkees. Ban drugs so the listless and ever-growing welfare class remain mostly docile. None of these changes are feasible in a country whose identity revolves around personal freedom/choice.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      "obtained by an authoritarian government that protects people from themselves" Why fight nature? Government shouldn't protect citizens from themselves. Let it take its course. The stupid people should reduce through natural attrition. It's controversial, but it's the way the natural world works.
      - ConcreteGidget 6y ago
        We can definitely make systemic changes that help people make better "decisions." I don't believe in free will and you clearly do so we're kinda approaching this problem from fundamentally different frameworks. Stupid people shouldn't be culled but rather shepherded. Governments are artificial constructs so asking them to act "naturally" doesn't make sense to me as they have no natural state. Also reducing human suffering seems to be a pretty good thing to do and your natural system doesn't seem to do that.
        giantg2 6y ago
        I never said they should be culled. I'm saying let the problem take care of itself. The actions you were proposing weren't things to help people make better decisions (if they were, it would still be free will). They were to make laws to outlaw activities. If you don't believe in free will, why do you propose helping people make better decisions? Do you really think imposing someone else's will over others is more benign? The government imposes its will through force or threat thereof (causing human suffering). Government and politics is not really artificial. They form naturally whenever there are groups of people - similar leadership and power dynamics exist in the natural world too (look at bees, ants, wolves, etc).
        ConcreteGidget 6y ago
        The government imposes its will all the time. It prevents you from shooting me or overthrowing the government. Surely this imposition is just? Surely this is more benign then letting you shoot me or letting you overthrow the government. Why? Because it reduces human suffering. Also surely with better technology we will be able to transform prisons into rehabilitation centers and thus reduce our countries prison populations and thus become a FREER country, albeit one with less rights? I think comparing our government to a beehive or a pack of wolves is ridiculous I guess you can call governments "natural." Even if we consider this government natural, surely it doesn't have a natural state. What is the "natural state" of a government of 350 million people?