4 ms·

(making the (safe?) assumption there will NEVER be a social safety net or UBI..) I think things will “bounce” between: - AI providing shareholder ROI and “rel

(making the (safe?) assumption there will NEVER be a social safety net or UBI..) I think things will “bounce” between: - AI providing shareholder ROI and “releasing” labor back into the labor pool. Making people either choose to be homeless or accept the lowest paying jobs that are not yet done by AI. - Making then the cheap labor pool cheaper than the AI. Giving the AI time to catch up and overtake the next “caste” of labor up… Corporations only EVER and always do things in the name of profit and to see a corp take so fast to something means someone has done the math.. before you have.

nine_k 4y ago
There's no point in making most of the population poor. The population, and especially the "first world" population, are the customers of all these businesses. If nobody buys stuff, there's no way to turn a profit, and no point to run a business. One can imagine a classic dystopian landscape of haves surrounded by robots that serve them, without much need for human labor, and have-nots who are stuck in the previous step and live in a dirtier, poorer still-industrial society with lots of human labor, and with an intense envy to the haves. I don't really believe this dystopian view because the AI technology already seems accessible to the modern industrial societies; it's not something unobtainable, and with science mostly being done in the open, not something completely secret. So more and more of the have-nots will graduate to haves, if they can handle the social order that allows to accumulate enough resources to kickstart the AI + robots transformation, and can handle a social order after that. The question then remains: what the humans are going to do when putting food on the table stops being a major concern? (For an endgame, see the Culture series by Ian M. Banks.) BTW obviously AI needs learning about the world, and maybe humans are still better than it at discovering things, and at "teaching".
- flandish 4y ago
  > nobody buys Exactly why the “bounce” along the bottom, in my opinion. The corps will charge as much and pay as little - and I think they’re all doing what they are designed to do. Profit over people. :/

nine_k 4y ago

There's no point in making most of the population poor. The population, and especially the "first world" population, are the customers of all these businesses. If nobody buys stuff, there's no way to turn a profit, and no point to run a business. One can imagine a classic dystopian landscape of haves surrounded by robots that serve them, without much need for human labor, and have-nots who are stuck in the previous step and live in a dirtier, poorer still-industrial society with lots of human labor, and with an intense envy to the haves. I don't really believe this dystopian view because the AI technology already seems accessible to the modern industrial societies; it's not something unobtainable, and with science mostly being done in the open, not something completely secret. So more and more of the have-nots will graduate to haves, if they can handle the social order that allows to accumulate enough resources to kickstart the AI + robots transformation, and can handle a social order after that. The question then remains: what the humans are going to do when putting food on the table stops being a major concern? (For an endgame, see the Culture series by Ian M. Banks.) BTW obviously AI needs learning about the world, and maybe humans are still better than it at discovering things, and at "teaching".

flandish 4y ago
> nobody buys Exactly why the “bounce” along the bottom, in my opinion. The corps will charge as much and pay as little - and I think they’re all doing what they are designed to do. Profit over people. :/