2 ms·

If AI pans out, it will be a huge multiplier of human progress. It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. It's worth pointin

If AI pans out, it will be a huge multiplier of human progress. It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. It's worth pointing out that the (ideal) inexpensive AI tech would remove basically every remaining advantage that human beings have over machines, at least if we continue to live in a society where human beings must work to survive and find meaning. AI is fundamentally different from the steam engine or cars or machine tools, in the sense that those inventions still left room for human operators. To the extent that AI leaves room for humans, it may only be due to the fact that "ideal" AI isn't achievable and what we build is (perhaps temporarily) some approximation of the more powerful thing people are worried about.

gumby 4y ago
> It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. Though historically the John Henry story has been bull (machines didn't replace but augmented human work), how great if it became true in this case. There are other sources of dignity beyond compensated work. And as the marginal cost of production approaches zero, why not just pay people — money may lose its “store of value” property but retain its signaling (prioritization) function. How much better to go spend time hanging out with your aging parent than be changing their nappies. How much better to be writing shitty poetry for your enjoyment and that of your friends.
nradov 4y ago
I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
int_19h 4y ago
It should be noted that this is not an inevitable outcome, but merely the one that is caused by our existing socioeconomic arrangements. We have a choice whether it will deprive huge number of people of their livelihoods and dignity or not. If we go with the existing model, AI - like any capital - will end up concentrated in very few hands. Except, crucially, this is the kind of capital that - at least in the long term, if not quite just yet - does not require labor to produce value, which is normally the limiting factor on how inhumane capitalism can get.

gumby 4y ago

> It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. Though historically the John Henry story has been bull (machines didn't replace but augmented human work), how great if it became true in this case. There are other sources of dignity beyond compensated work. And as the marginal cost of production approaches zero, why not just pay people — money may lose its “store of value” property but retain its signaling (prioritization) function. How much better to go spend time hanging out with your aging parent than be changing their nappies. How much better to be writing shitty poetry for your enjoyment and that of your friends.

nradov 4y ago

I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

int_19h 4y ago

It should be noted that this is not an inevitable outcome, but merely the one that is caused by our existing socioeconomic arrangements. We have a choice whether it will deprive huge number of people of their livelihoods and dignity or not. If we go with the existing model, AI - like any capital - will end up concentrated in very few hands. Except, crucially, this is the kind of capital that - at least in the long term, if not quite just yet - does not require labor to produce value, which is normally the limiting factor on how inhumane capitalism can get.