10 ms·

Focussing on the climbing is the core problem I think. Why even do this? We collectlively should own the machines and guarantee just wealth distribution, so tha

Focussing on the climbing is the core problem I think. Why even do this? We collectlively should own the machines and guarantee just wealth distribution, so that its impossible for a few to have much more than than others. Then every increase in machine work is a great thing for everyone, instead of increasing competition between fewer and fewer people. Europe in itself is (together) the single biggest market/economy in the world by the way, and the US is actually falling behind into developing-country territory when you look at the population and their access to basic services. And just because right now it is convenient to rely on the US companies, and we're deep allies btw, doesn't mean europeans couldn't spin up the same tech if really needed.

rhn_mk1 4y ago
Luddites failed the first time around. What could they do this time to succeed?
- anonyfox 4y ago
  french revolution and socialist revolutions went different. its not preventing the machines, its strictly solving the problem of who owns them - fairly easy thing. It "only" needs to build up a bit more suffering for the masses until this naturally happens again.
  - margorczynski 4y ago
    The thing is then the people in power were reliant on other people to provide force. What happens when the tech-overlords and government cliques put their hands on perfect robot AI slaves which are completely superior to humans when it comes to fighting?
    - namaria 4y ago
      Kill bot enforced gated communities and a free for all outside, naturally. Maybe in due time we have a second industrial revolution and rebuild modern society ourselves...
      - anonyfox 4y ago
        I think with the advanced level of weaponry we (will) have, the is no thing like a truly gated community no matter the bots. And given the amount of time needed to actually build this against the current pace of AI progress, the angry mob should materialize itself much earlier. French Nobles didn’t see the Guillotine coming either, even like a day before the revolution
- green_man_lives 4y ago
  The first time around (and every subsequent time) the tools used for production, lets call them capital, made laborers more efficient and cheapened goods and drove wages up (mostly). In all of these cases there was still the need for a laborer. At a point when all labor is obsolete there will be literally no method of survival for anyone who doesn't own the "compute capital". The two options will be to let everyone starve because they weren't lucky enough to shareholders in the company that owns all the bots, or just make that enterprise socially-owned and pay the unemployed workers.
  - bitcoin_anon 4y ago
    > At a point when all labor is obsolete there will be literally no method of survival for anyone who doesn't own the "compute capital". How about subsistence farming?
    - the_only_law 4y ago
      Maybe, but they still need a different type of capital. Unless property rights stop being enforced, where are all the people who don’t own land, or people who don’t own arable land supposed to farm? Are we bringing back manorialism?
      - namaria 4y ago
        Considering I am mostly obliged to rent land where I can perform work so I can use my salary to pay my rent just makes me feel like I live in some sort of distributed virtual manor to be honest.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - green_man_lives 4y ago
      I supposed if the gracious techno-overlords are gracious enough to grant the underclass a nature preserve where they can keep living in a labor-powered society then sure. Somehow I feel that bulldozing ghettos would be the more realistic outcome. Truthfully I think we'd have a few large societal shifts before we ever got to the stage where genius level AI could be spun up and down like containers, but it helps to illustrate the point that a post-labor society is incompatible with the tenets of capitalism, which is something that a lot of people fail to comprehend when they worry about AI.
tomp 4y ago
[flagged]
- anonyfox 4y ago
  it begins with everyone has enough to begin with, and whatever is importent is available as public services. there are different flavors to do this, the currently best implementation is to have very high&progressive taxes that fund a strong public sector, that in turn makes people feel safe and allows them to pursue higher education (doctors, teachers, ...) that again are needed for all this. Sure you can work to have more, but not 100x more than your neighbor, nobody is worth that. instead of focussing on the single one elon musk, try to give everyone access to a good safety net and encourage them to try something, so statistically you will end up with many high-contributors instead of few parasitic billionaires.
  - meghan_rain 4y ago
    > but not 100x more than your neighbor, nobody is worth that. Hard disagree. Have you seen the average human, and compare him to somebody like John Carmak, Andrej Karpathy, etc. They create value at least 100x as big as the avg person
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      And without a society around them to support them, they would be unknown and busy trying to survive. Even if many people might not be able to do some genius things, they do other stuff that is ultimately mandatory for the geniuses. So yes, they might produce massively more value, but are still not worth that much more, since they wouldn’t be able to thrive without the others to begin with.
      - Canada 4y ago
        Society supports everyone in that way, so why should someone who is 100x more productive have to pay proportionally more than the average person? To put it another way, how does society provison more support for John Carmack than it does for me or you?
nico 4y ago
We’ve had the means and technology to provide even food/housing/education for the entire world, for a long time. Yet here we are. It’s a human-political issue, it is not a technology issue. What’s the difference now?
golergka 4y ago
You're describing a dystopia.
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
>We collectlively should own the machines and guarantee just wealth distribution, so that its impossible for a few to have much more than than others. OK, put your money where your mouth is and send me 10% of your pay check.
- namaria 4y ago
  OK, put your money where your mouth is and stop paying taxes
  - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
    You wanna tell me how you got from not wanting socialism to not paying taxes? Or do you think taxation is socialism? And while we are here obviously I do my best to pay as little taxes as possible, but due to where I live I do end up paying more than 30% of my salary in taxes.
    - namaria 4y ago
      Are you gonna explain how you went from 'co-ownership and better wealth distribution' to 'ok then give me 10% of your paycheck'?
      - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
        Socialism is splitting your shit. Learn your philosophy. This is like how students at my colleges "socialist party nights" always got angry when I took beers out of their fridge. That's literally what socialism is.
        namaria 4y ago
        You're the only one raising the socialism strawman... Did you ever put beers into those fridges? Or just took them? Because that's what looting is.
th14row 4y ago
[flagged]

rhn_mk1 4y ago

Luddites failed the first time around. What could they do this time to succeed?

anonyfox 4y ago
french revolution and socialist revolutions went different. its not preventing the machines, its strictly solving the problem of who owns them - fairly easy thing. It "only" needs to build up a bit more suffering for the masses until this naturally happens again.
- margorczynski 4y ago
  The thing is then the people in power were reliant on other people to provide force. What happens when the tech-overlords and government cliques put their hands on perfect robot AI slaves which are completely superior to humans when it comes to fighting?
  - namaria 4y ago
    Kill bot enforced gated communities and a free for all outside, naturally. Maybe in due time we have a second industrial revolution and rebuild modern society ourselves...
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      I think with the advanced level of weaponry we (will) have, the is no thing like a truly gated community no matter the bots. And given the amount of time needed to actually build this against the current pace of AI progress, the angry mob should materialize itself much earlier. French Nobles didn’t see the Guillotine coming either, even like a day before the revolution
green_man_lives 4y ago
The first time around (and every subsequent time) the tools used for production, lets call them capital, made laborers more efficient and cheapened goods and drove wages up (mostly). In all of these cases there was still the need for a laborer. At a point when all labor is obsolete there will be literally no method of survival for anyone who doesn't own the "compute capital". The two options will be to let everyone starve because they weren't lucky enough to shareholders in the company that owns all the bots, or just make that enterprise socially-owned and pay the unemployed workers.
- bitcoin_anon 4y ago
  > At a point when all labor is obsolete there will be literally no method of survival for anyone who doesn't own the "compute capital". How about subsistence farming?
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    Maybe, but they still need a different type of capital. Unless property rights stop being enforced, where are all the people who don’t own land, or people who don’t own arable land supposed to farm? Are we bringing back manorialism?
    - namaria 4y ago
      Considering I am mostly obliged to rent land where I can perform work so I can use my salary to pay my rent just makes me feel like I live in some sort of distributed virtual manor to be honest.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - green_man_lives 4y ago
    I supposed if the gracious techno-overlords are gracious enough to grant the underclass a nature preserve where they can keep living in a labor-powered society then sure. Somehow I feel that bulldozing ghettos would be the more realistic outcome. Truthfully I think we'd have a few large societal shifts before we ever got to the stage where genius level AI could be spun up and down like containers, but it helps to illustrate the point that a post-labor society is incompatible with the tenets of capitalism, which is something that a lot of people fail to comprehend when they worry about AI.

tomp 4y ago

[flagged]

anonyfox 4y ago
it begins with everyone has enough to begin with, and whatever is importent is available as public services. there are different flavors to do this, the currently best implementation is to have very high&progressive taxes that fund a strong public sector, that in turn makes people feel safe and allows them to pursue higher education (doctors, teachers, ...) that again are needed for all this. Sure you can work to have more, but not 100x more than your neighbor, nobody is worth that. instead of focussing on the single one elon musk, try to give everyone access to a good safety net and encourage them to try something, so statistically you will end up with many high-contributors instead of few parasitic billionaires.
- meghan_rain 4y ago
  > but not 100x more than your neighbor, nobody is worth that. Hard disagree. Have you seen the average human, and compare him to somebody like John Carmak, Andrej Karpathy, etc. They create value at least 100x as big as the avg person
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    And without a society around them to support them, they would be unknown and busy trying to survive. Even if many people might not be able to do some genius things, they do other stuff that is ultimately mandatory for the geniuses. So yes, they might produce massively more value, but are still not worth that much more, since they wouldn’t be able to thrive without the others to begin with.
    - Canada 4y ago
      Society supports everyone in that way, so why should someone who is 100x more productive have to pay proportionally more than the average person? To put it another way, how does society provison more support for John Carmack than it does for me or you?

nico 4y ago

We’ve had the means and technology to provide even food/housing/education for the entire world, for a long time. Yet here we are. It’s a human-political issue, it is not a technology issue. What’s the difference now?

golergka 4y ago

You're describing a dystopia.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago

>We collectlively should own the machines and guarantee just wealth distribution, so that its impossible for a few to have much more than than others. OK, put your money where your mouth is and send me 10% of your pay check.

namaria 4y ago
OK, put your money where your mouth is and stop paying taxes
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  You wanna tell me how you got from not wanting socialism to not paying taxes? Or do you think taxation is socialism? And while we are here obviously I do my best to pay as little taxes as possible, but due to where I live I do end up paying more than 30% of my salary in taxes.
  - namaria 4y ago
    Are you gonna explain how you went from 'co-ownership and better wealth distribution' to 'ok then give me 10% of your paycheck'?
    - nextlevelwizard 4y ago
      Socialism is splitting your shit. Learn your philosophy. This is like how students at my colleges "socialist party nights" always got angry when I took beers out of their fridge. That's literally what socialism is.
      - namaria 4y ago
        You're the only one raising the socialism strawman... Did you ever put beers into those fridges? Or just took them? Because that's what looting is.

th14row 4y ago

[flagged]