11 ms·

The solution is the same one we should have had from the start: take some of the responsibility from peoples careers off individuals and place it on society. A

The solution is the same one we should have had from the start: take some of the responsibility from peoples careers off individuals and place it on society. As mentioned above, this has always been a problem it's just that now it's a problem for intellectual careers and not just laborers. Education (and re-education) should be at least affordable if not completely free. Unemployment benefits should be enough to live on (if not well) and be freely available to anyone getting an education. If that is "too expensive" then limit it to specific educations which are currently in short supply. And lastly, tax income from investments exactly the same as income from labour. This part is actually necessary because if automation is a future we actually want (and we should!) then this will increasingly become the _only_ form of income.

junofan 4y ago
You’re taking a central planner’s view of a decentralized system. You can’t say “here’s a problem; let’s just make it go away.” We are going to print so much money. I don’t see how bumping up capital gains taxes are going to change anything. People will plow extra help into speculative bubbles. Casino thesis.
- anonyfox 4y ago
  How about striding for one of the core societal values that make many advanced democraties (including the European nordics) so much better/happier than the US? It’s called Equality. Insert strong progressive taxes, especially on wealth, and use it to fund a strong public sector, so _everyone_ has as access to basic goods and services for free, like education/health/transport/… . I think you vastly underestimate how much money is the rich have siphoned from society, what do you think that printed money goes to? The change impact would be _massive_, suddenly people would have disposable money instead of crushing debts, nd actually stimulate the economy!
  - jokethrowaway 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - danjac 4y ago
      Um...Python, C++, Linux, Erlang, mobile phones (Nokia), Spotify, HTML... Having worked for both European and US companies, I would say that a) innovation is mutual (we learn from each other) and talent/mediocrity are pretty much evenly distributed. The US has a more "dynamic" economy in some sense - for example the VC ecosystem is far better funded - but is detrimental in others (Byzantine health care system deters would-be entrepreneurs).
      - roenxi 4y ago
        And yet if we take a snapshot literally right now: Guido van Rossum - Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Bjarne Stroustrup - professor of Computer Science at Columbia University (City of New York) Linus Torvalds - Nationality American/US since 2010 (should I write GNU/American/US? Someone educate me). Erlang - I don't know anything about Erlang so I've got nothing to say. Nokia - brutally ejected from the market by the Americans, bought out and sepukku-ed under Microsoft leadership. Now phones may as well be an Asian technology. Oversaw the collapse of European leadership in the mobile space, to the point where it is going to be a case study in how to fail at innovation. Spotify - Leading EU tech success story. Makes up 50% of the counterexamples, along with ASML. Not detectable as a serious tech company when compared to Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, etc. HTML - I mean, we'd probably have managed without the Europeans on this one. Although useful, HTML isn't a very technical accomplishment. Anyone could invent this, including most CS undergrads.
        anonyfox 4y ago
        You are not wrong but also forgot the reasons… Most stuff you cheer here is basically a few tech giants out of Silicon Valley. The science kickstart for all that came from a bunch of scientists (like Von neumann) you got when winning WW2 from europe. In a time when many potential competitors were still rebuilding from ruins. This is over now, europeans tend to no longer go to the us but still produce excellent scientists, Asian countries catched up and both continents start to leave the US behind in most aspects as a desirable place to live, except for 2 things: Military power and billionaires. Enjoy your 5 tech giants while they last, but also keep in mind that these are international now and draw from nonamerican intellectual power also.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I can’t describe how much better Europe, specifically Netherlands felt due to the social safety nets provided, and do not tell me that The Dutch aren’t hard working people, because they are. People are so much more relaxed there. 99% of the concern about AI is because we’re living in a cut throat capitalistic society, if we knew that AI didn’t mean starving or losing our homes, we’d be way more relaxed about it, and imo we’d take out time a bit more and think about safety. It’s the American race to the bottom attitude which is IMO no longer compatible with a highly automated world. To start with, if the economy breaks, AI breaks. I saw Microsoft is winging because other search engines are stealing ChatGPT responses, get used to it M$, you own nothing.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      I cannot imagine being rich and be surrounded by homeless people, crime, drugs and the like. The only „solution“ that still avoids realizing the problem is to try to escape into gated communities and shoot those plebs coming too close, ideally robots so no human is at fault conveniently. Or what useful is having that mercedes when most others want to steal or at least damage it? I, for one, prefer to treat other humans as, well, humans. And by making everyone around me better off, my quality of life also improves. For simple striking example, how about giving homeless people housing for free, so they can get their stuff together again? You can argue about how „they„ don’t deserve this all day long or simply do it and eliminate a problem https://world-habitat.org/news/our-blog/helsinki-is-still-leading-the-way-in-ending-homelessness-but-how-are-they-doing-it/ https://world-habitat.org/news/our-blog/helsinki-is-still-le... - and even save a lot of money in the process as a society!
      - ChatGTP 4y ago
        When you think about it, All wealth, every single bit of it has come from the same earth we’re all born on. This is the one truth which binds us all, including the AI, it’s too a child of this Earth, which means all people should have fairly equal access to at least basic protections the Earth provides us with. That’s all there really is to say about it.
        4y ago
  - Applejinx 4y ago
    Yup. One of the things that's going to become starkly obvious is this: being in ownership of the money machine doesn't entitle you to power and compensation matching the output of that machine. Feedback loops set in. If you need X amount of power and Y amount of resources to get it going, but it pays you enough for X times 2 power and Y times 5 resources, the first person to get the machine cranking becomes a human version of that AI paperclip maximizer. And this has obviously already happened… So now it's just a matter of, how obvious does this need to get before all the world is paperclips with one idiot sitting there, in his limited human perception, thinking he's won. It really is Star Trek Future or bust. We don't have the luxury of steampunk attitudes towards power and societal structure anymore. Machine assistance and its multiplier effect are too big, and the runaway feedback effects are too obvious. Do we have to wait until it's no longer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg, who are at least very aggressive ambitious idiots paying high prices for their goals, and instead it's some feckless Sam Bankman-Fried who ends up holding the bag? What's it going to take to illustrate the scale of the problem?
    - jacquesm 4y ago
      Morally comparing order of magnitude I don't really see the difference between any of your examples. They're all structurally lacking in empathy and every one of those would sell their mother if it got them ahead in the game.
      - Applejinx 4y ago
        I don't disagree, but there's a profound difference in effort (most notably seen in Bezos vs. Bankman-Fried). This changes the result, and I think it also significantly changes the framing. Bezos started in the days of Windows 3.1, and already was positioning himself near Microsoft as a force multiplier even though, in those days, he and other humans had to do vast amounts of work and thinking. If the only requirement for dominating the world is adjacency to AI, the gameplan is still exactly the same but now the work and thinking is what you turn over to machines as a force multiplier. Without that, where is the justification for producing individuals who dominate the world? It becomes, not arbitrary, but purely a factor of who is adjacent to the AI at the right time.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - revelio 4y ago
    >> so _everyone_ has as access to basic goods and services for free, like education/health/transport/… Access? UK tries this. High taxes and high borrowing to fund a large public sector. Result: - People can't reliably see dentists or get doctor's appointments because the nationalized health system can't manage capacity properly. - People can't reliably move around the country because the public sector transport workers are constantly going on strike, despite Tube drivers earning £56k/yr, only a bit less than that of a software engineer. Putting the public sector in charge doesn't guarantee access to anything, it can easily lead to the opposite, which is why the USSR was constantly being wracked by bizarre shortages especially for anything that mattered to the general public like consumer goods. And now the UK suffers massive healthcare shortages. Same problem.
    - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
      > People can't reliably see dentists or get doctor's appointments because the nationalized health system can't manage capacity properly. Not accurate in the slightest, this is due to the current administration deliberately funding the NHS less than it needs to function effectively. > People can't reliably move around the country because the public sector transport workers are constantly going on strike Only currently true because of similar reasons, it's not structurally true of that sector. > Putting the public sector in charge ... And now the UK suffers massive healthcare shortages. Same problem. Not accurate at all.
    - anonyfox 4y ago
      This is a forced imageproblem try to get privatizations look better than state run, by defunding public sectors and claiming all kinds of weird stuff upto straight lies some people want to believe. Don’t buy into that propaganda, look at the US how privatization ends up: still lots of tax money, additionally people can’t afford stuff, and a few assholes getting insanely rich in the process by siphoning money out of the society. Try to ensure appropriate money is used to make the NHS effective again, including wages that allows people to live where they work (<1h commute). Most communist shortages came from being cutoff from international trades with wealthy countries, and having to start from ruins or nothing at all btw. These are different problems, and you might learn in the process why capitalism is going to end soon. :-)
- lwhi 4y ago
  Distribution of capital.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

junofan 4y ago

You’re taking a central planner’s view of a decentralized system. You can’t say “here’s a problem; let’s just make it go away.” We are going to print so much money. I don’t see how bumping up capital gains taxes are going to change anything. People will plow extra help into speculative bubbles. Casino thesis.

anonyfox 4y ago
How about striding for one of the core societal values that make many advanced democraties (including the European nordics) so much better/happier than the US? It’s called Equality. Insert strong progressive taxes, especially on wealth, and use it to fund a strong public sector, so _everyone_ has as access to basic goods and services for free, like education/health/transport/… . I think you vastly underestimate how much money is the rich have siphoned from society, what do you think that printed money goes to? The change impact would be _massive_, suddenly people would have disposable money instead of crushing debts, nd actually stimulate the economy!
- jokethrowaway 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - danjac 4y ago
    Um...Python, C++, Linux, Erlang, mobile phones (Nokia), Spotify, HTML... Having worked for both European and US companies, I would say that a) innovation is mutual (we learn from each other) and talent/mediocrity are pretty much evenly distributed. The US has a more "dynamic" economy in some sense - for example the VC ecosystem is far better funded - but is detrimental in others (Byzantine health care system deters would-be entrepreneurs).
    - roenxi 4y ago
      And yet if we take a snapshot literally right now: Guido van Rossum - Microsoft Distinguished Engineer Bjarne Stroustrup - professor of Computer Science at Columbia University (City of New York) Linus Torvalds - Nationality American/US since 2010 (should I write GNU/American/US? Someone educate me). Erlang - I don't know anything about Erlang so I've got nothing to say. Nokia - brutally ejected from the market by the Americans, bought out and sepukku-ed under Microsoft leadership. Now phones may as well be an Asian technology. Oversaw the collapse of European leadership in the mobile space, to the point where it is going to be a case study in how to fail at innovation. Spotify - Leading EU tech success story. Makes up 50% of the counterexamples, along with ASML. Not detectable as a serious tech company when compared to Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc, etc. HTML - I mean, we'd probably have managed without the Europeans on this one. Although useful, HTML isn't a very technical accomplishment. Anyone could invent this, including most CS undergrads.
      - anonyfox 4y ago
        You are not wrong but also forgot the reasons… Most stuff you cheer here is basically a few tech giants out of Silicon Valley. The science kickstart for all that came from a bunch of scientists (like Von neumann) you got when winning WW2 from europe. In a time when many potential competitors were still rebuilding from ruins. This is over now, europeans tend to no longer go to the us but still produce excellent scientists, Asian countries catched up and both continents start to leave the US behind in most aspects as a desirable place to live, except for 2 things: Military power and billionaires. Enjoy your 5 tech giants while they last, but also keep in mind that these are international now and draw from nonamerican intellectual power also.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I can’t describe how much better Europe, specifically Netherlands felt due to the social safety nets provided, and do not tell me that The Dutch aren’t hard working people, because they are. People are so much more relaxed there. 99% of the concern about AI is because we’re living in a cut throat capitalistic society, if we knew that AI didn’t mean starving or losing our homes, we’d be way more relaxed about it, and imo we’d take out time a bit more and think about safety. It’s the American race to the bottom attitude which is IMO no longer compatible with a highly automated world. To start with, if the economy breaks, AI breaks. I saw Microsoft is winging because other search engines are stealing ChatGPT responses, get used to it M$, you own nothing.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    I cannot imagine being rich and be surrounded by homeless people, crime, drugs and the like. The only „solution“ that still avoids realizing the problem is to try to escape into gated communities and shoot those plebs coming too close, ideally robots so no human is at fault conveniently. Or what useful is having that mercedes when most others want to steal or at least damage it? I, for one, prefer to treat other humans as, well, humans. And by making everyone around me better off, my quality of life also improves. For simple striking example, how about giving homeless people housing for free, so they can get their stuff together again? You can argue about how „they„ don’t deserve this all day long or simply do it and eliminate a problem https://world-habitat.org/news/our-blog/helsinki-is-still-leading-the-way-in-ending-homelessness-but-how-are-they-doing-it/ https://world-habitat.org/news/our-blog/helsinki-is-still-le... - and even save a lot of money in the process as a society!
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      When you think about it, All wealth, every single bit of it has come from the same earth we’re all born on. This is the one truth which binds us all, including the AI, it’s too a child of this Earth, which means all people should have fairly equal access to at least basic protections the Earth provides us with. That’s all there really is to say about it.
      - 4y ago
- Applejinx 4y ago
  Yup. One of the things that's going to become starkly obvious is this: being in ownership of the money machine doesn't entitle you to power and compensation matching the output of that machine. Feedback loops set in. If you need X amount of power and Y amount of resources to get it going, but it pays you enough for X times 2 power and Y times 5 resources, the first person to get the machine cranking becomes a human version of that AI paperclip maximizer. And this has obviously already happened… So now it's just a matter of, how obvious does this need to get before all the world is paperclips with one idiot sitting there, in his limited human perception, thinking he's won. It really is Star Trek Future or bust. We don't have the luxury of steampunk attitudes towards power and societal structure anymore. Machine assistance and its multiplier effect are too big, and the runaway feedback effects are too obvious. Do we have to wait until it's no longer Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos or Mark Zuckerberg, who are at least very aggressive ambitious idiots paying high prices for their goals, and instead it's some feckless Sam Bankman-Fried who ends up holding the bag? What's it going to take to illustrate the scale of the problem?
  - jacquesm 4y ago
    Morally comparing order of magnitude I don't really see the difference between any of your examples. They're all structurally lacking in empathy and every one of those would sell their mother if it got them ahead in the game.
    - Applejinx 4y ago
      I don't disagree, but there's a profound difference in effort (most notably seen in Bezos vs. Bankman-Fried). This changes the result, and I think it also significantly changes the framing. Bezos started in the days of Windows 3.1, and already was positioning himself near Microsoft as a force multiplier even though, in those days, he and other humans had to do vast amounts of work and thinking. If the only requirement for dominating the world is adjacency to AI, the gameplan is still exactly the same but now the work and thinking is what you turn over to machines as a force multiplier. Without that, where is the justification for producing individuals who dominate the world? It becomes, not arbitrary, but purely a factor of who is adjacent to the AI at the right time.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- revelio 4y ago
  >> so _everyone_ has as access to basic goods and services for free, like education/health/transport/… Access? UK tries this. High taxes and high borrowing to fund a large public sector. Result: - People can't reliably see dentists or get doctor's appointments because the nationalized health system can't manage capacity properly. - People can't reliably move around the country because the public sector transport workers are constantly going on strike, despite Tube drivers earning £56k/yr, only a bit less than that of a software engineer. Putting the public sector in charge doesn't guarantee access to anything, it can easily lead to the opposite, which is why the USSR was constantly being wracked by bizarre shortages especially for anything that mattered to the general public like consumer goods. And now the UK suffers massive healthcare shortages. Same problem.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 4y ago
    > People can't reliably see dentists or get doctor's appointments because the nationalized health system can't manage capacity properly. Not accurate in the slightest, this is due to the current administration deliberately funding the NHS less than it needs to function effectively. > People can't reliably move around the country because the public sector transport workers are constantly going on strike Only currently true because of similar reasons, it's not structurally true of that sector. > Putting the public sector in charge ... And now the UK suffers massive healthcare shortages. Same problem. Not accurate at all.
  - anonyfox 4y ago
    This is a forced imageproblem try to get privatizations look better than state run, by defunding public sectors and claiming all kinds of weird stuff upto straight lies some people want to believe. Don’t buy into that propaganda, look at the US how privatization ends up: still lots of tax money, additionally people can’t afford stuff, and a few assholes getting insanely rich in the process by siphoning money out of the society. Try to ensure appropriate money is used to make the NHS effective again, including wages that allows people to live where they work (<1h commute). Most communist shortages came from being cutoff from international trades with wealthy countries, and having to start from ruins or nothing at all btw. These are different problems, and you might learn in the process why capitalism is going to end soon. :-)
lwhi 4y ago
Distribution of capital.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]