3 ms·

> However, automation allows for the owner of the goods of production to retain much more of the value created. Owners of means of productions are typically am

> However, automation allows for the owner of the goods of production to retain much more of the value created. Owners of means of productions are typically american people with 401k or other pensions funds. There's nothing wrong to provide good returns for regular people.

fnimick 4y ago
You can't be serious. The vast majority of the "means of production" are owned by the top 1-5% of the country. Sure, I have a 401k, I have 0.000001% of Amazon, that doesn't make me an owner.
- baremetal 4y ago
  You are very likely in the top 5% of earners. Top 5% of Earners $342,987[1] [1]https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
  - klodolph 4y ago
    For some reason, that’s the average earnings that put you in the top 5%, which is weird.
  - fnimick 4y ago
    No, I'm not. I'm not even in the top 10%. Also, we can be concerned for people less fortunate than us. "You're probably wealthy so why do you care" is such a stupid argument.
    - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
      I will add even more to this point. If anything, people who are more fortunate have an actual incentive to ensure some level of care for those less fortunate even if it is just for purely selfish reasons. Hungry people are angry people and the moment there is a lot of hungry, angry people, being top 10% is unlikely to keep you or your wealth safe. There are obviously non-pragmatic considerations, but I am trying to appeal to self-preservation instinct. Sure. Some don't care, but I sometimes wonder if those people understand that living in society means some level of acceptable balance to all.
      - fnimick 4y ago
        > Hungry people are angry people and the moment there is a lot of hungry, angry people, being top 10% is unlikely to keep you or your wealth safe. Not if you have AI-powered autonomous "law" enforcement to gun them all down when they threaten you. It's only a matter of time.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        If there is one thing that history taught us, it is that there is very little that can stop a determined populace ( Afghanistan being one recent example ). The mirror-like show scenarios are not impossible, but it would require a series of events that are hard to guarantee. I am saying that not because I think AI law enforcement won't happen. I am saying that because the moment it does happen, new equilibrium will manifest itself. And by this I mean.. do you really think people won't adjust their lives accordingly?
      - jschveibinz 4y ago
        How will you use AI to solve these problems?
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        I won't. Frankly, neither will anyone else. This is not an AI problem. It is, inherently, a very human problem.
      - disqard 4y ago
        You'll probably like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1YUQVYkvY&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1YUQVYkvY&t=30s It's Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist, sharing how he was invited to give a "talk" by a small group of billionaires, and their questions were about where to situate their post-apocalyptic bunkers, etc.
        A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        << how do i maintain control of my security staff I do believe some are. There are real concerns about a future conflict going beyond anyone's control. Still, I think this question as presented alone reveals the reality behind my post. If there is no future, that tech mogul will be, at best, at mercy of their security detail. Why? In that scenario money has no value. Frankly, without his tech, he has no power. Power returns to a very simple equation and I am basically unable to believe that those seemingly very smart people can't see it. It even stops being realpolitik. It just become a question of who has a bigger stick. shrug But sure.. if they want to return to that version of society.
  - ajmurmann 4y ago
    Income isn't wealth though. It can lead to future wealth, but not if your source of income will go way which is exactly the topic of discussion with automation.
dumpsterlid 4y ago
[dead]
theonlybutlet 4y ago
Wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the states over the last 20 years, to the point where that statement doesn't hold anymore.
jschveibinz 4y ago
AI is arguably the most powerful production (as in “means of production”) tool ever created. Anyone that is literate and somewhat intelligent/capable with access to the web is potentially more inventive and creative in the coming years than the greatest thinkers and creators that have ever lived. Billions of people will meet this qualification. Everyone is now faced with a choice: use the tool and stay in the race, or ignore the tool and drop out of the race. There are thousands of social problems to solve.
- lanstin 4y ago
  This doesn’t really match my experience of trying to get GPT to do all my daily software work. I don’t think I would have succeeded at all were it not for my ability to debug its output, which of course is the result of my model of the reality of the computing system and years of debugging my own and others code. So if I lacked that experience, I don’t think it would that valuable. On the other hand, I did get it to make a nice story arc for JoJo in the style of a Shakespearean comedy. My son and his friends have been getting it to write manga about themselves but in novel genre crossing stories. Like a normally happy magic genre where the main character lacks powers and dies. So no more transformative than really good entertainment. Fun but not going to reduce income inequality or stop the sea from rising.

fnimick 4y ago

You can't be serious. The vast majority of the "means of production" are owned by the top 1-5% of the country. Sure, I have a 401k, I have 0.000001% of Amazon, that doesn't make me an owner.

baremetal 4y ago
You are very likely in the top 5% of earners. Top 5% of Earners $342,987[1] [1]https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-income-puts-you-top-1-5-10/ https://www.investopedia.com/personal-finance/how-much-incom...
- klodolph 4y ago
  For some reason, that’s the average earnings that put you in the top 5%, which is weird.
- fnimick 4y ago
  No, I'm not. I'm not even in the top 10%. Also, we can be concerned for people less fortunate than us. "You're probably wealthy so why do you care" is such a stupid argument.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
    I will add even more to this point. If anything, people who are more fortunate have an actual incentive to ensure some level of care for those less fortunate even if it is just for purely selfish reasons. Hungry people are angry people and the moment there is a lot of hungry, angry people, being top 10% is unlikely to keep you or your wealth safe. There are obviously non-pragmatic considerations, but I am trying to appeal to self-preservation instinct. Sure. Some don't care, but I sometimes wonder if those people understand that living in society means some level of acceptable balance to all.
    - fnimick 4y ago
      > Hungry people are angry people and the moment there is a lot of hungry, angry people, being top 10% is unlikely to keep you or your wealth safe. Not if you have AI-powered autonomous "law" enforcement to gun them all down when they threaten you. It's only a matter of time.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        If there is one thing that history taught us, it is that there is very little that can stop a determined populace ( Afghanistan being one recent example ). The mirror-like show scenarios are not impossible, but it would require a series of events that are hard to guarantee. I am saying that not because I think AI law enforcement won't happen. I am saying that because the moment it does happen, new equilibrium will manifest itself. And by this I mean.. do you really think people won't adjust their lives accordingly?
    - jschveibinz 4y ago
      How will you use AI to solve these problems?
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        I won't. Frankly, neither will anyone else. This is not an AI problem. It is, inherently, a very human problem.
    - disqard 4y ago
      You'll probably like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1YUQVYkvY&t=30s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Is1YUQVYkvY&t=30s It's Douglas Rushkoff, a media theorist, sharing how he was invited to give a "talk" by a small group of billionaires, and their questions were about where to situate their post-apocalyptic bunkers, etc.
      - A4ET8a8uTh0 4y ago
        << how do i maintain control of my security staff I do believe some are. There are real concerns about a future conflict going beyond anyone's control. Still, I think this question as presented alone reveals the reality behind my post. If there is no future, that tech mogul will be, at best, at mercy of their security detail. Why? In that scenario money has no value. Frankly, without his tech, he has no power. Power returns to a very simple equation and I am basically unable to believe that those seemingly very smart people can't see it. It even stops being realpolitik. It just become a question of who has a bigger stick. shrug But sure.. if they want to return to that version of society.
- ajmurmann 4y ago
  Income isn't wealth though. It can lead to future wealth, but not if your source of income will go way which is exactly the topic of discussion with automation.

dumpsterlid 4y ago

[dead]

theonlybutlet 4y ago

Wealth has become increasingly concentrated in the states over the last 20 years, to the point where that statement doesn't hold anymore.

jschveibinz 4y ago

AI is arguably the most powerful production (as in “means of production”) tool ever created. Anyone that is literate and somewhat intelligent/capable with access to the web is potentially more inventive and creative in the coming years than the greatest thinkers and creators that have ever lived. Billions of people will meet this qualification. Everyone is now faced with a choice: use the tool and stay in the race, or ignore the tool and drop out of the race. There are thousands of social problems to solve.

lanstin 4y ago
This doesn’t really match my experience of trying to get GPT to do all my daily software work. I don’t think I would have succeeded at all were it not for my ability to debug its output, which of course is the result of my model of the reality of the computing system and years of debugging my own and others code. So if I lacked that experience, I don’t think it would that valuable. On the other hand, I did get it to make a nice story arc for JoJo in the style of a Shakespearean comedy. My son and his friends have been getting it to write manga about themselves but in novel genre crossing stories. Like a normally happy magic genre where the main character lacks powers and dies. So no more transformative than really good entertainment. Fun but not going to reduce income inequality or stop the sea from rising.