3 ms·

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 s

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.

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.