4 ms·

This problem isn’t specific to AI. Luddites were concerned about machines taking their jobs. Marx recognized the role of “capital” (of which AI is the intellect

by lumb63 4y ago

This problem isn’t specific to AI. Luddites were concerned about machines taking their jobs. Marx recognized the role of “capital” (of which AI is the intellectual type) in suppressing the incomes of the working class relative to the owning class. Both Marx and the Luddites conceived of different solutions. One solution (the Luddite one) is to eschew the technology. If nobody adopts the technology, nobody has to, but nobody can benefit. On the contrary, if anyone adopts the technology, all can benefit, but all also have to suffer the negative impacts. Without everyone on board, the Luddite solution cannot work. Marx saw a different solution: communism. If the state owns the means of production, the working class and owning class benefit equally. It’s unlikely that we ever move toward this, in my opinion, due to the other issues inherent to communism (unfair (from the perspective of most policy makers) distribution of resources, corruption, etc.). We need to find a new solution; one which enables people to benefit from technology while minimizing the downsides, or at least localizing the downsides to those who choose to adopt it. Right now we have, IMO, one of the worst situations of both worlds: privatized benefits with publicized costs. For instance, any taxpayer funded bailout.

ilyt 4y ago
Tax the corporations more than the people would be a good start. Make profits from savings in manpower go back to the social programs, maybe ven universal basic income.
- thefz 4y ago
  Banks can evaporate billions and nobody bats an eye. Zero persons responsible, zero persons to prison while the most vulnerable always pay the price for it.
hgs3 4y ago
My own pet idea for economic reform would be to have people democratically vote on the services they want and if there aren't enough volunteers/robots/AI to perform them then you draft people. In this scenario people will get the services they themselves are willing to put in the work for. Such a system wouldn't need money, would be fair, and technological advancements would bring freedom.
- OOPMan 4y ago
  Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly? Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless? If it's the latter then I'm sure it could work...not sure it would be a huge improvement tho...
  - hgs3 4y ago
    > Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly ? There's no money in this system. > Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless? If people want "homes" then they democratically vote that they do and, if the vote passes, then people volunteer to build those homes. If there aren't enough volunteers to build the homes, then people are conscripted. This is not unlike the military where if there aren't enough soldiers you draft more. Everything we have today is because someone built it. What is stopping people from continuing to build in the absence of money? It seems money is more or less a "hack" to circumvent the shortcomings of human nature. There needs to be a culture shift towards a labor-first mindset and better role models (i.e. don't glorify the wealthy, glorify those who build amazing things and share them for free). People should build and innovate because they want to, because it means a better life. In the system I've described the standard of living people have is directly tied to what they and their neighbors are willing to work for. If folks don't want to work, then we'll go back to living in caves, but if we continue pressing forward then we'll eventually enter a Star Trekien techno-utopia.
HyperSane 4y ago
The most sensible option to me is a national dividend, where a percentage of all corporate profits is distributed to all adults.
nikolai_b 4y ago
Eschewing technology is not what the Luddites were initially after. At first they asked for a minimum wage, minimum labour standards and taxes on the new technology to support laid off workers [1]. This was rejected so they tried to protect their wage power by smashing up the machines. A Luddite response to AI might be to tax the value AI created (Microsoft's profits) and use that to fund minimum wages/retraining. Not sure how that would work when the AI value is in one jurisdiction and job losses in another. [1] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-L...
onlypositive 4y ago
> It’s unlikely that we ever move toward this, in my opinion, due to the other issues inherent to communism (unfair (from the perspective of most policy makers) distribution of resources, corruption, etc.). It's because communism has the same issue Luddites have. Unless everyone is onboard, it doesn't work. You can't stop people from trading between themselves for profit in a communist country without the threat of violence. This is what leads to all the other problems. I mean Marx literally says you need to cull off the non believers for communism to work.

by lumb63 4y ago

ilyt 4y ago

Tax the corporations more than the people would be a good start. Make profits from savings in manpower go back to the social programs, maybe ven universal basic income.

thefz 4y ago
Banks can evaporate billions and nobody bats an eye. Zero persons responsible, zero persons to prison while the most vulnerable always pay the price for it.

hgs3 4y ago

My own pet idea for economic reform would be to have people democratically vote on the services they want and if there aren't enough volunteers/robots/AI to perform them then you draft people. In this scenario people will get the services they themselves are willing to put in the work for. Such a system wouldn't need money, would be fair, and technological advancements would bring freedom.

OOPMan 4y ago
Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly? Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless? If it's the latter then I'm sure it could work...not sure it would be a huge improvement tho...
- hgs3 4y ago
  > Right....and all the people not working would get paid how exactly ? There's no money in this system. > Or does this system just assume they're all homeless and jobless? If people want "homes" then they democratically vote that they do and, if the vote passes, then people volunteer to build those homes. If there aren't enough volunteers to build the homes, then people are conscripted. This is not unlike the military where if there aren't enough soldiers you draft more. Everything we have today is because someone built it. What is stopping people from continuing to build in the absence of money? It seems money is more or less a "hack" to circumvent the shortcomings of human nature. There needs to be a culture shift towards a labor-first mindset and better role models (i.e. don't glorify the wealthy, glorify those who build amazing things and share them for free). People should build and innovate because they want to, because it means a better life. In the system I've described the standard of living people have is directly tied to what they and their neighbors are willing to work for. If folks don't want to work, then we'll go back to living in caves, but if we continue pressing forward then we'll eventually enter a Star Trekien techno-utopia.

HyperSane 4y ago

The most sensible option to me is a national dividend, where a percentage of all corporate profits is distributed to all adults.

nikolai_b 4y ago

Eschewing technology is not what the Luddites were initially after. At first they asked for a minimum wage, minimum labour standards and taxes on the new technology to support laid off workers [1]. This was rejected so they tried to protect their wage power by smashing up the machines. A Luddite response to AI might be to tax the value AI created (Microsoft's profits) and use that to fund minimum wages/retraining. Not sure how that would work when the AI value is in one jurisdiction and job losses in another. [1] https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-L...

onlypositive 4y ago

> It’s unlikely that we ever move toward this, in my opinion, due to the other issues inherent to communism (unfair (from the perspective of most policy makers) distribution of resources, corruption, etc.). It's because communism has the same issue Luddites have. Unless everyone is onboard, it doesn't work. You can't stop people from trading between themselves for profit in a communist country without the threat of violence. This is what leads to all the other problems. I mean Marx literally says you need to cull off the non believers for communism to work.