3 ms·

You've begun the conversation, but what is the next step? You've identified that people feel threatened. Why do you think that is? It strikes me that pride is r

You've begun the conversation, but what is the next step? You've identified that people feel threatened. Why do you think that is? It strikes me that pride is rarely a defensive response. What are the things they should be focusing on? In a system defined by one's ability to capitalize on one's individual importance, what less unfortunate mindset should be taken?

Simon321 3y ago
You've answered your own question: Change the system. If we get too good at automating jobs there should be a social safety net so we can all enjoy the fruits of AI.
- dmreedy 3y ago
  I guess my attempts at leading the conversation where I wanted it to go were not as subtle as I had hoped. I absolutely agree the system is in dire need of some attention. I think a lot of the reaction you see around this new iteration of technology comes from people who worry that that attention will not be given. People who suddenly feel as insecure as all the other people in history left behind by growing automation. It's less pride, and more fear. And I don't feel like it's unjustified fear, given our track record.
VaiDeN 3y ago
Some people have an unfortunate mindset of wanting to shut down AI systems because they feel their art or job is threatened. However, I believe that the benefits of AI for society far outweigh these individual concerns. We must acknowledge that there may be issues with companies preferring AI over human employees, leading to potential unemployment. But, businesses wouldn't benefit from having poorer consumers, so it doesn't make sense to increase productivity at the cost of consumer power. Society must adapt to allow AI technologies to flourish and relieve humans of mundane tasks. We should identify tasks that only humans should manage, differentiate between human-made art and AI-generated art without banning generative processes, and find a way for everything to work together. AI can even help in building a new society based on these principles, possibly leading us towards a resource-based economy where money becomes less important.
- dmreedy 3y ago
  > businesses wouldn't benefit from having poorer consumers, so it doesn't make sense to increase productivity at the cost of consumer power. I think your logic is impeccable here, and yet we frequently see businesses making decisions that do exactly that. The growing wealth gap seems to be indication enough. I can posit all sorts of explanations for why that might be but I'm much more curious as to what you imagine a fix for it might look like, from your model. Or do you think it will simply fix itself once things "bottom out" as it were (and not to present a false dichotomy). > relieve humans of mundane tasks In the economy/system we currently have, mundane tasks are entire classes of jobs. Jobs not frequently pursued out of passion, but necessity since it is very difficult to survive without a source of income, and a baseline of health insurance. And even more difficult to grow. So while I love the vision of that future, I'm much more interested in what the bridge to getting there looks like. Because traditionally we haven't built those bridges, we've just hoped enough survivors will learn how to swim. > resource-based economy where money becomes less important In the current society/economic system, money is a proxy for the abstract concept of resource. Do you mean a more direct resource foundation, like a barter system? An economy that moves without the lubrication of a finance industry using the abstraction of money to provide liquidity? Something different?

Simon321 3y ago

You've answered your own question: Change the system. If we get too good at automating jobs there should be a social safety net so we can all enjoy the fruits of AI.

dmreedy 3y ago
I guess my attempts at leading the conversation where I wanted it to go were not as subtle as I had hoped. I absolutely agree the system is in dire need of some attention. I think a lot of the reaction you see around this new iteration of technology comes from people who worry that that attention will not be given. People who suddenly feel as insecure as all the other people in history left behind by growing automation. It's less pride, and more fear. And I don't feel like it's unjustified fear, given our track record.

VaiDeN 3y ago

Some people have an unfortunate mindset of wanting to shut down AI systems because they feel their art or job is threatened. However, I believe that the benefits of AI for society far outweigh these individual concerns. We must acknowledge that there may be issues with companies preferring AI over human employees, leading to potential unemployment. But, businesses wouldn't benefit from having poorer consumers, so it doesn't make sense to increase productivity at the cost of consumer power. Society must adapt to allow AI technologies to flourish and relieve humans of mundane tasks. We should identify tasks that only humans should manage, differentiate between human-made art and AI-generated art without banning generative processes, and find a way for everything to work together. AI can even help in building a new society based on these principles, possibly leading us towards a resource-based economy where money becomes less important.

dmreedy 3y ago
> businesses wouldn't benefit from having poorer consumers, so it doesn't make sense to increase productivity at the cost of consumer power. I think your logic is impeccable here, and yet we frequently see businesses making decisions that do exactly that. The growing wealth gap seems to be indication enough. I can posit all sorts of explanations for why that might be but I'm much more curious as to what you imagine a fix for it might look like, from your model. Or do you think it will simply fix itself once things "bottom out" as it were (and not to present a false dichotomy). > relieve humans of mundane tasks In the economy/system we currently have, mundane tasks are entire classes of jobs. Jobs not frequently pursued out of passion, but necessity since it is very difficult to survive without a source of income, and a baseline of health insurance. And even more difficult to grow. So while I love the vision of that future, I'm much more interested in what the bridge to getting there looks like. Because traditionally we haven't built those bridges, we've just hoped enough survivors will learn how to swim. > resource-based economy where money becomes less important In the current society/economic system, money is a proxy for the abstract concept of resource. Do you mean a more direct resource foundation, like a barter system? An economy that moves without the lubrication of a finance industry using the abstraction of money to provide liquidity? Something different?