12 ms·

I’m certainly not less guilty than them, but this makes me think “First they came for the spinners and the weavers. The actors didn’t complain. Then, they cam

I’m certainly not less guilty than them, but this makes me think “First they came for the spinners and the weavers. The actors didn’t complain. Then, they came for the farmhands. The actors didn’t complain. Then, they came for the bank tellers. The actors didn’t complain. Then, they came for the shop assistants. The actors didn’t complain. Then, they came for the actors.” I can’t think of any argument for claiming there should be some fraction of the populations or number of people who can make a living acting. The problem, of course, is that all the above move the ability to earn money from people to capital, making those who have capital ever richer and those who have not poorer, if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer.

worrycue 3y ago
> The problem, of course, is that all the above move the ability to earn money from people to capital, making those who have capital ever richer and those who have not poorer, if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer. That’s the dystopia AGI promises to bring. Once AGI becomes a thing, it would be able to do all jobs. Trading human labour for money would cease to be a thing. The only ones who would still be able to make money are those who own the means of production. The economy would consist entirely of “owners” who would trade the output of their enterprises among themselves. Everyone else would just be left out of the economy because they have nothing to trade with.
- jareklupinski 3y ago
  do you envision this going into full "sky city / earth city" divide, or will 'owners' realize they are dependant on something 'non-owners' can only provide?
  - rqtwteye 3y ago
    I think history tells us that capitalists/aristocracy/owners don't voluntarily share their gains with the rest. They are perfectly fine living in splendor while the populace lives in poverty. And they tell themselves stories why they deserve it. The cycle usually gets disrupted by war or revolution.
    - mavhc 3y ago
      And then their heads fall off
      - blibble 3y ago
        would the guillotines reach them if they had armies of killbots guarding them?
        mavhc 3y ago
        But how many security flaws will the killbots have? Who's programming them?
        worrycue 3y ago
        > Who's programming them? They can frankly use the same AI robots that do other work.
  - alpha_squared 3y ago
    > something 'non-owners' can only provide? Commerce/consumption. What's the point of all the production if no one can buy it?
- masklinn 3y ago
  Surely AGI would also replace the owners because it would also be better at owning the means of production? There’s basically two routes then, in science fiction: the AI decides humans are wasteful (men of iron / thinking machines), or the AI goes turbo-communism because it sees humans as pets and you take care of and provide for your pets.
  - worrycue 3y ago
    Perhaps I'm wrong but all intelligences are basically goal seeking machines no? People who create/own the AGI will program them with goals compatible to their own: AI's only goal is to of service to the owner and be an extension of the owner's will. Thus the AI will never overthrow them. AI will run their empires for their owners while said owners sit back and enjoy their lives.
    - blibble 3y ago
      only if they can program perfectly what do you think the odds of that are?
      - worrycue 3y ago
        If it's reliable enough to take over professional work, it can take over executive work as well.
    - masklinn 3y ago
      That assumes anyone understands the agi, especially after having put the agi through a few rounds of self improvement. But afaik we already can’t explain the specific behaviour of LLM, only their general B-road strokes.
    - erewr4335543 3y ago
      "all intelligences are basically goal seeking machines no?" No, not really. They can just exist along you, think Da vinci or Einstein. They don't really tried to change their worlds, even having that capability. So humans could be just living along "a giant", or several of them, at any historical moment, even right now. And not really be aware of them at all. Artificial or not.
delusional 3y ago
Why would the actors complain about farmhands? The base assumption of organized labor and unions are that you need to fight for yourself, but that we (as fellow laborers) will support you. We can't fight for each other (what would actors even do to protest farmhand wages?) but we can support each other in the shared fight for a fair share of the excess value. I don't understand this modern idea of a dystopia as society's end goal, and every struggle against that as some unjust act. People need to fucking eat. Actors need to fucking eat. If what they do to eat now is under threat, they have every right, moral and logical, to fight for their right to eat.
- failuser 3y ago
  Famous actors have huge PR capabilities, they definitely can support labor efforts in other industries or help suppress it. Call for boycotts of union-busting companies, help elect pro-union politicians and so on. Or be Ronald Regan and get elected and bust unions.
  - delusional 3y ago
    There's a danger in that sort of activism, and direct intervention often results in backlash. It's very hard to protest capitalism on the consumer side. It rarely works for protests that directly affect the consumer and I've never seen it work for proxy fights. I'm sure most actors do think they are making a positive difference through the films they choose to act in. I'm sure they believe in and push for messaging they think help people. I don't think they believe (rightly or not, i don't know) that they have the direct influence to "simply" help elect certain politicians.
pessimizer 3y ago
> if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer. Feelings aren't really the problem. The government is controlled by relative wealth, not absolute wealth. When the winners control the rules of the game, the outcomes are obvious.

worrycue 3y ago

> The problem, of course, is that all the above move the ability to earn money from people to capital, making those who have capital ever richer and those who have not poorer, if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer. That’s the dystopia AGI promises to bring. Once AGI becomes a thing, it would be able to do all jobs. Trading human labour for money would cease to be a thing. The only ones who would still be able to make money are those who own the means of production. The economy would consist entirely of “owners” who would trade the output of their enterprises among themselves. Everyone else would just be left out of the economy because they have nothing to trade with.

jareklupinski 3y ago
do you envision this going into full "sky city / earth city" divide, or will 'owners' realize they are dependant on something 'non-owners' can only provide?
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  I think history tells us that capitalists/aristocracy/owners don't voluntarily share their gains with the rest. They are perfectly fine living in splendor while the populace lives in poverty. And they tell themselves stories why they deserve it. The cycle usually gets disrupted by war or revolution.
  - mavhc 3y ago
    And then their heads fall off
    - blibble 3y ago
      would the guillotines reach them if they had armies of killbots guarding them?
      - mavhc 3y ago
        But how many security flaws will the killbots have? Who's programming them?
        worrycue 3y ago
        > Who's programming them? They can frankly use the same AI robots that do other work.
- alpha_squared 3y ago
  > something 'non-owners' can only provide? Commerce/consumption. What's the point of all the production if no one can buy it?
masklinn 3y ago
Surely AGI would also replace the owners because it would also be better at owning the means of production? There’s basically two routes then, in science fiction: the AI decides humans are wasteful (men of iron / thinking machines), or the AI goes turbo-communism because it sees humans as pets and you take care of and provide for your pets.
- worrycue 3y ago
  Perhaps I'm wrong but all intelligences are basically goal seeking machines no? People who create/own the AGI will program them with goals compatible to their own: AI's only goal is to of service to the owner and be an extension of the owner's will. Thus the AI will never overthrow them. AI will run their empires for their owners while said owners sit back and enjoy their lives.
  - blibble 3y ago
    only if they can program perfectly what do you think the odds of that are?
    - worrycue 3y ago
      If it's reliable enough to take over professional work, it can take over executive work as well.
  - masklinn 3y ago
    That assumes anyone understands the agi, especially after having put the agi through a few rounds of self improvement. But afaik we already can’t explain the specific behaviour of LLM, only their general B-road strokes.
  - erewr4335543 3y ago
    "all intelligences are basically goal seeking machines no?" No, not really. They can just exist along you, think Da vinci or Einstein. They don't really tried to change their worlds, even having that capability. So humans could be just living along "a giant", or several of them, at any historical moment, even right now. And not really be aware of them at all. Artificial or not.

delusional 3y ago

Why would the actors complain about farmhands? The base assumption of organized labor and unions are that you need to fight for yourself, but that we (as fellow laborers) will support you. We can't fight for each other (what would actors even do to protest farmhand wages?) but we can support each other in the shared fight for a fair share of the excess value. I don't understand this modern idea of a dystopia as society's end goal, and every struggle against that as some unjust act. People need to fucking eat. Actors need to fucking eat. If what they do to eat now is under threat, they have every right, moral and logical, to fight for their right to eat.

failuser 3y ago
Famous actors have huge PR capabilities, they definitely can support labor efforts in other industries or help suppress it. Call for boycotts of union-busting companies, help elect pro-union politicians and so on. Or be Ronald Regan and get elected and bust unions.
- delusional 3y ago
  There's a danger in that sort of activism, and direct intervention often results in backlash. It's very hard to protest capitalism on the consumer side. It rarely works for protests that directly affect the consumer and I've never seen it work for proxy fights. I'm sure most actors do think they are making a positive difference through the films they choose to act in. I'm sure they believe in and push for messaging they think help people. I don't think they believe (rightly or not, i don't know) that they have the direct influence to "simply" help elect certain politicians.

pessimizer 3y ago

> if not in absolute terms at least relatively, and that’s enough to make people feel poorer. Feelings aren't really the problem. The government is controlled by relative wealth, not absolute wealth. When the winners control the rules of the game, the outcomes are obvious.