4 ms·

You don't understand because you think we have a society built around making life better for everyone. It's not. Our society currently is optimized for one thin

You don't understand because you think we have a society built around making life better for everyone. It's not. Our society currently is optimized for one thing: Making sure the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. In that respect, AI is amazing. AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people for the pay of less than one. It works 24 hours, and will never ask for more money. And it works exactly to the specification you set, and will never, ever do anything to help your customers.

BobaFloutist 3y ago
>you think we have a society built around making life better for everyone. You know, I don't think they do think that? I think they think that's what society should be, though.
infamouscow 3y ago
> Making sure the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. It doesn't explain how Sears managed themselves into bankruptcy, handing everything to the likes of Amazon despite having all the money in the world, comparatively. It also doesn't explain how EVs are taking off. I've seen multiple conspiratorial documentaries about why the oil companies will never allow EVs to ever take hold.
asdajksah2123 3y ago
I disagree with this. There's a lot of evidence that modern society has made things much better for everyone. That doesn't mean that there aren't negative influences in modern society. The rich wanting to get richer is definitely one of the major ones that is particularly powerful right now. But that's why society is a process. You gotta fight back and moderate the negative influences, and boost the more positive ones. I think the question whether AI will fall on either the positive or negative side of the ledger is wrong in itself. AI will provide a lever to magnify whichever direction society and people were going in anyways independent of AI. It's a tool, and hopefully a really powerful tool, but it's not a God. It can be used equally for good and bad. And if you believe, like I do (and by all appearances you do too), that our current society is balanced to benefit bad actors over good actors (where bad/good are being defined in terms of benefiting society overall), the magnifying effect of AI is likely to magnify the net negative. The one advantage of something new like AI coming around is that, I believe, the primary reason open democratic societies allow themselves to become tilted in favor of bad actors is because of complacency...it's usually a slow shift rather than a single big change. The arrival of a major chance like AI forces society and everyone in it to once again take stock of where society stands. This gives us an opportunity to change the tilt of our society to promote good actors again, before AI truly starts having an impact, which gives us an opportunity to ensure AI magnifies a net benefit, rather than a net negative, for society. And frankly I think we are closer to having that reckoning than we've ever been in my few decades on this planet, so overall I'm optimistic about AI. But again, whether we benefit or suffer with AI will be independent of AI itself.
hackerlight 3y ago
> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like AI) aren't zero sum. When production costs go down, competition forces prices to also go down, which then leads to more wealth for everyone not just the capital owners (even if it disproportionately benefits capital owners). People are made redundant and then find jobs in other parts of the economy where they're actually needed. This is a painful but necessary corrective mechanism for the economy to remain dynamic and productive and innovative. That said, I still want a global wealth tax.
- michaelmrose 3y ago
  You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. EG you you have 100 people who can't afford steam off a hotdog and 100 customers with n units of disposable income per day. You end up with 150 customers who can't afford shit and 50 with 2n units of disposable income. The price was never bounded by the actual cost in the first place so the smaller wealthier clientele leads to higher prices. One could easily imagine many tens of millions of new poor making much less while prices driven by wealth of other segments of society continues to rise who both have less coming in to pay higher prices. Meanwhile you have tens of millions of people who are presently create little value NOW whose jobs end up politically difficult to deprecate. You need to have SOME people on your side after all. I don't see our society being a good one now or in 20 years. There is no political will to do anything hard and a thread of greed, cowardice, anti intellectualism and weakness woven through our society.
  - hackerlight 3y ago
    > You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. That's how it's always been historically, but you are right that I can't predict it'll be the same in the future, especially when it comes to AGI. > You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. Collusion to fix prices can't happen in highly competitive markets with declining production costs, because of game theory reasons. You always get this graph[1] unless you have regulatory capture such as with insulin supply in the US. Or unless you have a labor-heavy cost base such as with the education industry. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=... The risk with AI is that it won't be highly competitive. As a general rule, only in a monopoly-like situations can you have abnormal profits. That's where the global wealth tax comes into play, among other policies targeted at monopolistic practices.
cscurmudgeon 3y ago
Hasn't the poverty rate consistently decreased?
- johnnyworker 3y ago
  The gap between rich and poor is growing at increasing pace, just like the gap between rich and mega-rich is. If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone. Some people shriek in anguish or sob in darkness, kill themselves, over issues that would be a 2 minute phone call and a check that is 0.0001% of their monthly income for someone else. That's a problem, and that kings used to have less than the average homeless do today doesn't change that, and isn't something capitalism gets to take credit for either. Humans have been inventing and improving things since before history, even animals do it, that's just normal.
  - cscurmudgeon 3y ago
    > The gap between rich and poor is growing at increasing pace, just like the gap between rich and mega-rich is. Why the hell should that matter? If the system wanted to keep poor people poor, won't the poverty rate stay the same? Thats the assertion I was countering. Why keep moving the goalpost? But I will play along: > If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone. 1. You should first ask if your brother got his cake fair and square. If so, then you should be happy you are not puking and be happy for him. Don't be selfish. Let's say your brother worked 10 times more than you (80 hrs) and smarter than you while you stayed in bed and watched TV all day on his dime. Isn't inequality the fairer but still painful outcome in this case? F 2. Should you and your brother have the same quality of life despite the efforts you put in? Why should you be entitled to his fruits of action beyond sustenance? 3. If you agree there in diversity in level of effort and thought, then inequality is the fairer outcome. 4. Also, one should stop comparing only outcomes, you should also compare inputs.

BobaFloutist 3y ago

>you think we have a society built around making life better for everyone. You know, I don't think they do think that? I think they think that's what society should be, though.

infamouscow 3y ago

> Making sure the rich stay rich, and the poor stay poor. It doesn't explain how Sears managed themselves into bankruptcy, handing everything to the likes of Amazon despite having all the money in the world, comparatively. It also doesn't explain how EVs are taking off. I've seen multiple conspiratorial documentaries about why the oil companies will never allow EVs to ever take hold.

asdajksah2123 3y ago

I disagree with this. There's a lot of evidence that modern society has made things much better for everyone. That doesn't mean that there aren't negative influences in modern society. The rich wanting to get richer is definitely one of the major ones that is particularly powerful right now. But that's why society is a process. You gotta fight back and moderate the negative influences, and boost the more positive ones. I think the question whether AI will fall on either the positive or negative side of the ledger is wrong in itself. AI will provide a lever to magnify whichever direction society and people were going in anyways independent of AI. It's a tool, and hopefully a really powerful tool, but it's not a God. It can be used equally for good and bad. And if you believe, like I do (and by all appearances you do too), that our current society is balanced to benefit bad actors over good actors (where bad/good are being defined in terms of benefiting society overall), the magnifying effect of AI is likely to magnify the net negative. The one advantage of something new like AI coming around is that, I believe, the primary reason open democratic societies allow themselves to become tilted in favor of bad actors is because of complacency...it's usually a slow shift rather than a single big change. The arrival of a major chance like AI forces society and everyone in it to once again take stock of where society stands. This gives us an opportunity to change the tilt of our society to promote good actors again, before AI truly starts having an impact, which gives us an opportunity to ensure AI magnifies a net benefit, rather than a net negative, for society. And frankly I think we are closer to having that reckoning than we've ever been in my few decades on this planet, so overall I'm optimistic about AI. But again, whether we benefit or suffer with AI will be independent of AI itself.

hackerlight 3y ago

> AI requires a small upfront cost, then can do the job of thousands of people That's the same with every efficiency improvement. Efficiency improvements (like AI) aren't zero sum. When production costs go down, competition forces prices to also go down, which then leads to more wealth for everyone not just the capital owners (even if it disproportionately benefits capital owners). People are made redundant and then find jobs in other parts of the economy where they're actually needed. This is a painful but necessary corrective mechanism for the economy to remain dynamic and productive and innovative. That said, I still want a global wealth tax.

michaelmrose 3y ago
You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. EG you you have 100 people who can't afford steam off a hotdog and 100 customers with n units of disposable income per day. You end up with 150 customers who can't afford shit and 50 with 2n units of disposable income. The price was never bounded by the actual cost in the first place so the smaller wealthier clientele leads to higher prices. One could easily imagine many tens of millions of new poor making much less while prices driven by wealth of other segments of society continues to rise who both have less coming in to pay higher prices. Meanwhile you have tens of millions of people who are presently create little value NOW whose jobs end up politically difficult to deprecate. You need to have SOME people on your side after all. I don't see our society being a good one now or in 20 years. There is no political will to do anything hard and a thread of greed, cowardice, anti intellectualism and weakness woven through our society.
- hackerlight 3y ago
  > You are assuming over the coming years that most parties so displaced simply shift to other parts of the economy as lucrative and are able to take advantage of those benefits. That's how it's always been historically, but you are right that I can't predict it'll be the same in the future, especially when it comes to AGI. > You are also assuming collusion explicit or implicit and the wealth of remaining buyers doesn't just keep prices high. Collusion to fix prices can't happen in highly competitive markets with declining production costs, because of game theory reasons. You always get this graph[1] unless you have regulatory capture such as with insulin supply in the US. Or unless you have a labor-heavy cost base such as with the education industry. [1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E314pxwXMAI2ZIn?format=png&name=... The risk with AI is that it won't be highly competitive. As a general rule, only in a monopoly-like situations can you have abnormal profits. That's where the global wealth tax comes into play, among other policies targeted at monopolistic practices.

cscurmudgeon 3y ago

Hasn't the poverty rate consistently decreased?

johnnyworker 3y ago
The gap between rich and poor is growing at increasing pace, just like the gap between rich and mega-rich is. If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone. Some people shriek in anguish or sob in darkness, kill themselves, over issues that would be a 2 minute phone call and a check that is 0.0001% of their monthly income for someone else. That's a problem, and that kings used to have less than the average homeless do today doesn't change that, and isn't something capitalism gets to take credit for either. Humans have been inventing and improving things since before history, even animals do it, that's just normal.
- cscurmudgeon 3y ago
  > The gap between rich and poor is growing at increasing pace, just like the gap between rich and mega-rich is. Why the hell should that matter? If the system wanted to keep poor people poor, won't the poverty rate stay the same? Thats the assertion I was countering. Why keep moving the goalpost? But I will play along: > If you went completely hungry yesterday, nearly starved to death, but today you get enough calories that you feel less pain so you can at least stand up and walk around a bit, while you watch your brother stuff his face with so much cake he has to puke 3 times to make room for more, to then play frisbee with the rest, what would you think? How it was for you yesterday isn't the standard. How it is for others, today, is the standard. It's about fairness and human dignity, nothing more and nothing less. If everybody was starving, we wouldn't even have a name for it, or a problem with it. It wouldn't be a slight on anyone. 1. You should first ask if your brother got his cake fair and square. If so, then you should be happy you are not puking and be happy for him. Don't be selfish. Let's say your brother worked 10 times more than you (80 hrs) and smarter than you while you stayed in bed and watched TV all day on his dime. Isn't inequality the fairer but still painful outcome in this case? F 2. Should you and your brother have the same quality of life despite the efforts you put in? Why should you be entitled to his fruits of action beyond sustenance? 3. If you agree there in diversity in level of effort and thought, then inequality is the fairer outcome. 4. Also, one should stop comparing only outcomes, you should also compare inputs.