4 ms·

It's an interesting philosophy. I have 2 questions that I promise are in good faith: 1. Is there support in this movement from people that don't stand to make

It's an interesting philosophy. I have 2 questions that I promise are in good faith: 1. Is there support in this movement from people that don't stand to make a bunch of money off AI advancements? Like, I get the philosophy could make sense for a VC or big tech employee, because either AI makes life a utopia or they get to ride a stock price to the moon until armageddon happens. Are there e/acc postal workers, teachers, tradesmen, etc.? 2. "Its proponents believe that artificial intelligence-driven progress is a great social equalizer which should be pushed forward". How will AI equalize society? Is this talking about, like, robot butlers for everyone and nobody has to work any more? If so, won't the makers of robot butlers be ultra-rich oligarchs? I'm unclear on the vision.

nh23423fefe 3y ago
1. Why does this matter? How could your occupation possibly be relevant? Why don't you just take advocates at their word when they say what they want? Why are teachers credible, but big tech employees are "causing armageddon" 2. Why are you so concerned someone in the world might be rich? If everyone had robot butlers and robot butler ceo is a trillionaire why do you care? Is this some childish idea that fairness is just universal poverty and misery? e/acc is just the obvious idea that intelligence creates access to massive areas of phase space. There isn't anything special about where humans are right now. This is not currently the utopia. more intelligence isn't bad even if someone rich might benefit. imagining a bad outcome isn't "being prudent" its just panicking.
- StefanBatory 3y ago
  1) Because if only they are in favor in this, then natural conclusion would be that this is an ideology that benefit only them. 2) would be rehashing statement of 1), I think.
fasterik 3y ago
I'm not really sure if I buy the argument that AI will equalize society. A more realistic goal would be reducing poverty and keeping the Gini coefficient within reasonable bounds. I don't think this is necessarily incompatible with your hypothetical "robot butlers and oligarchs" picture. Just because a few people get ultra-rich from a new technological development doesn't mean that everyone else suffers. China has seen an increase in inequality over the past few decades, but has also significantly reduced the number of people living in extreme poverty. If breakthroughs in AI increased productivity to such a degree that we could give everyone a basic income, raise the minimum standard of living, and keep the Gini coefficient in check, that would be a good outcome for everybody. There is definitely a self-serving aspect to tech millionaires and billionaires advocating that we should accelerate the development of the technology they happen to be working on. But I also think there are principled arguments for accelerating economic growth. We have a lower proportion of people living in poverty today than any other time in history, and that's largely because of the economic growth caused by the technological revolutions of the 20th century.

nh23423fefe 3y ago

1. Why does this matter? How could your occupation possibly be relevant? Why don't you just take advocates at their word when they say what they want? Why are teachers credible, but big tech employees are "causing armageddon" 2. Why are you so concerned someone in the world might be rich? If everyone had robot butlers and robot butler ceo is a trillionaire why do you care? Is this some childish idea that fairness is just universal poverty and misery? e/acc is just the obvious idea that intelligence creates access to massive areas of phase space. There isn't anything special about where humans are right now. This is not currently the utopia. more intelligence isn't bad even if someone rich might benefit. imagining a bad outcome isn't "being prudent" its just panicking.

StefanBatory 3y ago
1) Because if only they are in favor in this, then natural conclusion would be that this is an ideology that benefit only them. 2) would be rehashing statement of 1), I think.

fasterik 3y ago

I'm not really sure if I buy the argument that AI will equalize society. A more realistic goal would be reducing poverty and keeping the Gini coefficient within reasonable bounds. I don't think this is necessarily incompatible with your hypothetical "robot butlers and oligarchs" picture. Just because a few people get ultra-rich from a new technological development doesn't mean that everyone else suffers. China has seen an increase in inequality over the past few decades, but has also significantly reduced the number of people living in extreme poverty. If breakthroughs in AI increased productivity to such a degree that we could give everyone a basic income, raise the minimum standard of living, and keep the Gini coefficient in check, that would be a good outcome for everybody. There is definitely a self-serving aspect to tech millionaires and billionaires advocating that we should accelerate the development of the technology they happen to be working on. But I also think there are principled arguments for accelerating economic growth. We have a lower proportion of people living in poverty today than any other time in history, and that's largely because of the economic growth caused by the technological revolutions of the 20th century.