4 ms·

This is the middle class fighting the middle class; the billionaires that own both of types of organizations and the AI capital will inevitably use it to increa

This is the middle class fighting the middle class; the billionaires that own both of types of organizations and the AI capital will inevitably use it to increase productivity and capture all of the excess monetary gains while the middle class shrinks.

kapperchino 2y ago
Bruh stop with the middle class bs, there’s only working class and the owner class.
- redwoolf 2y ago
  The middle class is the designation for the part of the population the owning class has duped into thinking they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
  - labster 2y ago
    I’m not sure if you’ve seen housing prices lately but most of the middle class are technically millionaires now, just of the “land rich, cash poor” variety.
    - redwoolf 2y ago
      Back that "most" up with facts. I'm not sure how much we can trust Zestimates.
  - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - redwoolf 2y ago
      You missed the point. There is no “middle class.” There is the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
      - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
        [flagged]
      - Nasrudith 2y ago
        [flagged]
- mensetmanusman 2y ago
  6-figure AI scientists are middle class workers increasing the roi on investments made by billionaires into gpu capital.
- dannyobrien 2y ago
  I know it's not helping, and off-topic, but I cannot resist noting that the ecological niche in Hacker News comment threads, previously occupied by doctrinaire libertarians, have now been almost entirely re-stocked with doctrinaire Marxists. Nature is healing!
redwoolf 2y ago
I'm in partial agreement with you. But I don't think the middle class will shrink, I think it will disappear. The real threat to humanity from AI is not a Skynet or a Matrix like intelligence. The threat is that Artificial Intelligence WILL make labor irrelevant. When human capital has no value, we will disappear. Don't kid yourself into thinking that those who owns the means of production will stop to help. If they were interested in that, they'd be doing it now. There's enough money and food to feed everyone on the planet. People still starve.
- apsurd 2y ago
  isn't the issue that capitalism is amoral? you're saying the capitalists (should be) helping by now if they wanted to. They don't do it because capitalism isn't directly incentivizing it? growing economic power is supposed to help "all of us" in proportion to our input value. All this to say, i agree, but it means we need to augment capitalism - not speak to help and morality?
  - redwoolf 2y ago
    > isn't the issue that capitalism is amoral? How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"? > but it means we need to augment capitalism What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
    - apsurd 2y ago
      augment is the hopeful outcome. The alternatives seems quite bad to say the least. Maybe they lead to something good, something better. but there's a whole lotta bad in between for an unclear amount of time.
    - ianbutler 2y ago
      > How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"? It doesn't disincentivize collective care. It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Which leads to my next point: > What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. It's not like any of this exists in a vacuum and can't be, again, augmented to fit our needs better. > And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better. That's cute. What's your proposition for replacing Capitalism? What guarantees your new system is better? And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? Since I assume from your post you basically haven't known anything other then peace and stability and historically speaking great times, you're basically a larper. Ideas like this always strike me as incredibly naive. Why not work to improve a system that has shown promise instead of the repeating the long trail of critical failures from other systems.

kapperchino 2y ago

Bruh stop with the middle class bs, there’s only working class and the owner class.

redwoolf 2y ago
The middle class is the designation for the part of the population the owning class has duped into thinking they are temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
- labster 2y ago
  I’m not sure if you’ve seen housing prices lately but most of the middle class are technically millionaires now, just of the “land rich, cash poor” variety.
  - redwoolf 2y ago
    Back that "most" up with facts. I'm not sure how much we can trust Zestimates.
- vsuperpower2020 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - redwoolf 2y ago
    You missed the point. There is no “middle class.” There is the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
    - vsuperpower2020 2y ago
      [flagged]
    - Nasrudith 2y ago
      [flagged]
mensetmanusman 2y ago
6-figure AI scientists are middle class workers increasing the roi on investments made by billionaires into gpu capital.
dannyobrien 2y ago
I know it's not helping, and off-topic, but I cannot resist noting that the ecological niche in Hacker News comment threads, previously occupied by doctrinaire libertarians, have now been almost entirely re-stocked with doctrinaire Marxists. Nature is healing!

redwoolf 2y ago

I'm in partial agreement with you. But I don't think the middle class will shrink, I think it will disappear. The real threat to humanity from AI is not a Skynet or a Matrix like intelligence. The threat is that Artificial Intelligence WILL make labor irrelevant. When human capital has no value, we will disappear. Don't kid yourself into thinking that those who owns the means of production will stop to help. If they were interested in that, they'd be doing it now. There's enough money and food to feed everyone on the planet. People still starve.

apsurd 2y ago
isn't the issue that capitalism is amoral? you're saying the capitalists (should be) helping by now if they wanted to. They don't do it because capitalism isn't directly incentivizing it? growing economic power is supposed to help "all of us" in proportion to our input value. All this to say, i agree, but it means we need to augment capitalism - not speak to help and morality?
- redwoolf 2y ago
  > isn't the issue that capitalism is amoral? How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"? > but it means we need to augment capitalism What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
  - apsurd 2y ago
    augment is the hopeful outcome. The alternatives seems quite bad to say the least. Maybe they lead to something good, something better. but there's a whole lotta bad in between for an unclear amount of time.
  - ianbutler 2y ago
    > How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"? It doesn't disincentivize collective care. It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Which leads to my next point: > What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. It's not like any of this exists in a vacuum and can't be, again, augmented to fit our needs better. > And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better. That's cute. What's your proposition for replacing Capitalism? What guarantees your new system is better? And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? Since I assume from your post you basically haven't known anything other then peace and stability and historically speaking great times, you're basically a larper. Ideas like this always strike me as incredibly naive. Why not work to improve a system that has shown promise instead of the repeating the long trail of critical failures from other systems.