5 ms·

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 Skyn

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.
    - redwoolf 2y ago
      > It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Exactly. And in the current bounds the optimal allocation is more into the control of fewer. Also, capitalism is a zero sum game, thus the disincentive to give what you've got. > By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. Sure. But those regulations and laws are being repealed or revised to be toothless. And there are many places on earth where laws have no meaning. > And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? And capitalism doesn't have an incredibly bloody tab? Take a global perspective to see the many useless wars in the 20th and 21st century that have been fought to extend the market for capital. Or consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences, but only short term gains. Do you think that when the oceans rise, the plants die, and the water is too acidic to drink society won't be destabilized?
      - 2y ago
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - lxgr 2y ago
    > How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? By regulating it so that it serves the needs of the people living in it, and embedding those regulations in a system resilient against regulatory capture and nepotism. As all economic systems, it’s ultimately only a means (efficient resource allocation) to an end (prosperity and growth for somebody). Who that is, i.e. how the results of that growth are ultimately redistributed is not a question of economics but politics.
mitthrowaway2 2y ago
Multiple threats can be real at the same time, and in this case are!
egypturnash 2y ago
What makes you so sure that “revolution” will not be the result of the middle class being destroyed by AI?
- randcraw 2y ago
  Revolution against what? Should we act NOW to take out all the plausibly psychotic plutocrats, well before they can arm themselves? Or do we wait until they actually create an army of armed drones? Of course, by then it'd be too late. Or do we choose a time frame that's in-between, trusting that the politicians and the courts and the police departments will pass and enforce laws to protect us before the plutos can amass power via fully automated factories -- laws that will never actually come to pass, since plutocrat-interests-and-their-minions already own the current system? Nah. We frogs will boil LONG before revolution is a viable option.
  - radarsat1 2y ago
    > before the plutos can amass power via fully automated factories Fun science fiction but this idea that the rich could develop an entire self sustaining infrastructure to protect themselves from any leverage from the working class is completely infeasible. Let's day a full automatic drone factory was built. Factories don't make their own tools and general parts, they don't mold their own screws and bolts, no, they source those. Even if they could, they'd need raw materials. So they'd need completely automated mines. Those mines would be on land that they'd own, but they'd have to physically defend it. So the scenario you're proposing is: fully automated mining, with fully automated defense measures, delivering raw materials to some fully automated smelter (all travel routes automatically defended against sabotage), this all to feed a factory that would churn out defense robots. It's completely circular and silly.
    - randcraw 2y ago
      All that may be true in the large open democracies, but it's already false in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and beyond... and based on the current propaganda-driven trends of mindless angst driving most democracies today, you could live most anywhere else and see a similar outcome in just a decade or two. So in the next 20 years, which do you think will happen first: dictatorship by plutocrats elected to office, or by plutocrats who overthrow elections after they lose?
Nasrudith 2y ago
It is a major logistics problem. Trust me, you would be WAY more mad if billionaires tried to feed everyone. You'd call it 'naked neocolonalism' or similar because it would require conquest of all nonconforming regions.

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.
  - redwoolf 2y ago
    > It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Exactly. And in the current bounds the optimal allocation is more into the control of fewer. Also, capitalism is a zero sum game, thus the disincentive to give what you've got. > By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. Sure. But those regulations and laws are being repealed or revised to be toothless. And there are many places on earth where laws have no meaning. > And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? And capitalism doesn't have an incredibly bloody tab? Take a global perspective to see the many useless wars in the 20th and 21st century that have been fought to extend the market for capital. Or consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences, but only short term gains. Do you think that when the oceans rise, the plants die, and the water is too acidic to drink society won't be destabilized?
    - 2y ago
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- lxgr 2y ago
  > How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior? By regulating it so that it serves the needs of the people living in it, and embedding those regulations in a system resilient against regulatory capture and nepotism. As all economic systems, it’s ultimately only a means (efficient resource allocation) to an end (prosperity and growth for somebody). Who that is, i.e. how the results of that growth are ultimately redistributed is not a question of economics but politics.

mitthrowaway2 2y ago

Multiple threats can be real at the same time, and in this case are!

egypturnash 2y ago

What makes you so sure that “revolution” will not be the result of the middle class being destroyed by AI?

randcraw 2y ago
Revolution against what? Should we act NOW to take out all the plausibly psychotic plutocrats, well before they can arm themselves? Or do we wait until they actually create an army of armed drones? Of course, by then it'd be too late. Or do we choose a time frame that's in-between, trusting that the politicians and the courts and the police departments will pass and enforce laws to protect us before the plutos can amass power via fully automated factories -- laws that will never actually come to pass, since plutocrat-interests-and-their-minions already own the current system? Nah. We frogs will boil LONG before revolution is a viable option.
- radarsat1 2y ago
  > before the plutos can amass power via fully automated factories Fun science fiction but this idea that the rich could develop an entire self sustaining infrastructure to protect themselves from any leverage from the working class is completely infeasible. Let's day a full automatic drone factory was built. Factories don't make their own tools and general parts, they don't mold their own screws and bolts, no, they source those. Even if they could, they'd need raw materials. So they'd need completely automated mines. Those mines would be on land that they'd own, but they'd have to physically defend it. So the scenario you're proposing is: fully automated mining, with fully automated defense measures, delivering raw materials to some fully automated smelter (all travel routes automatically defended against sabotage), this all to feed a factory that would churn out defense robots. It's completely circular and silly.
  - randcraw 2y ago
    All that may be true in the large open democracies, but it's already false in Russia, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and beyond... and based on the current propaganda-driven trends of mindless angst driving most democracies today, you could live most anywhere else and see a similar outcome in just a decade or two. So in the next 20 years, which do you think will happen first: dictatorship by plutocrats elected to office, or by plutocrats who overthrow elections after they lose?

Nasrudith 2y ago

It is a major logistics problem. Trust me, you would be WAY more mad if billionaires tried to feed everyone. You'd call it 'naked neocolonalism' or similar because it would require conquest of all nonconforming regions.