4 ms·

It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration. You get richer as you move up in the supply chain, period. Companies vertically integ

It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration. You get richer as you move up in the supply chain, period. Companies vertically integrate to drive costs down in the long run. As AI gets more prevalent, it'll drive the cost down for the companies supplying these services, so the former employees of said companies will be paid lower, or not at all. So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? I can understand the leisure time. Because, when you don't have a job, all day is leisure time. But you'll need money for that, so will these companies fund the masses via government to provide Universal Basic Income, so these people can both live a borderline miserable life while funding these companies to suck these people more and more?

CamperBob2 2y ago
It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration Who cares? A rising tide lifts all boats. The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's. So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both.
- danans 2y ago
  > Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both. Money is also how we exert power and leverage over others. As inequality increases, it enables the ever wealthier minority to exert power and therefore control over the majority.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    If that's a problem, why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class? The problem isn't the money. The problem is the power.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      > why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class? Humans are interesting creatures. Many of them do not have conscience and don't understand the notion of ethics and "not doing of something because it's wrong to begin with". From my experience, esp. the people in US thinks that "if that's not illegal, then I can and will do this", which is wrong in many levels again. Many European people are similar, but bigger governments and harsher justice system makes them more orderly, and happier in general. Yes, they can't carry guns, but they don't need to begin with. Yes, they can't own Cybertrucks, but they can walk or use an actually working mass transportation system to begin with. Plus proper governments have checks and balances. A government can't rip people off like corporations for services most of the time. Many of the things Americans are afraid of (social health services for everyone) makes life more just and tolerable for all parts of the population. Big government is not a bad thing, and uncontrollable government is. We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way.
      - Jensson 2y ago
        > We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way. Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government. Feeding a cancer tumor doesn't make it better.
        danans 2y ago
        > Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government. Bad government (where by bad I mean serving the interests of the wealthy few over the masses) is bad regardless of it's size. If you believe in supply-side/trickle-down economics, you might use the opposite definition of "bad", in which case shrinking of government that restrains corporations (protecting the masses) by regulation or paying for seniors not to end up it total destitution (social security /Medicare) The size of the government is less relevant than what it is doing, and whether you agree with that.
- bayindirh 2y ago
  > Who cares? A rising tide lifts all boats. Apparently people who are not wealthy enough to buy a boat and afraid of drowning care about this a lot. Also, for whom the tide rises? Not for the data workers which label data for these systems for peanuts, or people who lose jobs because they can be replaced with AI, or Amazon drivers which are auto-fired by their in-car HAL9000 units which label behavior the way they see fit. > The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's. So, the amount of money they have is much more important than everything else. That's greed, not wealth, but OK. I'm not feeling like dying on the hill of greedy people today. > Money is how we allocate limited resources. ...and the wealthy people (you or I or others know) are accumulating amounts of it which they can't make good use of personally, I will argue. > It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both. How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air? Or, how will they become less necessary? Did we invent materials which are more durable and cheaper to produce, and do we start to sell it to people for less? I don't think so. See, this is not a developing country problem. It's a developed country problem. Stellantis is selling inferior products for more money, while reducing workforce , closing factories, replacing metal parts with plastics, and CEO is taking $40MM as a bonus [0], and now he's apparently resigned after all that shenanigans. So, no. Nobody is making things cheaper for people. Everybody is after the money to rise their own tides. So, you're delusional. Nobody is thinking about your bank account that's true. This is why resources won't be less limited or less necessary. Because all the surplus is accumulating at people who are focused on their own bank accounts more than anything else.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air? We've already done it, as evidenced by the fact that you had the time and tools to write that screed. Your parents probably didn't, and your grandparents certainly didn't.
    - bayindirh 2y ago
      No, it doesn't prove anything. To be brutally honest, I have just eaten a meal, and have 30 minutes of relax time. Then I'll close this 10 year old laptop and continue what I need to do. No, my parents had that. Instead, they were chatting on the phone. My grandparents already had that too. They just chatted at the hall in front of the house with their neighbors. We don't have time. We are just deluding ourselves. While our lives are technologically better, and we live longer, our lives are not objectively healthier and happier. Heck, my colleagues join teleconferences from home with their kid's voice at the background and drying clothes visible, only hidden by the Gaussian blur or fake background provided by the software. How they have more time to do more things? They still work 8 hours a day, doing the occasional overtime. Things have changed and evolved, but evolution and change doesn't always bring progress. We have progressed in other areas, but justice, life conditions and wealth are not in this list. I certainly can't buy a house just because I want one like my grandparents did, for example.
- pishpash 2y ago
  Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here. Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here. The Luddites asked a similar question. The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits. As long as manual labor is in the loop, the limits to productivity are fixed. Machines scale, humans don't. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a cotton gin or a warehouse full of GPUs. Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away. I haven't invoked the "bootstrap" cliché here, have I? Just the boat thing. They make very different points. Anyway, never mind the bootstraps: where'd you get the boots? Is there a shortage of boots? There once was a shortage of boots, it's safe to say, but automation fixed that. Humans didn't, and couldn't, but machines did. Or more properly, humans building and using machines did.
    - didibus 2y ago
      > The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits. That mattered a lot in communist places, we saw it fail. Same thing with most authoritarian regime today, it's a crap shoot. You simply can't entrust a small group with full control on the means of production and expect them to make it efficient, cheap, innovative, sustainable and affordable.
- michaelmrose 2y ago
  Why wouldn't the people at the top siphon off literally 100% of the benefit whilst the people displaced bear 100% of the cost?

CamperBob2 2y ago

It also fuels the income inequality with a fatter pipe in every iteration Who cares? A rising tide lifts all boats. The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's. So, tell me, how paying fewer people less money will drive their standard of living upwards? Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both.

danans 2y ago
> Money is how we allocate limited resources. It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both. Money is also how we exert power and leverage over others. As inequality increases, it enables the ever wealthier minority to exert power and therefore control over the majority.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If that's a problem, why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class? The problem isn't the money. The problem is the power.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    > why does the progressive point of view typically argue in favor of giving more power over our lives to the ruling class? Humans are interesting creatures. Many of them do not have conscience and don't understand the notion of ethics and "not doing of something because it's wrong to begin with". From my experience, esp. the people in US thinks that "if that's not illegal, then I can and will do this", which is wrong in many levels again. Many European people are similar, but bigger governments and harsher justice system makes them more orderly, and happier in general. Yes, they can't carry guns, but they don't need to begin with. Yes, they can't own Cybertrucks, but they can walk or use an actually working mass transportation system to begin with. Plus proper governments have checks and balances. A government can't rip people off like corporations for services most of the time. Many of the things Americans are afraid of (social health services for everyone) makes life more just and tolerable for all parts of the population. Big government is not a bad thing, and uncontrollable government is. We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way.
    - Jensson 2y ago
      > We're entering the era of "corporate pleasing uncontrollable governments", and this will be fun in a tragic way. Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government. Feeding a cancer tumor doesn't make it better.
      - danans 2y ago
        > Right, so the answer is not to make that bad government bigger, the answer is to replace it with a good government. Bad government (where by bad I mean serving the interests of the wealthy few over the masses) is bad regardless of it's size. If you believe in supply-side/trickle-down economics, you might use the opposite definition of "bad", in which case shrinking of government that restrains corporations (protecting the masses) by regulation or paying for seniors not to end up it total destitution (social security /Medicare) The size of the government is less relevant than what it is doing, and whether you agree with that.
bayindirh 2y ago
> Who cares? A rising tide lifts all boats. Apparently people who are not wealthy enough to buy a boat and afraid of drowning care about this a lot. Also, for whom the tide rises? Not for the data workers which label data for these systems for peanuts, or people who lose jobs because they can be replaced with AI, or Amazon drivers which are auto-fired by their in-car HAL9000 units which label behavior the way they see fit. > The wealthy people I know all have one thing in common: they focused more on their own bank accounts than on other people's. So, the amount of money they have is much more important than everything else. That's greed, not wealth, but OK. I'm not feeling like dying on the hill of greedy people today. > Money is how we allocate limited resources. ...and the wealthy people (you or I or others know) are accumulating amounts of it which they can't make good use of personally, I will argue. > It will become less important as resources become less limited, less necessary, or (hopefully) both. How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air? Or, how will they become less necessary? Did we invent materials which are more durable and cheaper to produce, and do we start to sell it to people for less? I don't think so. See, this is not a developing country problem. It's a developed country problem. Stellantis is selling inferior products for more money, while reducing workforce , closing factories, replacing metal parts with plastics, and CEO is taking $40MM as a bonus [0], and now he's apparently resigned after all that shenanigans. So, no. Nobody is making things cheaper for people. Everybody is after the money to rise their own tides. So, you're delusional. Nobody is thinking about your bank account that's true. This is why resources won't be less limited or less necessary. Because all the surplus is accumulating at people who are focused on their own bank accounts more than anything else.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  How will we make resources less limited? Recycling? Reducing population? Creating out of thin air? We've already done it, as evidenced by the fact that you had the time and tools to write that screed. Your parents probably didn't, and your grandparents certainly didn't.
  - bayindirh 2y ago
    No, it doesn't prove anything. To be brutally honest, I have just eaten a meal, and have 30 minutes of relax time. Then I'll close this 10 year old laptop and continue what I need to do. No, my parents had that. Instead, they were chatting on the phone. My grandparents already had that too. They just chatted at the hall in front of the house with their neighbors. We don't have time. We are just deluding ourselves. While our lives are technologically better, and we live longer, our lives are not objectively healthier and happier. Heck, my colleagues join teleconferences from home with their kid's voice at the background and drying clothes visible, only hidden by the Gaussian blur or fake background provided by the software. How they have more time to do more things? They still work 8 hours a day, doing the occasional overtime. Things have changed and evolved, but evolution and change doesn't always bring progress. We have progressed in other areas, but justice, life conditions and wealth are not in this list. I certainly can't buy a house just because I want one like my grandparents did, for example.
pishpash 2y ago
Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here. Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Why would "resources" become less limited or necessary just because there's some AGI controlled by a few people? You're assuming a lot here. The Luddites asked a similar question. The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits. As long as manual labor is in the loop, the limits to productivity are fixed. Machines scale, humans don't. It doesn't matter whether you're talking about a cotton gin or a warehouse full of GPUs. Separately, is it "rising tide lifts all boats" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" that drives the common person's progress? You seem confused which metaphor to apply while handwaving the discussion away. I haven't invoked the "bootstrap" cliché here, have I? Just the boat thing. They make very different points. Anyway, never mind the bootstraps: where'd you get the boots? Is there a shortage of boots? There once was a shortage of boots, it's safe to say, but automation fixed that. Humans didn't, and couldn't, but machines did. Or more properly, humans building and using machines did.
  - didibus 2y ago
    > The ultimate answer is that it doesn't matter that much who controls the means of production, as long as we have access to its fruits. That mattered a lot in communist places, we saw it fail. Same thing with most authoritarian regime today, it's a crap shoot. You simply can't entrust a small group with full control on the means of production and expect them to make it efficient, cheap, innovative, sustainable and affordable.
michaelmrose 2y ago
Why wouldn't the people at the top siphon off literally 100% of the benefit whilst the people displaced bear 100% of the cost?