4 ms·

And when we get it there, it kills us.

by idiotsecant 2y ago

hex3 2y ago
[dead]
anothernewdude 2y ago
[flagged]
- falcor84 2y ago
  It seems to me that given how AI is likely to continuously increase capitalism's efficiency, your argument actually supports the claim you're trying to dispute.
  - sourcepluck 2y ago
    Capitalism is not efficient, it's grabby. Read Bullshit Jobs. Moreover, capitalism isn't interested in efficiency, it's interested in grabbing more stuff. It's relatively effiicient at centralising power and resources into the pockets of shareholders, but that's probably not what you meant. I think this is borne out even moreso in recent years, as environmental degradation continues, and we watch as capitalist systems are unable to do anything but continue to efficiently funnel money into the pockets of shareholders. The word "efficient" can only plausibly be applied to overly simplified models in fantastical economic theories which don't reflect reality. The kind of AI offered by companies like OpenAI may very well be an effective tool at grabbing more stuff though, sure. Or, rather, at convincing everyone they simply must move to this new area, that they control, effectively grabbing that newly created space.
- thrwthsnw 2y ago
  The thing that is killing us is the same thing that is killing capitalism
- jprete 2y ago
  I think you're both right and wrong. You're right that capitalism has become a paperclip machine, but capitalism also wants AI so it can cheaply and at scale replace the human components of the machine with something that has more work capacity for fewer demands.
  - h0l0cube 2y ago
    The problem is that the people in power will want to maintain the status quo. So the end of human labor won't naturally result in UBI – or any kind of welfare – to compensate for the loss of income, let alone afford any social mobility. But wealthy people will be able to leverage AGI to defend themselves from any uprising by the plebs. We're too busy trying to make humans irrelevant, but not asking what exactly we do as a species of 10+ billion individuals do afterwards. There's some excited discussions about a rebirth of culture, but I'm not sure what that means when machines can do anything humans can do but better. Perhaps we just tinker around with our hobbies until we die? I honestly don't think it will play out well for us.
    - jprete 2y ago
      The problem is that the "we" who are busy trying to make humans irrelevant seem to be completely unconcerned with the effects on the "we" who will be superfluous afterwards.
    - wsintra2022 2y ago
      Machines can’t have fun for us. They can’t dance to a beat, they can’t experience altered states of mind. They can’t create a sense of belonging through culture and ritual. Yes we have lost a lot in the last 100 years but there are still pockets of resistance that carry old knowledge that “we the people” will be glad of in the coming century.
      - h0l0cube 2y ago
        It's a similar story around extant ancient/indigenous cultures. And similarly we've seen apathy from elites, especially when indigenous rights get in the way of resource extraction or generating wealth in any way, and also witnessed condescension towards indigenous peoples by large segments of the world population. That's not to detract from the many defenders of indigenous rights, but if we look a the state of how older cultures, designated as 'obsolete' by wider society have been treated, I don't humans will fare well when silicon takes over. > They can’t dance to a beat, they can’t experience altered states of mind. That's a whole other conversation.
- dgfitz 2y ago
  I wonder how Russian and North Korean citizens would feel about a capitalist, representative democracy?
  - anticorporate 2y ago
    I think they'd have thing or two to say about living under the rule of wealthy elites. We'd do well to listen to them.
    - astrange 2y ago
      They like it. Russians can leave if they want to.
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      I happen to know a lot of wealthy people who aren’t considered elite, nor have a lick of influence on the state of current affairs. I don’t think Russians or North Koreans could say the same with a straight face.
  - rkatry 2y ago
    [flagged]
  - anothernewdude 2y ago
    Of course you're right, there's something worse, therefore capitalist, unrepresentative democracy is perfect. How could I be so naive?
    - dgfitz 2y ago
      What’s the quote, something like: “democracy and capitalism are horrendous, but they’re better than everything else we tried so far”
      - anothernewdude 2y ago
        People give communism a bad rap, but the soviets had maybe a quarter the resources, a much smaller population and logistical problems from geography and kept up with the US for decades, outpacing in several areas.

And when we get it there, it kills us.

hex3 2y ago

[dead]

anothernewdude 2y ago

[flagged]

falcor84 2y ago
It seems to me that given how AI is likely to continuously increase capitalism's efficiency, your argument actually supports the claim you're trying to dispute.
- sourcepluck 2y ago
  Capitalism is not efficient, it's grabby. Read Bullshit Jobs. Moreover, capitalism isn't interested in efficiency, it's interested in grabbing more stuff. It's relatively effiicient at centralising power and resources into the pockets of shareholders, but that's probably not what you meant. I think this is borne out even moreso in recent years, as environmental degradation continues, and we watch as capitalist systems are unable to do anything but continue to efficiently funnel money into the pockets of shareholders. The word "efficient" can only plausibly be applied to overly simplified models in fantastical economic theories which don't reflect reality. The kind of AI offered by companies like OpenAI may very well be an effective tool at grabbing more stuff though, sure. Or, rather, at convincing everyone they simply must move to this new area, that they control, effectively grabbing that newly created space.
thrwthsnw 2y ago
The thing that is killing us is the same thing that is killing capitalism
jprete 2y ago
I think you're both right and wrong. You're right that capitalism has become a paperclip machine, but capitalism also wants AI so it can cheaply and at scale replace the human components of the machine with something that has more work capacity for fewer demands.
- h0l0cube 2y ago
  The problem is that the people in power will want to maintain the status quo. So the end of human labor won't naturally result in UBI – or any kind of welfare – to compensate for the loss of income, let alone afford any social mobility. But wealthy people will be able to leverage AGI to defend themselves from any uprising by the plebs. We're too busy trying to make humans irrelevant, but not asking what exactly we do as a species of 10+ billion individuals do afterwards. There's some excited discussions about a rebirth of culture, but I'm not sure what that means when machines can do anything humans can do but better. Perhaps we just tinker around with our hobbies until we die? I honestly don't think it will play out well for us.
  - jprete 2y ago
    The problem is that the "we" who are busy trying to make humans irrelevant seem to be completely unconcerned with the effects on the "we" who will be superfluous afterwards.
  - wsintra2022 2y ago
    Machines can’t have fun for us. They can’t dance to a beat, they can’t experience altered states of mind. They can’t create a sense of belonging through culture and ritual. Yes we have lost a lot in the last 100 years but there are still pockets of resistance that carry old knowledge that “we the people” will be glad of in the coming century.
    - h0l0cube 2y ago
      It's a similar story around extant ancient/indigenous cultures. And similarly we've seen apathy from elites, especially when indigenous rights get in the way of resource extraction or generating wealth in any way, and also witnessed condescension towards indigenous peoples by large segments of the world population. That's not to detract from the many defenders of indigenous rights, but if we look a the state of how older cultures, designated as 'obsolete' by wider society have been treated, I don't humans will fare well when silicon takes over. > They can’t dance to a beat, they can’t experience altered states of mind. That's a whole other conversation.
dgfitz 2y ago
I wonder how Russian and North Korean citizens would feel about a capitalist, representative democracy?
- anticorporate 2y ago
  I think they'd have thing or two to say about living under the rule of wealthy elites. We'd do well to listen to them.
  - astrange 2y ago
    They like it. Russians can leave if they want to.
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    I happen to know a lot of wealthy people who aren’t considered elite, nor have a lick of influence on the state of current affairs. I don’t think Russians or North Koreans could say the same with a straight face.
- rkatry 2y ago
  [flagged]
- anothernewdude 2y ago
  Of course you're right, there's something worse, therefore capitalist, unrepresentative democracy is perfect. How could I be so naive?
  - dgfitz 2y ago
    What’s the quote, something like: “democracy and capitalism are horrendous, but they’re better than everything else we tried so far”
    - anothernewdude 2y ago
      People give communism a bad rap, but the soviets had maybe a quarter the resources, a much smaller population and logistical problems from geography and kept up with the US for decades, outpacing in several areas.