5 ms·

Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.

CamperBob2 2y ago
Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
- p_j_w 2y ago
  >Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
- breuleux 2y ago
  In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
    - breuleux 2y ago
      The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
  - nuancebydefault 2y ago
    What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down. Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result. Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process. What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.
    - Vampiero 2y ago
      > If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy. Well, someone earlier in the thread said to abandon Marxist thought because it's obsolete. So I don't know how to help you!

CamperBob2 2y ago

Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.

p_j_w 2y ago
>Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
- inglor_cz 2y ago
  How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
breuleux 2y ago
In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
  - breuleux 2y ago
    The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
- nuancebydefault 2y ago
  What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down. Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result. Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process. What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.
  - Vampiero 2y ago
    > If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy. Well, someone earlier in the thread said to abandon Marxist thought because it's obsolete. So I don't know how to help you!