4 ms·

AI is best stated as a tool to permit wealth to access skill without skill being permitted to access wealth. I've been called a Luddite so many times on this w

AI is best stated as a tool to permit wealth to access skill without skill being permitted to access wealth. I've been called a Luddite so many times on this website asking basic questions of how in a world where your labor is required in order for you to earn a living these entire reams of people are meant to continue living, and nobody has an answer.

dublinben 2y ago
Would an AGI that is “intelligent” enough to replace any kind of human labor deserve independent personhood and remuneration, or would they just be the perfect slave to capital?
- ixtli 2y ago
  The second thing. Also AGI is a floating signifier thats going to mean whatever is useful to marketers once they've used up the easier ones.
simonbarker87 2y ago
I also wonder what everyone is supposed to do if skills are simply AI’d in to uselessness. The usual answer is something about how rich people want to rule the world and not pay for labour … but then that world will become pretty unpleasant for them to live in so that doesn’t track to me.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  This presumes the rich are looking further ahead than next quarter which doesn't scan for me considering the sorts of things a lot of them say.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thatguy0900 2y ago
  Rich people seem to be content with building a luxurious emergency bunker in new Zealand and then just rolling the dice on whether the world will go to shit or not. The only conclusion I can really come to is that they know the world will be going to shit no matter what they do or something.
  - avidiax 2y ago
    Rich people have a prisoner's dilemma if they are sufficiently self-aware. Maximum individual wealth and profit will come from maximally embracing AI. But if everyone does that, they are indeed rolling the dice on whether they'll instead be eating canned beans in New Zealand instead of upgrading their 150ft. yacht to a 155ft. yacht.
    - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
      > sufficiently self-aware You look at people like Bezos, Musk and Zuck and tell me they have a shred of self-awareness.
ixtli 2y ago
Thats because there is no answer. Marx and all of the people who developed his theories after him have exhaustively and scientifically proved this. That's really whats happening: its not that people dont have an answer is that they're not admitting to the exploitative nature of private capital accumulation. The main internal contradiction of capitalism leads to the system creating large amounts of wealth but also equivalently large amounts of poverty. Also, if you havent read the wikipedia article on the luddites you should. It's not as bad a moniker as revisionists would have you think! (Hint: they were protesting labor abuses, not simply opposed to advencement.)
- quintes 2y ago
  So communism it’s the answer cuz Marx?
  - pixl97 2y ago
    The answer doesn't seem to be late stage capitalism.
  - ixtli 2y ago
    its funny, it seems the point of this kind of response is to imply that my analysis is naive or overly simplistic but there are hundreds of thousands of pages of math and science and philosophy on the topic. im not just making this up, im simply explaining why its happening. these smug responses never seem to actually engage with anything except simplistic propaganda substituted in for the actual argument being made.
    - quintes 2y ago
      How can it be propaganda? It’s a short question based on your comment. The onus on you is to expand. There is plenty of evidence against the principles and implementation of communism. This post was about lofi you started about Marx and capitalism not me mate
  - tartoran 2y ago
    No but some form of socialism mixed with capitalism
pinkmuffinere 2y ago
I think you’re arguing against continued development of AI? (Apologies if I’ve misunderstood) I won’t use the word “Luddite”, but your argument could be applied word-for-word to automatic looms: “[The automatic loom] is best stated as a tool to permit wealth to access skill without skill being permitted to access wealth… how in a world where your labor is required in order for you to earn a living these entire reams of people are meant to continue living…“ Historically, automatic looms were a net benefit to society. I think this indicates that your argument against development of AI is insufficient.
- ToucanLoucan 2y ago
  Truthfully, I don't give a shit about AI. It's a tool to generate mediocre garbage, be that writing, be that images, be that music, whatever, and in those tasks, it can largely succeed. If you want a lifetime of generated Lo-Fi to listen to, it will do that. If you want a lifetime of generated hentai to fap to, it will do that too, and the outputs meet your standards, congrats, you are an average consumer of mediocre art, one among millions, perhaps billions. I wish you personally no ill will. What I care about is all the musicians, the designers, the artists, the writers, who to be clear, are already and have been for many years struggling to earn a living plying their craft, who are in for even more torment for trying to just... live. For trying to turn their given and practiced talents into money so they can not freeze to death. And I'm frustrated that they need to go without a means to live because billionaires, apparently, need more billions. And I'm angry that our society has allocated power solely to those billionaires to make those decisions. And I'm nursing a visceral hatred of every single one of them who are preparing to break the social contract to millions of people so they can have another, and I can't stress this enough, absolutely meaningless massive amount of money, to go with their already massive amounts of money... For. Doing. Nothing. So yes, I am a Luddite. I see monied classes financially backing new technology that will allow them to generate more products of lower quality using fewer (if any) human laborers so they can pocket even more money while fucking over working class people.
  - ta8645 2y ago
    Money flows to the things people want. The real housewives, the view, twilight, etc. Hell people make millions simply playing video games on twitch. But nobody is owed an income for doing something they love. The question you should be asking, is how do you increase demand for the things you value? How do you make people want the thing you have to offer. Musicians, comedians, and other artists who figure out that answer (or luck into it), get very wealthy indeed. > For. Doing. Nothing. That's obviously not true. I've tried doing nothing for a long time, and am not anywhere close to a billionaire.
avidiax 2y ago
There is this narrative that "every technological revolution eventually created jobs, and this one is no different." I think that glosses over some critical historical facts. When the saw mill upfitted with "labor-saving" machinery, those displaced saw hands didn't necessarily "upskill" themselves to get office jobs or start waiting tables. Chronic unemployment and an early grave from drink was a pretty likely outcome. Where AI is different is that the scale and speed of job displacement is going to be unprecedented. We will need a new operating principle for our societies, and it will have to come about quickly. Otherwise, millions of displaced workers will have no reason not to defect from the social contract. Eventually, humans can act as a managerial class for AI agents, just as we manage existing technologies. But you have to transition to that point without blowing up society. It's little comfort that current AI has some rough edges. Sure, current AI might be adequate as a junior graphic designer or junior software engineer. But in the process of using these AIs, the senior humans will be generating the data to train the AI to replace at least mid-level positions. This doesn't require "AGI", just that the AI can follow instructions at one level higher abstraction and critically judge its own work. This is a subtle and uncomfortable argument to make without falling into the "class warfare" or "luddite" tropes.

dublinben 2y ago

Would an AGI that is “intelligent” enough to replace any kind of human labor deserve independent personhood and remuneration, or would they just be the perfect slave to capital?

ixtli 2y ago
The second thing. Also AGI is a floating signifier thats going to mean whatever is useful to marketers once they've used up the easier ones.

simonbarker87 2y ago

I also wonder what everyone is supposed to do if skills are simply AI’d in to uselessness. The usual answer is something about how rich people want to rule the world and not pay for labour … but then that world will become pretty unpleasant for them to live in so that doesn’t track to me.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
This presumes the rich are looking further ahead than next quarter which doesn't scan for me considering the sorts of things a lot of them say.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thatguy0900 2y ago
Rich people seem to be content with building a luxurious emergency bunker in new Zealand and then just rolling the dice on whether the world will go to shit or not. The only conclusion I can really come to is that they know the world will be going to shit no matter what they do or something.
- avidiax 2y ago
  Rich people have a prisoner's dilemma if they are sufficiently self-aware. Maximum individual wealth and profit will come from maximally embracing AI. But if everyone does that, they are indeed rolling the dice on whether they'll instead be eating canned beans in New Zealand instead of upgrading their 150ft. yacht to a 155ft. yacht.
  - ToucanLoucan 2y ago
    > sufficiently self-aware You look at people like Bezos, Musk and Zuck and tell me they have a shred of self-awareness.

ixtli 2y ago

Thats because there is no answer. Marx and all of the people who developed his theories after him have exhaustively and scientifically proved this. That's really whats happening: its not that people dont have an answer is that they're not admitting to the exploitative nature of private capital accumulation. The main internal contradiction of capitalism leads to the system creating large amounts of wealth but also equivalently large amounts of poverty. Also, if you havent read the wikipedia article on the luddites you should. It's not as bad a moniker as revisionists would have you think! (Hint: they were protesting labor abuses, not simply opposed to advencement.)

quintes 2y ago
So communism it’s the answer cuz Marx?
- pixl97 2y ago
  The answer doesn't seem to be late stage capitalism.
- ixtli 2y ago
  its funny, it seems the point of this kind of response is to imply that my analysis is naive or overly simplistic but there are hundreds of thousands of pages of math and science and philosophy on the topic. im not just making this up, im simply explaining why its happening. these smug responses never seem to actually engage with anything except simplistic propaganda substituted in for the actual argument being made.
  - quintes 2y ago
    How can it be propaganda? It’s a short question based on your comment. The onus on you is to expand. There is plenty of evidence against the principles and implementation of communism. This post was about lofi you started about Marx and capitalism not me mate
- tartoran 2y ago
  No but some form of socialism mixed with capitalism

pinkmuffinere 2y ago

I think you’re arguing against continued development of AI? (Apologies if I’ve misunderstood) I won’t use the word “Luddite”, but your argument could be applied word-for-word to automatic looms: “[The automatic loom] is best stated as a tool to permit wealth to access skill without skill being permitted to access wealth… how in a world where your labor is required in order for you to earn a living these entire reams of people are meant to continue living…“ Historically, automatic looms were a net benefit to society. I think this indicates that your argument against development of AI is insufficient.

ToucanLoucan 2y ago
Truthfully, I don't give a shit about AI. It's a tool to generate mediocre garbage, be that writing, be that images, be that music, whatever, and in those tasks, it can largely succeed. If you want a lifetime of generated Lo-Fi to listen to, it will do that. If you want a lifetime of generated hentai to fap to, it will do that too, and the outputs meet your standards, congrats, you are an average consumer of mediocre art, one among millions, perhaps billions. I wish you personally no ill will. What I care about is all the musicians, the designers, the artists, the writers, who to be clear, are already and have been for many years struggling to earn a living plying their craft, who are in for even more torment for trying to just... live. For trying to turn their given and practiced talents into money so they can not freeze to death. And I'm frustrated that they need to go without a means to live because billionaires, apparently, need more billions. And I'm angry that our society has allocated power solely to those billionaires to make those decisions. And I'm nursing a visceral hatred of every single one of them who are preparing to break the social contract to millions of people so they can have another, and I can't stress this enough, absolutely meaningless massive amount of money, to go with their already massive amounts of money... For. Doing. Nothing. So yes, I am a Luddite. I see monied classes financially backing new technology that will allow them to generate more products of lower quality using fewer (if any) human laborers so they can pocket even more money while fucking over working class people.
- ta8645 2y ago
  Money flows to the things people want. The real housewives, the view, twilight, etc. Hell people make millions simply playing video games on twitch. But nobody is owed an income for doing something they love. The question you should be asking, is how do you increase demand for the things you value? How do you make people want the thing you have to offer. Musicians, comedians, and other artists who figure out that answer (or luck into it), get very wealthy indeed. > For. Doing. Nothing. That's obviously not true. I've tried doing nothing for a long time, and am not anywhere close to a billionaire.

avidiax 2y ago

There is this narrative that "every technological revolution eventually created jobs, and this one is no different." I think that glosses over some critical historical facts. When the saw mill upfitted with "labor-saving" machinery, those displaced saw hands didn't necessarily "upskill" themselves to get office jobs or start waiting tables. Chronic unemployment and an early grave from drink was a pretty likely outcome. Where AI is different is that the scale and speed of job displacement is going to be unprecedented. We will need a new operating principle for our societies, and it will have to come about quickly. Otherwise, millions of displaced workers will have no reason not to defect from the social contract. Eventually, humans can act as a managerial class for AI agents, just as we manage existing technologies. But you have to transition to that point without blowing up society. It's little comfort that current AI has some rough edges. Sure, current AI might be adequate as a junior graphic designer or junior software engineer. But in the process of using these AIs, the senior humans will be generating the data to train the AI to replace at least mid-level positions. This doesn't require "AGI", just that the AI can follow instructions at one level higher abstraction and critically judge its own work. This is a subtle and uncomfortable argument to make without falling into the "class warfare" or "luddite" tropes.