4 ms·

Assuming AGI doesn't lead to instant apocalyptic scenario it is more likely to lead to a form of resource curse[1] than anything that benefits the majority. In

Assuming AGI doesn't lead to instant apocalyptic scenario it is more likely to lead to a form of resource curse[1] than anything that benefits the majority. In general countries where the elite is dependent on the labor of the people for their income have better outcomes for the majority of people than countries that don't (see for example developing countries with rich oil reserves). What would AGI lead to? Most knowledge work would be replaced in the same way as manufacturing work has been, and AGI is in control of the existing elite. It would be used to suppress any revolt for eternity, because surveillance could be perfectly automated and omnipresent. Really not something to aspire to. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_curse

ExoticPearTree 2y ago
I see it as everyone having access to an AI so they can iterate very fast through ideas. Or do research at a level not possible now in terms of speed. Or, my favorite outcome, the AI to iterate over itself and develop its own hardware and so on.
emsign 2y ago
That's a valid concern. The theory that the population only gets education, health care, human rights and so on, if these people are actually needed for the rulers to stay in power, is valid. The whole idea of AGIs replacing beaurocrats, the way for example DOGE is betting on to be successful with, is already axing people's livelihood and purpose in life. Why train government workers, why spend money on education, training, health care plans, if you have an old nuclear plant powering your silicon farms. If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit. We are currently going into that direction with full speed. The rich aren't even bothering to hide this anymore from the public because they think they have won the game and can't be overruled anymore. Let's hope there will be still elections in four years and MAGA doesn't rig it like Fidesz in Hungary and so many other countries who have fallen into the hands of the internationalist oligarchy.
- alexashka 2y ago
  > If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of culture. Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? I'm no history buff but my hunch is that mistreatment of people largely came from a fear that if I don't engage in cruelty to maximize power, my opponents will and given that they're cruel, they'll be cruel to me when they come to take over. So we end up with this zero sum game of squeezing people, animals, resources and the planet in an arms race because everyone's afraid to lose. In the past - you couldn't be sure if someone else was building up an army, so you had to build up an army. But now that we have satellites and we can largely track everything - we can actually agree to not engage in this zero sum dynamic. There will be a shift from treating people as means to an end of power accumulation and containment, to treating people as something you just inherently like and would like to see prosper. It'll be a shift away from this deeply corrosive idea of never ending competition and growth. When people's basic needs are met and no one is grouping up to take other people's goodies - why should regular people compete with one another? They shouldn't and they won't. People who want to do good work will do so and improving the lives of people worldwide will be its own reward. Private islands, bunkers and yachts will become incomprehensible because there'll be no serf class to service any of it. We'll go back to if you want to be well liked and respected - you have to be a good person. I look forward to it :)
  - rwmj 2y ago
    You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?
    - alexashka 2y ago
      You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)
  - sophacles 2y ago
    > Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?
daedrdev 2y ago
I mean that itself is a hotly debated idea. From your own link " As of at least 2024, there is no academic consensus on the effect of resource abundance on economic development." For example US is probably the most resource rich country in the world, but people don't consider it for the resource curse because the rest of its economy is so huge.
randerson 2y ago
Hackers would be our only hope of a revolution.
crvdgc 2y ago
Andrew Yang: Data is the new oil. Sociology: The Oil Curse

ExoticPearTree 2y ago

I see it as everyone having access to an AI so they can iterate very fast through ideas. Or do research at a level not possible now in terms of speed. Or, my favorite outcome, the AI to iterate over itself and develop its own hardware and so on.

emsign 2y ago

That's a valid concern. The theory that the population only gets education, health care, human rights and so on, if these people are actually needed for the rulers to stay in power, is valid. The whole idea of AGIs replacing beaurocrats, the way for example DOGE is betting on to be successful with, is already axing people's livelihood and purpose in life. Why train government workers, why spend money on education, training, health care plans, if you have an old nuclear plant powering your silicon farms. If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit. We are currently going into that direction with full speed. The rich aren't even bothering to hide this anymore from the public because they think they have won the game and can't be overruled anymore. Let's hope there will be still elections in four years and MAGA doesn't rig it like Fidesz in Hungary and so many other countries who have fallen into the hands of the internationalist oligarchy.

alexashka 2y ago
> If the rich need less and less educated, healthy and well fed workers, then more and more people will get treated like shit Maybe. I think it's a matter of culture. Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? I'm no history buff but my hunch is that mistreatment of people largely came from a fear that if I don't engage in cruelty to maximize power, my opponents will and given that they're cruel, they'll be cruel to me when they come to take over. So we end up with this zero sum game of squeezing people, animals, resources and the planet in an arms race because everyone's afraid to lose. In the past - you couldn't be sure if someone else was building up an army, so you had to build up an army. But now that we have satellites and we can largely track everything - we can actually agree to not engage in this zero sum dynamic. There will be a shift from treating people as means to an end of power accumulation and containment, to treating people as something you just inherently like and would like to see prosper. It'll be a shift away from this deeply corrosive idea of never ending competition and growth. When people's basic needs are met and no one is grouping up to take other people's goodies - why should regular people compete with one another? They shouldn't and they won't. People who want to do good work will do so and improving the lives of people worldwide will be its own reward. Private islands, bunkers and yachts will become incomprehensible because there'll be no serf class to service any of it. We'll go back to if you want to be well liked and respected - you have to be a good person. I look forward to it :)
- rwmj 2y ago
  You've never met a rich person who mistreats their maid but dotes on their puppy?
  - alexashka 2y ago
    You've refuted my entire argument. I am that stupid and you are that smart :)
- sophacles 2y ago
  > Very few people mistreat their dogs and cats in wealthy countries. Why shouldn't people in power treat regular people at least as well as regular folks treat their pets? Because very few regular people will be their pets. These are the people who do everything in their power to pay their employees less. They treat their non-pets horribly... see feed lots and amazon warehouses. They actively campaign against programs which treat anyone well, particularly those who they aren't extracting wealth from. They whine and moan and cry about rules that protect people from getting sick and injured because helping those people would prevent them from earning a bit more profit. They may spend a pile of money on surgery for their bunny, but if you want them to behave nicely to someone else's pet, or even someone else... well that's where they draw the line. I guess you are hoping to be one of those pets... but what makes you think you're qualified for that, and why would you be willing to sacrifice all of your friends and family to the fate of feral dogs for the chance to be a pet?

daedrdev 2y ago

I mean that itself is a hotly debated idea. From your own link " As of at least 2024, there is no academic consensus on the effect of resource abundance on economic development." For example US is probably the most resource rich country in the world, but people don't consider it for the resource curse because the rest of its economy is so huge.

randerson 2y ago

Hackers would be our only hope of a revolution.

crvdgc 2y ago

Andrew Yang: Data is the new oil. Sociology: The Oil Curse