3 ms·

It's the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions all over again. Broad automation of labor will not result in societal uplift, but Capital uplift, absent worke

It's the Industrial and Agricultural Revolutions all over again. Broad automation of labor will not result in societal uplift, but Capital uplift, absent worker action to enforce equal distribution of gains (like how Unions brought us the 40hr work week and the end of Child Labor w/ the Industrial Revolution). Worse yet, the irrationality of these techbro arguments shows their complete lack of long-term thinking or systems analysis. They cite "societal disruption" through the wholesale (or significant) replacement of labor via AI, but then shrug off the problem as one for government to solve - governments they own, control, and/or influence. Yet if we take them at their word and they get rid of labor - who the heck do they expect to buy their stuff, and with what income? Capital's plan is very much (Eliminate Labor) + (Continued Sales of Products) = (We Keep All The Money), and I'd like to believe the HN community at the very least can see how that math does not work. Capital would have to concede to a complete rework of civilization away from consumption and towards a higher goal, but that would entail tearing down the power and wealth structures they benefit from now with no guarantee of a brighter future tomorrow. Plowing ahead with AI while prohibiting any attempts at systemic revolution isn't just irresponsible, it's insane, and I'm tired of having pretend it's not for the sake of a stock price somewhere. Present systems are incompatible with an AI-dominated future, full stop.

kkaatii 2y ago
One danger is that, from a macroeconomics view, GDP growth can be attained without any regard for natural unemployment rates. When technology, controlled by capital, drives up markup on wages by displacing human labor and killing competition, then natural unemployment will rise, but the economy can still "thrive," from a statistical perspective. But it is individual persons being ignored by statistics. Indeed a grim future.
- stego-tech 2y ago
  > GDP Your entire argument is why I reject GDP as a reliable measure of economic health (that is to say, I agree with you 100%). It can be a component of it, sure, but as the standalone metric it's relied upon as-is, it's awful. Doesn't capture inflation, doesn't capture real productivity growth, doesn't capture employment rates or labor compensation or income distribution. Heck, GDP is literally an ideal expression of Goodhart's Law: we have built entire systems designed to game a single number that was proposed as a metric of economic health, which no longer makes it a good metric of economic health! If someone's sole defense is "GDP Up = Good", I do not take their argument seriously - because it isn't.

kkaatii 2y ago

One danger is that, from a macroeconomics view, GDP growth can be attained without any regard for natural unemployment rates. When technology, controlled by capital, drives up markup on wages by displacing human labor and killing competition, then natural unemployment will rise, but the economy can still "thrive," from a statistical perspective. But it is individual persons being ignored by statistics. Indeed a grim future.

stego-tech 2y ago
> GDP Your entire argument is why I reject GDP as a reliable measure of economic health (that is to say, I agree with you 100%). It can be a component of it, sure, but as the standalone metric it's relied upon as-is, it's awful. Doesn't capture inflation, doesn't capture real productivity growth, doesn't capture employment rates or labor compensation or income distribution. Heck, GDP is literally an ideal expression of Goodhart's Law: we have built entire systems designed to game a single number that was proposed as a metric of economic health, which no longer makes it a good metric of economic health! If someone's sole defense is "GDP Up = Good", I do not take their argument seriously - because it isn't.