6 ms·

> AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones. Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs created needs to be more than the o

> AI has started to take jobs, but has also created new ones. Yeah nah, theres a key thing missing here, the number of jobs created needs to be more than the ones it's destroyed, and they need to be better paying and happen in time. History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets (see powered looms, Jacquard machine, steam powered machine tools) All of that cheap labour needed to power the new towns and cities was created by automation of agriculture and artisan jobs. Dark satanic mills were fed the decedents of once reasonably prosperous crafts people. AI as presented here will kneecap the wages of a good proportion of the decent paying jobs we have now. This will cause huge economic disparities, and probably revolution. There is a reason why the royalty of Europe all disappeared when they did... So no, the stock market will not be growing because of AI, it will be in spite of it. Plus china knows that unless they can occupy most of its population with some sort of work, they are finished. AI and decent robot automation are an existential threat to the CCP, as much as it is to what ever remains of the "west"

OgsyedIE 2y ago
Unfortunately the current system is doing a bad job of finding replacements for dwindling crucial resources such as petroleum basins, new generations of workers, unoccupied orbital trajectories, fertile topsoil and copper ore deposits. Either the current system gets replaced with a new system or it doesn't.
kypro 2y ago
> and probably revolution I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. Historically the general public have held the vast majority of power in society. 100+ years ago this would have been physical power – the state has to keep you happy or the public will come for them with pitchforks. But in an age of modern weaponry the public today would be pose little physical threat to the state. Instead in todays democracy power comes from the publics collective labour and purchasing power. A government can't risk upsetting people too much because a government's power today is not a product of its standing army, but the product of its economic strength. A government needs workers to create businesses and produce goods and therefore the goals of government generally align with the goals of the public. But in an post-AGI world neither businesses or the state need workers or consumers. In this world if you want something you wouldn't pay anyone for it or workers to produce it for you, instead you would just ask your fleet of AGIs to get you the resource. In this world people become more like pests. They offer no economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing resources with them. Of course, this is assuming the AGI doesn't have it's own goals and just sees the whole of humanely as nuance to be stepped over in the same way humans will happy step over animals if they interfere with our goals. Imo humanity has 10-20 years left max if we continue on this path. There can be no good outcome of AGI because it would even make sense for the AGI or those who control the AGI to be aligned with goals of humanity.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  > I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. I agree but for a different reason. It's very hard to outsmart an entity with an IQ in the thousands and pervasive information gathering. For a revolution you need to coordinate. The Chinese know this very well and this is why they control communication so closely (and why they had Apple restrict AirDrop). But their security agencies are still beholden to people with average IQs and the inefficient communication between them. An entity that can collect all this info on its own and have a huge IQ to spot patterns and not have to communicate it to convince other people in its organisation to take action, that will crush any fledgling rebellion. It will never be able to reach critical mass. We'll just be ants in an anthill and it will be the boot that crushes us when it feels like it.
- robinhoode 2y ago
  > In this world people become more like pests. They offer no economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing resources with them. This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past. Waking up every morning means believing there are others who will cooperate with you. Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear.
  - 758597464 2y ago
    > This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past. Tried, and succeeded in. In times where people held more power than today. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. > Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear. I agree that most of humanity has empathy for others — but it's been shown that the prevalence of psychopaths increases as you climb the leadership ladder. Fear or hope are the responses of the passive. There are other routes to take.
pydry 2y ago
>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.
- wkat4242 2y ago
  I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those issues are much more readily fixable than environmental destruction.
  - torlok 2y ago
    Don't try to reason with this population collapse nonsense. This has always been about racists fearing that "not enough" white westerners are being born, or about industrialists wanting infinite growth. For some prominent technocrats it's both.
    - gmoot 2y ago
      The welfare state is predicated on a pyramid-shaped population. Also: people deride infinite growth, but growth is what is responsible for lifting large portions of the population out of poverty. If global markets were repriced tomorrow to expect no future growth, economies would collapse. There may be a way to accept low or no growth without economic collapse, but if there is no one has figured it out yet. That's nothing to be cavalier about.
      - pydry 2y ago
        The welfare state isnt predicated on a pyramid shape but the continued growth of the stock market and endless GDP growth certainly is. >infinite growth, but growth is what is responsible for lifting large portions of the population out of poverty It's overstated. The preconditions for GDP growth - namely lack of war and corruption are probably more responsible than the growth itself.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
torlok 2y ago
Hayek has been lobbied by US corporations so hard for so long that regular people treat the invisible hand of the market like it's gospel.
baq 2y ago
> So no, the stock market will not be growing because of AI, it will be in spite of it. The stock market will be one of the very few ways you will be able to own some of that AI… assuming it won’t be nationalized.

OgsyedIE 2y ago

Unfortunately the current system is doing a bad job of finding replacements for dwindling crucial resources such as petroleum basins, new generations of workers, unoccupied orbital trajectories, fertile topsoil and copper ore deposits. Either the current system gets replaced with a new system or it doesn't.

kypro 2y ago

> and probably revolution I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. Historically the general public have held the vast majority of power in society. 100+ years ago this would have been physical power – the state has to keep you happy or the public will come for them with pitchforks. But in an age of modern weaponry the public today would be pose little physical threat to the state. Instead in todays democracy power comes from the publics collective labour and purchasing power. A government can't risk upsetting people too much because a government's power today is not a product of its standing army, but the product of its economic strength. A government needs workers to create businesses and produce goods and therefore the goals of government generally align with the goals of the public. But in an post-AGI world neither businesses or the state need workers or consumers. In this world if you want something you wouldn't pay anyone for it or workers to produce it for you, instead you would just ask your fleet of AGIs to get you the resource. In this world people become more like pests. They offer no economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing resources with them. Of course, this is assuming the AGI doesn't have it's own goals and just sees the whole of humanely as nuance to be stepped over in the same way humans will happy step over animals if they interfere with our goals. Imo humanity has 10-20 years left max if we continue on this path. There can be no good outcome of AGI because it would even make sense for the AGI or those who control the AGI to be aligned with goals of humanity.

wkat4242 2y ago
> I theorise that revolution would be near-impossible in post-AGI world. If people consider where power comes from it's relatively obvious that people will likely suffer and die on mass if we ever create AGI. I agree but for a different reason. It's very hard to outsmart an entity with an IQ in the thousands and pervasive information gathering. For a revolution you need to coordinate. The Chinese know this very well and this is why they control communication so closely (and why they had Apple restrict AirDrop). But their security agencies are still beholden to people with average IQs and the inefficient communication between them. An entity that can collect all this info on its own and have a huge IQ to spot patterns and not have to communicate it to convince other people in its organisation to take action, that will crush any fledgling rebellion. It will never be able to reach critical mass. We'll just be ants in an anthill and it will be the boot that crushes us when it feels like it.
robinhoode 2y ago
> In this world people become more like pests. They offer no economic value yet demand that AGI owners (wherever publicly or privately owned) share resources with them. If people revolted any AGI owner would be far better off just deploying a bioweapon to humanely kill the protestors rather than sharing resources with them. This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past. Waking up every morning means believing there are others who will cooperate with you. Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear.
- 758597464 2y ago
  > This is a very doomer take. The threats are real, and I'm certain some people feel this way, but eliminating large swaths of humanity is something dicatorships have tried in the past. Tried, and succeeded in. In times where people held more power than today. Not sure what point you're trying to make here. > Most of humanity has empathy for others. I would prefer to have hope that we will make it through, rather than drown in fear. I agree that most of humanity has empathy for others — but it's been shown that the prevalence of psychopaths increases as you climb the leadership ladder. Fear or hope are the responses of the passive. There are other routes to take.

pydry 2y ago

>History says that actually when this happens, an entire generation is yeeted on to the streets History hasnt had to contend with a birth rate of 0.7-1.6. It's kind of interesting that the elite capitalist media (economist, bloomberg, forbes, etc) is projecting a future crisis of both not enough workers and not enough jobs simultaneously.

wkat4242 2y ago
I don't really get the American preoccupation with birth rates. We're already way overpopulated for our planet and this is showing in environmental issues, housing cost, overcrowded cities etc. It's totally a great thing if we start plateauing our population and even reduce it a bit. And no we're not going extinct. It'll just cause some temporary issues like an ageing population that has to be cared for but those issues are much more readily fixable than environmental destruction.
- torlok 2y ago
  Don't try to reason with this population collapse nonsense. This has always been about racists fearing that "not enough" white westerners are being born, or about industrialists wanting infinite growth. For some prominent technocrats it's both.
  - gmoot 2y ago
    The welfare state is predicated on a pyramid-shaped population. Also: people deride infinite growth, but growth is what is responsible for lifting large portions of the population out of poverty. If global markets were repriced tomorrow to expect no future growth, economies would collapse. There may be a way to accept low or no growth without economic collapse, but if there is no one has figured it out yet. That's nothing to be cavalier about.
    - pydry 2y ago
      The welfare state isnt predicated on a pyramid shape but the continued growth of the stock market and endless GDP growth certainly is. >infinite growth, but growth is what is responsible for lifting large portions of the population out of poverty It's overstated. The preconditions for GDP growth - namely lack of war and corruption are probably more responsible than the growth itself.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

torlok 2y ago

Hayek has been lobbied by US corporations so hard for so long that regular people treat the invisible hand of the market like it's gospel.

baq 2y ago

> So no, the stock market will not be growing because of AI, it will be in spite of it. The stock market will be one of the very few ways you will be able to own some of that AI… assuming it won’t be nationalized.