4 ms·

You seem hyper-focused on the share of benefit going to others and I am much more focused on the share of benefit going to my family. My family benefits enormou

You seem hyper-focused on the share of benefit going to others and I am much more focused on the share of benefit going to my family. My family benefits enormously from the value created through technology development and I have benefited enormously from being able to work in a field where I am generously rewarded for doing things that I happily do free in my spare time. If I work on someone else's technology puzzles instead of my own, they are able and willing to pay me a well-above median salary in exchange. I genuinely hope that they think they're getting rich as part of that exchange (and work to ensure that outcome happens), because that's the very best way that I know how to make the overall situation, including the benefits for me and my family, continue. If you think I'm being conned in this exchange, thanks for the concern, but I'll tell you that I'm working hard to ensure that it keeps happening.

micromacrofoot 1y ago
> they are able and willing to pay me a well-above median salary in exchange. AI is what they're doing to try to stop this, when we work on AI we're enabling it. They are making much more money for themselves than they are for you. Your salary is overhead. They will stop paying you if they can and they are trying to use AI to do it. In a fair agreement you would have more time to spend with your family because you would earn a higher share of the profit and need to work less for it.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  If I wanted to keep all of the value I created for myself, I'd start my own business and own all of it. I don't, because I highly value the structure and capital that others have put up to create the company I work for. They offload an enormous amount of risk and overhead and, so long as they pay me what we've agreed, I'm happy for them to keep the portion of value that is above what they pay out to me and my colleagues. The agreement is fair to my eyes, because I've agreed to it and both sides have kept up their ends. If yours is not fair to your eyes, perhaps you should change it, possibly up to striking out on your own and keeping 100% of the surplus value you create.
  - micromacrofoot 1y ago
    > it will increase productivity to the point where things that can’t be affordably addressed by software will now be able to be addressed with software employing humans is something that couldn't be affordably addressed by software, and is what they're trying to now address with software this is good for owners, and bad for workers thusly AI is bad for workers as a class, and you're betting that you're one of the workers they decide to keep all I have left to say on the matter is, good luck

micromacrofoot 1y ago

> they are able and willing to pay me a well-above median salary in exchange. AI is what they're doing to try to stop this, when we work on AI we're enabling it. They are making much more money for themselves than they are for you. Your salary is overhead. They will stop paying you if they can and they are trying to use AI to do it. In a fair agreement you would have more time to spend with your family because you would earn a higher share of the profit and need to work less for it.

sokoloff 1y ago
If I wanted to keep all of the value I created for myself, I'd start my own business and own all of it. I don't, because I highly value the structure and capital that others have put up to create the company I work for. They offload an enormous amount of risk and overhead and, so long as they pay me what we've agreed, I'm happy for them to keep the portion of value that is above what they pay out to me and my colleagues. The agreement is fair to my eyes, because I've agreed to it and both sides have kept up their ends. If yours is not fair to your eyes, perhaps you should change it, possibly up to striking out on your own and keeping 100% of the surplus value you create.
- micromacrofoot 1y ago
  > it will increase productivity to the point where things that can’t be affordably addressed by software will now be able to be addressed with software employing humans is something that couldn't be affordably addressed by software, and is what they're trying to now address with software this is good for owners, and bad for workers thusly AI is bad for workers as a class, and you're betting that you're one of the workers they decide to keep all I have left to say on the matter is, good luck