4 ms·

AI is going to force the issue of having to deal with the inequity in our economic system. And my belief is that this confrontation will be violent and many peo

by jmyeet 1y ago

AI is going to force the issue of having to deal with the inequity in our economic system. And my belief is that this confrontation will be violent and many people are going to die. The fundamental issue is wealth inequality. The ultimate forms of wealth redistribution are war and revolution. I personally believe we are already beyond the point where electoral politics can solve this issue and a violent resolution is inevitable. The issue is that there are a handful of people who are incredibly wealthy and are only getting wealthier. The majority of the population is struggling to survive and only getting poorer. AI and automation will be used to further displace working people to eke out a tiny percentage increase in profits, which will furhter this inequality as people can no longer afford to live. Plus those still working will have their wages suppressed. Offshored work originally dsiplaced local workers and created a bunch of problems. AI and automation is a rising tide at this point. Many in tech considered themselves immune to such trends, being highly technical and educated professionals. Those people are in for a very rude shock and it'll happen sooner than they think. Our politics is divided by those who want to blame marginalized groups (eg immigrants, trans people, "woke" liberals) for declining material conditions (and thus we get Brownshirts and concentration camps) and the other side who wants to defend the neoliberal status quo in the name of institutional norms. It's about economics, material conditions and, dare I say it, the workers relationship to the means of production.

igleria 1y ago
> personally believe we are already beyond the point where electoral politics can solve this issue and a violent resolution is inevitable. I do think more or less this too, but it could be 4 years or 40 before people get mad enough. And to be honest the tech gap between civilian violence and state sponsored violence has never been wider. OR in other words, civilians don't have reaper drones etc etc.
- jmyeet 1y ago
  I agree on time frames. This system can limp on for decades yet. Or fall apart in 5 years (though probably not). As for the tech gap, I disagree. The history of post-WW2 warfare is that asymmetric warfare has been profoundly successful, to the poin twhere the US hasn't won a single war (except, arguably, Grenada, if that counts, which it does not) since 1945. And that's a country that spends more on defence that something like the next 23 countries combined (IIRC). Obviously war isn't exact the same thing but it's honestly not that different to suppressing violent dissent. The difficulty (since 1945) hasn't been defeating an opposing military on the battlefield. The true cost is occupying territory after the fact. And that is basically the same thing. Ordinary people may not have reeaper drones and as we've seen in Ukraine, consumer drops are still capable of dropping a hand grenade. Suppressing an insurrection or revolt is unbelievably expensive in terms of manpower, equipment and political will. It is absolutely untenable in the long term.
thewebguyd 1y ago
No war but class war. Not sure how long it will take for a critical mass to realize that that we are in a class war, and placing the blame on anything else won't solve the problem. IOW, I agree with you, I also think we are beyond the point where electoral politics can solve it - we have full regulatory capture by the wealthy now. When governments can force striking workers back to work, workers have zero power. What I wonder though, is why do the wealthy allow this to persist? What's the end game here, when no one can afford to live, whose buying products and services? There'll be nothing to keep the economy going. The wealthy can end it at any time, so what is the real goal? To be the only ones left on earth?
- usefulcat 1y ago
  You write as though "the wealthy" are a unified group acting in concert. They're not; they're just like everyone else in that regard, acting in their own, mostly short to medium term best interest. Seems like a pretty ordinary tragedy of the commons type of situation.
  - jmyeet 1y ago
    Oh I strongly disagree. If there's one thing the wealthy have is an intense class solidarity. They're fully aware of the power of class solidarity. You might see conflicts on the fringes but when the shit hits the fan, they will absolutely stick together. They're so aware of the power of class solidarity that they've designed society to ensure that there is no class solidarity among the working class. All of the hot button social issues are intentionally divisive to avoid class solidarity.
- jmyeet 1y ago
  It's greed and short-term thinking, We shouldn't be surprised by this because we see companies do it all the time. How many times have you thought an employer or some company in the news is operating on a time horizon no further than the next quarterly results? To be ultra-wealthy requires you to be a sociopath, to believe the bullshit that you deserve to be wealthy, it's because of how good you are and, more importantly, that any poverty is a personal moral failure. You see this manifest with the popularity of transhumanism in tech circles. And transhumanism is nothing more than eugenics. Extend this further and you believe that future war and revolution when many people die is actually good because it'll separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. On top of all that, in a world of mobile capital, the ultra-wealthy ultimately believe they can escape the consequences of all this. Switzerland, a Pacific island, space, or, you know, Mars. The neofeudalistic future the ultra-wealthy desire will be one where they are protected from the consequences of their actions on massive private estate where a handful of people service their needs. Working people will own nothing and live in worker housing. If a few billion of them have to die, so be it.
keybored 1y ago
Whether or not you are correct about the concrete details here, it is laughable for regular people[1] to bicker about whose job will be replaced first when the people who profit from that are just sitting on their ass, ready to get labor for nothing instead of relatively little. [1] Although I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people who argue about this topic online are already independently wealthy
- simianwords 1y ago
  The people who profit from it are very much not sitting on their ass. It is easy to dismiss them as a way to reinstate your ideology but the reality is they too are working hard because it is a volatile time for them as well. They have to keep up and employ the new technology appropriately or they will lose to their competition.
  - keybored 1y ago
    You’re right. They are working in the sense that they are competing with others to come out as the top parasites. Not to mention that working against laborers takes effort as well. But they are not working in the sense that people bicker about AI “taking jobs”; providing useful labor.
    - simianwords 1y ago
      Competing against others to come out at the top _is_ useful labor. The best one wins usually and as a consumer you want the best products to come on top.
      - keybored 1y ago
        Maybe this is very Vulgar Marxist but that seems a bit like crediting gangsters competing to shake down construction businesses for building bridges.
        simianwords 1y ago
simianwords 1y ago
These are common simple Marxist points you are bringing up. Your point hinges on: declining material conditions. It is completely false - the conditions are pretty great for everyone. People have good wages relatively but sure inequality is increasing. Since your main point is incorrect I don’t think your other points follow.
- jmyeet 1y ago
  There are many ways to attack this assertion. For example: 1. The stagnation or decline in real wages in the developed world in recent decades; 2. Increasing homelessness as a consequence of the housing affordability crisis; 3. How global poverty has increased in the last century under capitalism. This surprises some because defenders claim the opposite. China is singlehandedly responsible to massive decrease in extreme poverty in the 20th century. Maybe you're looking through the lens of tech. After all, we all have Internet-connected supercomputers in our pockets. While that's true, we're also working 3 jobs to pay for a 1 bedroom apartment where once a single job meant you had a house and enough to eat.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Your first and last points are egregiously incorrect. A simple google search will tell you this. Extreme poverty throughout the world has dramatically reduced. In Western Europe it came down from 50% to less than 1% through the 20th century. India brought it down dramatically and is continuing to do it. A simple Wikipedia search can tell you this. Wages has been increasing in china, India as well as USA after accounting for inflation. It’s sort of stagnant in Europe.
    - kelseyfrog 1y ago
      I'm genuinely glad for the people in India. But that progress doesn't reduce the feeling of inequality here in the U.S. Dismissing people with arguments doesn't work either. It doesn’t eliminate the feeling of inequality or change people's perspective about absolute vs relative wealth. Why? Because the promise used to justify labor - that hard work will be rewarded - was deeply believed. The contradiction becomes visible when the wealthy hold 36,000 times more wealth than the average person[1]. No one can work 36,000 times harder or longer than someone else, so the belief is no longer tenable. That leaves us with two choices: either acknowledge that "hard work alone" was never the full story, or take real steps to fix inequality. Pointing to poverty reduction in other countries doesn’t resolve this. It simply makes people feel unheard and resentful. Average billionaire has $7B in wealth. Median individual U.S. wealth $190,000.
kelseyfrog 1y ago
The ownership class and the labor class both suffer from a coordination problem. The former from the coordination problem of extracting wealth but not fast enough that it solves the coordination problem for the labor class who, like you said, have strike first and revolt second as their battles of last resort. The ownership class can voluntarily reduce wealth inequality, and they have before, but as history progresses and time marches on, so do the memories fade of what happens when they don't, pushing them closer and closer to options they don't want to admit work.

by jmyeet 1y ago

igleria 1y ago

> personally believe we are already beyond the point where electoral politics can solve this issue and a violent resolution is inevitable. I do think more or less this too, but it could be 4 years or 40 before people get mad enough. And to be honest the tech gap between civilian violence and state sponsored violence has never been wider. OR in other words, civilians don't have reaper drones etc etc.

jmyeet 1y ago
I agree on time frames. This system can limp on for decades yet. Or fall apart in 5 years (though probably not). As for the tech gap, I disagree. The history of post-WW2 warfare is that asymmetric warfare has been profoundly successful, to the poin twhere the US hasn't won a single war (except, arguably, Grenada, if that counts, which it does not) since 1945. And that's a country that spends more on defence that something like the next 23 countries combined (IIRC). Obviously war isn't exact the same thing but it's honestly not that different to suppressing violent dissent. The difficulty (since 1945) hasn't been defeating an opposing military on the battlefield. The true cost is occupying territory after the fact. And that is basically the same thing. Ordinary people may not have reeaper drones and as we've seen in Ukraine, consumer drops are still capable of dropping a hand grenade. Suppressing an insurrection or revolt is unbelievably expensive in terms of manpower, equipment and political will. It is absolutely untenable in the long term.

thewebguyd 1y ago

No war but class war. Not sure how long it will take for a critical mass to realize that that we are in a class war, and placing the blame on anything else won't solve the problem. IOW, I agree with you, I also think we are beyond the point where electoral politics can solve it - we have full regulatory capture by the wealthy now. When governments can force striking workers back to work, workers have zero power. What I wonder though, is why do the wealthy allow this to persist? What's the end game here, when no one can afford to live, whose buying products and services? There'll be nothing to keep the economy going. The wealthy can end it at any time, so what is the real goal? To be the only ones left on earth?

usefulcat 1y ago
You write as though "the wealthy" are a unified group acting in concert. They're not; they're just like everyone else in that regard, acting in their own, mostly short to medium term best interest. Seems like a pretty ordinary tragedy of the commons type of situation.
- jmyeet 1y ago
  Oh I strongly disagree. If there's one thing the wealthy have is an intense class solidarity. They're fully aware of the power of class solidarity. You might see conflicts on the fringes but when the shit hits the fan, they will absolutely stick together. They're so aware of the power of class solidarity that they've designed society to ensure that there is no class solidarity among the working class. All of the hot button social issues are intentionally divisive to avoid class solidarity.
jmyeet 1y ago
It's greed and short-term thinking, We shouldn't be surprised by this because we see companies do it all the time. How many times have you thought an employer or some company in the news is operating on a time horizon no further than the next quarterly results? To be ultra-wealthy requires you to be a sociopath, to believe the bullshit that you deserve to be wealthy, it's because of how good you are and, more importantly, that any poverty is a personal moral failure. You see this manifest with the popularity of transhumanism in tech circles. And transhumanism is nothing more than eugenics. Extend this further and you believe that future war and revolution when many people die is actually good because it'll separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak. On top of all that, in a world of mobile capital, the ultra-wealthy ultimately believe they can escape the consequences of all this. Switzerland, a Pacific island, space, or, you know, Mars. The neofeudalistic future the ultra-wealthy desire will be one where they are protected from the consequences of their actions on massive private estate where a handful of people service their needs. Working people will own nothing and live in worker housing. If a few billion of them have to die, so be it.

keybored 1y ago

Whether or not you are correct about the concrete details here, it is laughable for regular people[1] to bicker about whose job will be replaced first when the people who profit from that are just sitting on their ass, ready to get labor for nothing instead of relatively little. [1] Although I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the people who argue about this topic online are already independently wealthy

simianwords 1y ago
The people who profit from it are very much not sitting on their ass. It is easy to dismiss them as a way to reinstate your ideology but the reality is they too are working hard because it is a volatile time for them as well. They have to keep up and employ the new technology appropriately or they will lose to their competition.
- keybored 1y ago
  You’re right. They are working in the sense that they are competing with others to come out as the top parasites. Not to mention that working against laborers takes effort as well. But they are not working in the sense that people bicker about AI “taking jobs”; providing useful labor.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    Competing against others to come out at the top _is_ useful labor. The best one wins usually and as a consumer you want the best products to come on top.
    - keybored 1y ago
      Maybe this is very Vulgar Marxist but that seems a bit like crediting gangsters competing to shake down construction businesses for building bridges.
      - simianwords 1y ago

simianwords 1y ago

These are common simple Marxist points you are bringing up. Your point hinges on: declining material conditions. It is completely false - the conditions are pretty great for everyone. People have good wages relatively but sure inequality is increasing. Since your main point is incorrect I don’t think your other points follow.

jmyeet 1y ago
There are many ways to attack this assertion. For example: 1. The stagnation or decline in real wages in the developed world in recent decades; 2. Increasing homelessness as a consequence of the housing affordability crisis; 3. How global poverty has increased in the last century under capitalism. This surprises some because defenders claim the opposite. China is singlehandedly responsible to massive decrease in extreme poverty in the 20th century. Maybe you're looking through the lens of tech. After all, we all have Internet-connected supercomputers in our pockets. While that's true, we're also working 3 jobs to pay for a 1 bedroom apartment where once a single job meant you had a house and enough to eat.
- simianwords 1y ago
  Your first and last points are egregiously incorrect. A simple google search will tell you this. Extreme poverty throughout the world has dramatically reduced. In Western Europe it came down from 50% to less than 1% through the 20th century. India brought it down dramatically and is continuing to do it. A simple Wikipedia search can tell you this. Wages has been increasing in china, India as well as USA after accounting for inflation. It’s sort of stagnant in Europe.
  - kelseyfrog 1y ago
    I'm genuinely glad for the people in India. But that progress doesn't reduce the feeling of inequality here in the U.S. Dismissing people with arguments doesn't work either. It doesn’t eliminate the feeling of inequality or change people's perspective about absolute vs relative wealth. Why? Because the promise used to justify labor - that hard work will be rewarded - was deeply believed. The contradiction becomes visible when the wealthy hold 36,000 times more wealth than the average person[1]. No one can work 36,000 times harder or longer than someone else, so the belief is no longer tenable. That leaves us with two choices: either acknowledge that "hard work alone" was never the full story, or take real steps to fix inequality. Pointing to poverty reduction in other countries doesn’t resolve this. It simply makes people feel unheard and resentful. Average billionaire has $7B in wealth. Median individual U.S. wealth $190,000.

kelseyfrog 1y ago

The ownership class and the labor class both suffer from a coordination problem. The former from the coordination problem of extracting wealth but not fast enough that it solves the coordination problem for the labor class who, like you said, have strike first and revolt second as their battles of last resort. The ownership class can voluntarily reduce wealth inequality, and they have before, but as history progresses and time marches on, so do the memories fade of what happens when they don't, pushing them closer and closer to options they don't want to admit work.