4 ms·
>So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones. You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting
by simianwords 11mo ago
>So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones.
You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. There are a few people who might exaggerate these moral issues for self service but they wouldn't matter in the long term.
That is not to suggest there are absolutely no legitimate moral problems with AI but they will pale in comparison to what the market needs.
If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, humanity will collectively agree in one way or the other to ignore or work around the "moral hazards" for the greater good.
You can start by explaining what your specific moral value is that goes against AI use? It might bring to clarity whether these values are that important at all to begin with.
- vkou 11mo ago> If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing? Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?
- ovi256 11mo agoWhile humans have historically mildly reduced their working time to today's 40h workweek, their consumption has gone up enormously, and whole new categories of consumption were opened. So my prediction is while you'll never live in a 900,000sqft apartment (unless we get O'Neill cylinders from our budding space industry) you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week
- rightbyte 11mo ago40h is probably up from pre-industrial times. Edit: There is some research covering work time estimates for different ages.
- infecto 11mo agoWe could probably argue to the end of time about the qualitative quality of life between then and now. In general a metric of consumption and time spent gathering that consumption has gotten better over time.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoI don't think a general sentiment matters much here when the important necessitate are out of reach. The hierarchy of needs is outdated, but the inversion of it is very concerning. We can live without a flat screen TV (which has gotten dirt cheap). We can't live without a decent house. Or worse, while we can live in some 500 sq ft shack we can't truly "live" if there's no other public amenities to gather and socialize without nickel-and-diming us.
- fastball 11mo agoWhat was all this free time spent doing in the pre-industrial era?
- rightbyte 11mo agoAlternating between grinding your knife and making wood sculptures.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agopre-industrial? Lots of tending to the farm, caring for family, and managing slaves I suppose. Had some free time between that to work with your community for bonding or business dealings or whatnot.
- fastball 11mo agoDon't think slave management was the average pre-industrial experience.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago
- wizzwizz4 11mo agoI don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable things.
- infecto 11mo agoSo you are agreeing with the parent? If consumption has gone up a lot and input hours has gone down or stayed flat, that means you are able to work less.
- amrocha 11mo agoThat sounds like a nightmare. Let’s sell out a generation so that we can consume more. Wow.
- johnnyanmac 11mo agoBoomers in a nutshell. Do a bunch of stuff to keep from building more housing to prop up housing prices (which is much of their net worth), and then spend until you're forced to spend the last bit to keep yourselves alive. Then the hospital takes the house to pay off the rest of the debts. Everybody wins!
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago>you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week There's more to cosume than 50 years ago, but I don't see that trend continuing. We shifted phone bills to cell phone bills and added internet bills and a myriad of subscriptions. But that's really it. everything was "turn one time into subscrition". I don't see what will fundamentally shift that current consumption for the next 20-30 years. Just more conversion of ownership to renting. In entertainment we're already seeing revolts against this as piracy surges. I don't know how we're going to "consume a lot more" in this case.
- arthurfirst 11mo agoThey signed it for you as there will be 1000x less workers needed so they didn't need to ask anymore.
- neutronicus 11mo agoYou will probably be dead. But _somebody_ will be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment and working an hour a week, and the concept of money will be defunct.
- johnnyanmac 11mo ago>They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. And I believe they (and I) are suggesting that this is just a bad faith spin on the market, if you look at actual AI confidence and sentiment and don't ignore it as "ehh just the internet whining". Consumers having less money to spend doesn't mean they are adopting AI en masse, nor are happy about it. I don't think using the 2025 US government for a moral compass is helping your case either. >If AI can make things 1000x more efficient Exhibit A. My observations suggest that consumers are beyond tired of talking about the "what ifs" while they struggle to afford rent or get a job in this economy, right now. All the current gains are for corporate billionaires, why would they think that suddenly changes here and now?