6 ms·

I don’t think you’re realizing that the OP understands this, and that in this analogy, the horses are human beings

bambax 11mo ago
In this analogy, horses are jobs, not humans; you could argue there's not much of a difference between the two, because people without jobs will starve, etc., but still, they're not the same.
- mattmaroon 11mo ago
  There is, at least, a way to avoid people without jobs starving. Whether or not we'll do it is anyone's guess. I think I'll live to see UBI but I am perphaps an optimist.
  - bigfishrunning 11mo ago
    You'd have to time something like UBI with us actually being able to replace the workforce -- The current LLM parlor tricks are simply not what they're sold to be, and if we rely on them too early we (humanity) is very much screwed.
  - snarfy 11mo ago
    It's here today - it's owning stock that produces dividends. That's capitalism.
    - mattmaroon 11mo ago
      Yeah I don't know why everyone doesn't just do that!
- ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
  One would argue in a capitalist society like ours, fucking with someone's job at industrial scale isn't awfully dissimilar from threatening their life, it's just less direct. Plenty more people currently are feeling the effects of worsening job markets than have been involved in a hostage situation, but the negative end results are still the same. One would argue also if you don't see this, it's because you'd prefer not to. If we had at least a somewhat functioning safety net, or UBI, or both, you'd at least have an argument to be made, but we don't. AI and it's associated companies' business model is, if not killing people, certainly attempting to make lots of lives worse at scale. I wouldn't work for one for all the money in the world.
  - FuckButtons 11mo ago
    UBI will not save you from economic irrelevance. The only difference between you and someone starving in a 3rd world slum is economic opportunity and the means to exchange what you have for what someone else needs. UBI is inflation in a wig and dark glasses.
- FuckButtons 11mo ago
  Why make the analogy at all if not for the implied slaughter. It is a visceral reminder of our own brutal history. Of what humans do given the right set of circumstances.
  - arowthway 11mo ago
    How is decreasing the number of horses killed every year brutal?
- jimbokun 11mo ago
  What happened to the horses after they lost their jobs?
pas 11mo ago
population projections they already predict that prosperity reduces population and even if AI becomes good enough to replace most humans the economic surplus does not disappear it's a coordination problem in many places on Earth social safety nets are pretty robust, and if AI helps to reduce cost of providing basic services then it won't be a problem to expand those safety nets ... there's already a pretty serious anti-inequality (or at least anti-billionaire) storm brewing, the question is can it motivate the necessary structural changes or just fuels yet another dumb populist movement
- bee_rider 11mo ago
  Somebody should try a smart populist movement instead. My least favorite thing about my favored (or rather least disfavored) party is that we seem to believe “we must win without appealing to the populace too directly, that would simply be uncouth.”
- glenstein 11mo ago
  I think the concerns with UBI are (1) it takes away the leverage of a labor force to organize and strike for better benefits or economic conditions, and (2) following the block grant model, can be a trojan horse "benefit" that sets the stage for effectively deleting systems of welfare support that have been historically resilient due to institutional support and being strongly identified with specific constituencies. When the benefit is abstracted away from a constituency it's easier to chop over time. I don't exactly know how I feel about those, but I respect those criticisms. I think the grand synthesis is that UBI exists on top of existing safety nets.
  - gota 11mo ago
    Point (2) seems wrong intuitively. "Chopping" away UBI would be much more difficult _because_ it is not associated to a specific constituency. Not only would there be more people on the streets protesting against real or perceived cuts; there also would be fewer movements based on exclusivist ideologies protesting _in favour of cuts_* * e.g. racist groups in favour of cutting some kinds of welfare because of racial associations
  - 11mo ago

bambax 11mo ago

In this analogy, horses are jobs, not humans; you could argue there's not much of a difference between the two, because people without jobs will starve, etc., but still, they're not the same.

mattmaroon 11mo ago
There is, at least, a way to avoid people without jobs starving. Whether or not we'll do it is anyone's guess. I think I'll live to see UBI but I am perphaps an optimist.
- bigfishrunning 11mo ago
  You'd have to time something like UBI with us actually being able to replace the workforce -- The current LLM parlor tricks are simply not what they're sold to be, and if we rely on them too early we (humanity) is very much screwed.
- snarfy 11mo ago
  It's here today - it's owning stock that produces dividends. That's capitalism.
  - mattmaroon 11mo ago
    Yeah I don't know why everyone doesn't just do that!
ToucanLoucan 11mo ago
One would argue in a capitalist society like ours, fucking with someone's job at industrial scale isn't awfully dissimilar from threatening their life, it's just less direct. Plenty more people currently are feeling the effects of worsening job markets than have been involved in a hostage situation, but the negative end results are still the same. One would argue also if you don't see this, it's because you'd prefer not to. If we had at least a somewhat functioning safety net, or UBI, or both, you'd at least have an argument to be made, but we don't. AI and it's associated companies' business model is, if not killing people, certainly attempting to make lots of lives worse at scale. I wouldn't work for one for all the money in the world.
- FuckButtons 11mo ago
  UBI will not save you from economic irrelevance. The only difference between you and someone starving in a 3rd world slum is economic opportunity and the means to exchange what you have for what someone else needs. UBI is inflation in a wig and dark glasses.
FuckButtons 11mo ago
Why make the analogy at all if not for the implied slaughter. It is a visceral reminder of our own brutal history. Of what humans do given the right set of circumstances.
- arowthway 11mo ago
  How is decreasing the number of horses killed every year brutal?
jimbokun 11mo ago
What happened to the horses after they lost their jobs?

pas 11mo ago

population projections they already predict that prosperity reduces population and even if AI becomes good enough to replace most humans the economic surplus does not disappear it's a coordination problem in many places on Earth social safety nets are pretty robust, and if AI helps to reduce cost of providing basic services then it won't be a problem to expand those safety nets ... there's already a pretty serious anti-inequality (or at least anti-billionaire) storm brewing, the question is can it motivate the necessary structural changes or just fuels yet another dumb populist movement

bee_rider 11mo ago
Somebody should try a smart populist movement instead. My least favorite thing about my favored (or rather least disfavored) party is that we seem to believe “we must win without appealing to the populace too directly, that would simply be uncouth.”
glenstein 11mo ago
I think the concerns with UBI are (1) it takes away the leverage of a labor force to organize and strike for better benefits or economic conditions, and (2) following the block grant model, can be a trojan horse "benefit" that sets the stage for effectively deleting systems of welfare support that have been historically resilient due to institutional support and being strongly identified with specific constituencies. When the benefit is abstracted away from a constituency it's easier to chop over time. I don't exactly know how I feel about those, but I respect those criticisms. I think the grand synthesis is that UBI exists on top of existing safety nets.
- gota 11mo ago
  Point (2) seems wrong intuitively. "Chopping" away UBI would be much more difficult _because_ it is not associated to a specific constituency. Not only would there be more people on the streets protesting against real or perceived cuts; there also would be fewer movements based on exclusivist ideologies protesting _in favour of cuts_* * e.g. racist groups in favour of cutting some kinds of welfare because of racial associations
- 11mo ago