3 ms·

> We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go. Get that accelerationist fatalism outta my face. Just because you personally hav

> We just have to jump ahead with automation and figure out the rest as we go. Get that accelerationist fatalism outta my face. Just because you personally have no qualms with harming others in the name of some facsimile of progress, doesn't mean it's the only option available to us. Slowing things down through regulations, through employment mandates, through pleas for cooperation instead of immediate replacement, all of those and more are ways of gradual reform and adaptation. We're proposing letting the organism (humanity) adapt to traditional work and employment being wholesale eliminated in a society that demands work for basic survival through gradual and continuous reforms as circumstances change. Your proposal is the functional equivalent of telling an endangered species, "lol get gud bruv". We are not the same.

Legend2440 9mo ago
You're panicking. We're gonna be fine. We've done lots of automation before, and we all benefited immensely. Just chill and deal with problems as they come up.
- danaris 9mo ago
  The "problems that come up" will be people homeless and starving. I'm 100% with stego-tech that I think we should address the major, glaring concerns that come with greater automation before that happens. Because I care about my fellow human beings, and do not want them to suffer.
  - fluoridation 9mo ago
    People starving en masse because there was no work to do anymore and no way to get paid, despite there being plentiful food, is something that has never happened. If the amount of money on the consumer side of the food economy were to shrink significantly, what should happen is that the price of food should also go down until people can buy food again. The stock has to move no matter what, otherwise it spoils.
    - danaris 9mo ago
      And if the price that those people can afford is $0, because ClaudeGPTPilot MegaAGI took all their jobs? What then? There is a price below which no farmer is going to sell, regardless of whether they have another buyer. What you're saying effectively amounts to "come on, there's no way they'd actually let people starve in the streets! That's something that could never happen these days." Think about whether there might be other things that "could never happen these days" that are happening right now, in various places in America.
      - fluoridation 9mo ago
        If we're talking about huge groups, like thousands, of people having no money for food, it would behoove the government to pay for that food, just to avoid a revolt. Just as a matter of self-preservation.
        danaris 9mo ago
        Yeah? And do you think this government is likely to do that?
        fluoridation 9mo ago
        By "this government" you mean Trump's administration? If so, then to answer your question, I need to presuppose that there's going to be such a massive revolution in automation within the next three years (already a dubious proposition IMO) that intervening with food aid is going to be a concern for the US's federal government. We're talking millions of people across the US who might start rioting because they need to eat. That's the scenario you want me to consider? I don't know what the logistics might be, but if the state governments let their local situations fester to that degree it might be too late to do anything federally.
    - spwa4 8mo ago
      Didn't that happen during most/all of history? There was never much of a problem growing more food, there just wasn't any reason to. In Victorian England for example, it would have been easy to grow way more food and build way more housing, the government used violence to prevent it to enforce property rights of huge landowners (that then lost anyway, well, except the royal family of course)
- switchbak 9mo ago
  That’s just faith though. And I see no driving reason to trust in your faith. We’ve never seen anything remotely close to this kind of upheaval. This kind of techno-optimism makes sense in the very young, but seems painfully naive once you’ve been around the block a bunch of times. There are no adults in the room driving this. There’s weird ultra elite people driving this forward with their competitive megalomaniacal egos. And we’re stuck in a game theoretic landscape where it’s effectively an inevitable race to a max AI future. None of this is a recipe for a stable or prosperous future. If this wild accelerated future ends up being a utopia, I’ll be jazzed to eat my words. I just haven’t seen any utopias unfold in my life, and I’m skeptical of those who tell me to chill and embrace the chaos.
  - stego-tech 9mo ago
    This. Look, I've got enough things challenging my actual faith that I just cannot deal with piling on more so that the pro-AI camps don't have to do some critical thinking or basic empathy. Those with the means have an obligation to help those without. It's basic cooperation. It's how humanity made it this far.
  - munksbeer 9mo ago
    > We’ve never seen anything remotely close to this kind of upheaval. I bet that has been said hundreds of times already through history. I agree with the other poster, this will most likely be a good thing for mankind overall. I'm excited for the future.
Hizonner 9mo ago
> through employment mandates Be careful not to create a permanent future of mandatory makework.
- stego-tech 9mo ago
  If we don't want makework, then don't mandate work to survive. Simple.
  - Hizonner 9mo ago
    Then what, exactly, do you mean by "employment mandates"? You're the one who suggested that. Nobody "mandates" work to survive right now. But we do have a system where everything is owned by somebody, and ownership tends to concentrate. You can convince people to give you stuff they own (or money, which stands in for stuff) by doing work. The risk is that nobody will need your work, so you won't be able to convince them to give you any stuff, ownership will concentrate even more, and you will end up with nothing. If Those In Charge require that "owners" continue to give you stuff for work that they don't need, that crude patch still doesn't provide you with any other way to get stuff. Which means you have to keep doing this useless work forever. It's not about "don't mandate work". It's about fundamental change to the entire system.

Legend2440 9mo ago

You're panicking. We're gonna be fine. We've done lots of automation before, and we all benefited immensely. Just chill and deal with problems as they come up.

danaris 9mo ago
The "problems that come up" will be people homeless and starving. I'm 100% with stego-tech that I think we should address the major, glaring concerns that come with greater automation before that happens. Because I care about my fellow human beings, and do not want them to suffer.
- fluoridation 9mo ago
  People starving en masse because there was no work to do anymore and no way to get paid, despite there being plentiful food, is something that has never happened. If the amount of money on the consumer side of the food economy were to shrink significantly, what should happen is that the price of food should also go down until people can buy food again. The stock has to move no matter what, otherwise it spoils.
  - danaris 9mo ago
    And if the price that those people can afford is $0, because ClaudeGPTPilot MegaAGI took all their jobs? What then? There is a price below which no farmer is going to sell, regardless of whether they have another buyer. What you're saying effectively amounts to "come on, there's no way they'd actually let people starve in the streets! That's something that could never happen these days." Think about whether there might be other things that "could never happen these days" that are happening right now, in various places in America.
    - fluoridation 9mo ago
      If we're talking about huge groups, like thousands, of people having no money for food, it would behoove the government to pay for that food, just to avoid a revolt. Just as a matter of self-preservation.
      - danaris 9mo ago
        Yeah? And do you think this government is likely to do that?
        fluoridation 9mo ago
        By "this government" you mean Trump's administration? If so, then to answer your question, I need to presuppose that there's going to be such a massive revolution in automation within the next three years (already a dubious proposition IMO) that intervening with food aid is going to be a concern for the US's federal government. We're talking millions of people across the US who might start rioting because they need to eat. That's the scenario you want me to consider? I don't know what the logistics might be, but if the state governments let their local situations fester to that degree it might be too late to do anything federally.
  - spwa4 8mo ago
    Didn't that happen during most/all of history? There was never much of a problem growing more food, there just wasn't any reason to. In Victorian England for example, it would have been easy to grow way more food and build way more housing, the government used violence to prevent it to enforce property rights of huge landowners (that then lost anyway, well, except the royal family of course)
switchbak 9mo ago
That’s just faith though. And I see no driving reason to trust in your faith. We’ve never seen anything remotely close to this kind of upheaval. This kind of techno-optimism makes sense in the very young, but seems painfully naive once you’ve been around the block a bunch of times. There are no adults in the room driving this. There’s weird ultra elite people driving this forward with their competitive megalomaniacal egos. And we’re stuck in a game theoretic landscape where it’s effectively an inevitable race to a max AI future. None of this is a recipe for a stable or prosperous future. If this wild accelerated future ends up being a utopia, I’ll be jazzed to eat my words. I just haven’t seen any utopias unfold in my life, and I’m skeptical of those who tell me to chill and embrace the chaos.
- stego-tech 9mo ago
  This. Look, I've got enough things challenging my actual faith that I just cannot deal with piling on more so that the pro-AI camps don't have to do some critical thinking or basic empathy. Those with the means have an obligation to help those without. It's basic cooperation. It's how humanity made it this far.
- munksbeer 9mo ago
  > We’ve never seen anything remotely close to this kind of upheaval. I bet that has been said hundreds of times already through history. I agree with the other poster, this will most likely be a good thing for mankind overall. I'm excited for the future.

Hizonner 9mo ago

> through employment mandates Be careful not to create a permanent future of mandatory makework.

stego-tech 9mo ago
If we don't want makework, then don't mandate work to survive. Simple.
- Hizonner 9mo ago
  Then what, exactly, do you mean by "employment mandates"? You're the one who suggested that. Nobody "mandates" work to survive right now. But we do have a system where everything is owned by somebody, and ownership tends to concentrate. You can convince people to give you stuff they own (or money, which stands in for stuff) by doing work. The risk is that nobody will need your work, so you won't be able to convince them to give you any stuff, ownership will concentrate even more, and you will end up with nothing. If Those In Charge require that "owners" continue to give you stuff for work that they don't need, that crude patch still doesn't provide you with any other way to get stuff. Which means you have to keep doing this useless work forever. It's not about "don't mandate work". It's about fundamental change to the entire system.