3 ms·
To be honest, I'm more aligned with you than with the left at the moment. I feel there's been a knee-jerk reaction from a wave of massive change coming and the
by piva00 9mo ago
To be honest, I'm more aligned with you than with the left at the moment. I feel there's been a knee-jerk reaction from a wave of massive change coming and the efforts are being directed to the wrong place.
For example: I don't agree that we should be curtailing the data center buildup, it bothers me because it's almost a stance of conservatism. While I do agree there's a need to closely monitor the situation with how AI develops, since in case it does pan out that it can, in a 5-10 years time frame, dislodge a big mass of labour without leaving room for those unemployed by a radical change it will create a lot of social strife.
I'm more in the camp of caution, and planning on how to address the scenarios that could be most damaging, while I also understand there's no stopping when the machinery gets going as it is, we can only work around it to adapt to a new reality.
> This is just fake morality disguised as "moral capitalism" broadly coming from the black and white ideology that dictates all businesses are bad and require push back.
But most businesses do tend to go towards "bad" (if we define it as showing no empathy towards their damages to society) because those are the incentives, being "good" has very little financial incentive, and financial incentives are absolute king in this era of hyperfinancialised capitalism. The incentives for creating good products only exist to manage finances, not out of a desire to create good products as a benefit in itself which as a consequence will sell well. If there's a way to increase revenue while minimising attrition of the customer base, even in detriment of a great product, it will be done, because the incentives are there for that.
I think we probably agree more than disagree, my belief is that we have wrong incentives if this is the system we will continue living under. I also believe we can continuously improve it, there's no end game in sight for the "perfect system", it's all experimentation and we ought to take into account the results of these experiments after 20-40 years, and be rational about what works and what doesn't. Whatever was the world in the 1980s when this era of hyperfinancialisation started is not the world in 2026, whomever was the winner of that change wants to keep the status quo because it benefits them while we do see fractures and issues arising from that.
There's a balance to be made, and it will always go against the interests of past winners who will try to pitch the world as it is as the best it can be, and that more of whatever was done to make them winners is the only way forward.
- simianwords 9mo ago> But most businesses do tend to go towards "bad" (if we define it as showing no empathy towards their damages to society) because those are the incentives, being "good" has very little financial incentive, and financial incentives are absolute king in this era of hyperfinancialised capitalism Its the reverse. Most businesses exist to serve consumer needs. The state comes in and tries to regulate because of possible externalities caused by the business. The fact that businesses serve real demand of consumers means that most businesses don't go twards bad or show no empathy. It is in their interest to please the consumers. Ultimately the way you might see it is ideological. The pushback against AI crucially misses the point that people actually want to use AI and their actual preference is such. What the left does here is assume (like you did) that by default, AI companies are bad and require regulation and pushback and they do it to an extent that is detrimental for everyone except the elites. One might ask why? Why is it that the left wants, as a reaction, to curtail AI? It is ideological - assuming all businesses are bad by default. And also status quo preservation.
- piva00 9mo ago> Its the reverse. Most businesses exist to serve consumer needs. The state comes in and tries to regulate because of possible externalities caused by the business. I agree, I should have phrased it as "big business" instead of just business, it's my mistake to not have been clear about that. > The fact that businesses serve real demand of consumers means that most businesses don't go twards bad or show no empathy. It is in their interest to please the consumers. Ultimately the way you might see it is ideological. Which leads me to this point, where I believe a lot of smaller to medium-sized businesses do need to provide good products for consumers to keep their edge. Where this starts to frail is when a business is too big, too detached from any controls, and instead starts to be the tail wagging the dog. > The pushback against AI crucially misses the point that people actually want to use AI and their actual preference is such. What the left does here is assume (like you did) that by default, AI companies are bad and require regulation and pushback and they do it to an extent that is detrimental for everyone except the elites. I don't disagree that people actually want to use AI, I do it and the tools have a lot of value. I disagree that big AI companies are not going to turn "bad" when given enough power, and I didn't mention regulation at all at this point, I said "caution, and planning". > One might ask why? Why is it that the left wants, as a reaction, to curtail AI? It is ideological - assuming all businesses are bad by default. And also status quo preservation. It's ideological, and dogmatic, which is why I disagree with the current position of the left for pushing back extremely without giving other avenues on how to develop it. I don't agree at all with pushing back without taking into account the reality: these tools are here to stay, their uses are still being discovered, we will settle into a new reality.