9 ms·

I think this is far too nuanced. I am terrified by what the civilization we have known will become. People living in less advanced economies will do OK, but the

• jjgreen 9mo ago
  Welcome to capitalism!
  • smokel 9mo ago
    Besides being a bit of a shallow comment, what exactly do you imply here? That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, it just needs a stronger government than what the US currently has in place. (e.g. progressive taxation and strong antitrust policy seem to work fairly well in Europe).
    • beardyw 9mo ago
      Isn't that what Americans call socialism?
    • kubb 9mo ago
      But with how compounding works, isn't this outcome inevitable in capitalism? If the strong government prevents it then the first step for the rich is to weaken or co-opt the government, and exactly this has been happening.
      • deleted 9mo ago
        [deleted]
    • pbhjpbhj 9mo ago
      We have a lot of people, capitalism values them as approaching zero, anything that alters that valuation (without reducing population) is contrary to capitalism. Capitalism means the rich must get richer, they own the resources and means of production, they take the reward. It comes to a point where they need an underclass to insulate them from the masses; look how cheaply Trump bought his paramilitary though, he only had to spend the money taken from those he's suppressing, didn't even have to reduce his own wealth one bit; the military and his new brown shirts will ensure the rich stay rich and that eventually there is massive starvation (possibly water/fuel poverty first). Or USA recovers the constitution, recognises climate change and start to do something about it. It seems like the whole of humanities future hinges on a handful of billionaires megalomania and that riding on the coattails of Trump's need to not face justice for his crimes.
      • jwarden 9mo ago
        Capitalism just means private citizens can own the means of production (e.g. start a business, buy stock) and earn a return on investment. It doesn’t mean only the rich must get richer. It means anyone who saves and invests their money instead of spending it gets richer. However capitalism is perfectly compatible with a progressives taxation system such that the rich get richer at a lesser rate than the poor get richer.
        • pixl97 9mo ago
          The important thing to note here is people have been propagandized into thinking that capitalist = democratic. In fact the US would gladly punish you with 'un-American activities' investigation if you said anything to the contrary. The thing is a capitalistic country will gladly turn itself into an authoritarian one if both wealth becomes concentrated and wealth buys votes. With the massive rise in authoritarian activities all over the world, especially in the US our democratic system is at very high risk of collapsing.
        • pbhjpbhj 9mo ago
          >anyone who saves and invests their money instead of spending it gets richer. You realise that a large swathe of society earn less than their costs? Everyone will get richer perpetually, there will never be any impact on climate, we'll never suffer water shortages, we'll all ride unicorns and eat rainbows...
    • coldtea 9mo ago
      >That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, It doesn't need to imply anything. It's an ideology, those promoting it will say whatever BS attracts people to it. In practice, what is happening in capitalist countries since 1970s (when they abandoned all pretense) is that the rich get way richer and everybody else is fucked.
      • glitchc 9mo ago
        Versus what exactly? Communism? Where the rich got richer faster and people got fucked faster?
        • coldtea 9mo ago
          They taught you the only two altenatives are 1917 style communism or 2026 style capitalism? Talk about a crap educational system.
          • senordevnyc 9mo ago
            What is happening in capitalist countries since 1970s (when they abandoned all pretense) is that the rich get way richer and everybody else is fucked. So then what has been happening in non-capitalist countries since the 1970s, so we can compare?
          • glitchc 9mo ago
            Proven outcomes in the real world matter, not hypotheticals in a textbook. Can you provide clear examples of successful communist nations where you would be willing to live and raise children, or is this just pseudo-intellectualism?
            • int_19h 9mo ago
              All communist nations have implemented the same exact narrow subset of the ideology that we know as Marxism-Leninism. The reason being that everyone else who tried something more e.g. democratic generally got crushed. So the commies that ended up running countries in the real world were the most ruthless, hyper-violent ones.
    • int_19h 9mo ago
      > That capitalism logically implies that the rich become richer? I don't think this is necessarily the case, It is necessarily the case. Capitalism is characterized by private ownership of capital, which among other things means that it's possible to accrue it without limit. So the loop whereby the rich accumulate capital, which then allows them to extract even more value produced by workers (i.e. people who actually do useful things with said capital), is an inherent part of capitalism. You can make it more mellow by heavily taxing the capitalists and using that money to raise the standard of living for everyone else, which is basically what Western social democracy is. But it doesn't eliminate the loop, and thus rich continue getting richer. And more powerful, too, which they use to dial said taxation back eventually.
• lm2s 9mo ago
  Yes, that’s why they are on the race to building the very advanced robots. To prevent the violence towards them.
  • satisfice 9mo ago
    That is exactly the motivation. The problem with being a billionaire is you still have to associate with poor people. But imagine a world where your wealth completely insulates you from the resentful poor.
    • gib444 9mo ago
      How does a billionaire have to associate with poor people? They can live in a complete bubble: house in the hills, driven by a chauffeur, private jets, private islands for holidays etc...?
      • aspaviento 9mo ago
        The people who cook for them, the people who clean for them, the ones who take care of their kids, the one who sell them stuff or serve them in restaurants...
        • pbhjpbhj 9mo ago
          Also, they're not building the house or the jet, they're not growing the food, ... people close enough can be chosen for willingness to be sycophants and happiness to be servants. Unless you're feeding yourself from your own farm, or manufacturing your own electronics, there are limits to even a billionaires ability to control personnel.
        • ceejayoz 9mo ago
          They have separate kitchens for the prep, the cleaners work while they’re out on the yacht, they have people to do the buying, and the restaurants they visit have very well trained staff who stay out of the way.
• Muromec 9mo ago
  It's regression to the mean in action. Everethyng eventually collapses into olygarhy and wevwill simply joing the unpriviliged rest in their misery. Likely with few wars civil or not here and there
  • 9dev 9mo ago
    It's not oligarchy, it's feudalism. I wholeheartedly recommend you buying a new keyboard, by the way.
• kubb 9mo ago
  I wonder, will the rich start hiring elaborate casts of servants including butlers, footmen, lady's maids, and so on, since they'll be the only ones with the income?
  • chung8123 9mo ago
    Who do you think is building the machines for the rich? All of these tech companies are nothing without the employees that build the tech.
  • temp8830 9mo ago
    They already do. In fact, we are all working in service of their power trips.
  • ted_bunny 9mo ago
    This is what the service economy in the imperial core already is.
  • drzaiusx11 9mo ago
    As far as I can tell, the rich have never stopped employing elaborate casts of servants; these servants just go by different titles now: private chef, personal assistant, nanny, fashion consultant, etc.
    • kbelder 9mo ago
      The fact that it's a voluntary arrangement instead of forced makes a significant difference.
      • drzaiusx11 9mo ago
        Employing servants only recently fell out of favor in the years between WWI and WWII. Prior to WWI having servants was still in fashion for the wealthy. Naturally I meant paid servants. Enslaved and to some extent indentured servants obviously have little to no choice. That said many of those employered in service industries and to some extent the gig economy have limited options and their participation is barely "voluntary" in modern capitalism.
• latexr 9mo ago
  > Trouble who in power is willing to stop it? Absolutely no one. https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/719111/survival-of-the-richest-by-douglas-rushkoff/9780393881066 https://www.penguinrandomhouse.ca/books/719111/survival-of-t... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJQEAI_KE0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwJQEAI_KE0
• pydry 9mo ago
  >We stand on the brink of a world where some wealthy people will get more wealthy, but very many will struggle without work or prospects. Brink? This has been the reality for decades now. >A society where a large percent have no income is unsustainable in the short term, and ultimately liable to turn to violence. I can see it ending badly. Trouble who in power is willing to stop it? Nobody. They will try to channel it. I think all signals are pretty inevitably pointing to three potential outcomes (in order of likelihood): WW3, soviet style collapse of the west or a soviet style collapse of the sino-russian bloc. If the promise of AI is real I think it makes WW3 a much more likely outcome - a "freed up" disaffected workforce pining for meaning and a revolutionized AI-drone first battlefield both tip the scales in favor of world war.
• KurSix 9mo ago
  People in power won't act out of foresight or ethics. They'll act when the cost of not acting exceeds the cost of doing something messy and imperfect
  • relaxing 9mo ago
    Even that’s giving them too much credit. They’ll burn it all down preserve their fragile egos.
  • coldtea 9mo ago
    They'll act when it profits them. What's stopping them from good actions is not the fear of "doing something messy and imperfect". It's the lack of financial and power-grabbing motivation.
• zozbot234 9mo ago
  > very many will struggle without work or prospects. People always say this with zero evidence. What are some real examples of real people losing their job today because of LLMs. Apart from copywriters (i.e. the original human slop creators) having to rebrand as copyeditors because the first draft of their work now comes from a language model.
  • Throaway1982 9mo ago
    book keepers, graphic artists
    • nicksergeant 9mo ago
      I wouldn't let an LLM touch my business's books with a 10 foot pole.
      • Throaway1982 9mo ago
        me neither, but that's because I used to be a bookkeeper. There's accountants though who have data entry people under them who they market as "bookkeepers," and they are now being replaced by AI. Most small business owners in particular dont care.
      • generic92034 9mo ago
        If your corp is large enough to use a full-sized ERP system it will no longer be your choice to make. The whole software industry is desperately trying to fit AI functions into every pore of their software, ERP vendors being no exception.
  • coldtea 9mo ago
    Translators, graphic designers, soundtrack composers, call center/support workers, journalists, all have reported devastating losses coinciding with LLM use. And there's no shortage of companies press releases about cutting down thousands of jobs and saying it's because they leverage AI.
    • 9mo ago
• baxtr 9mo ago
  I definitely recommend to watch this video with Reinhold Niebuhr. Sure some things deteriorate, but many things improve. Talking about a net decline (or net gain) is very difficult. Every age has its own set of problems that need to be solved. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93EJJVAinRc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=93EJJVAinRc
  • ozmodiar 9mo ago
    Part of it is also that when we look back we think of people's suffering as sacrifices that needed to be made. Now that it's us being sacrificed it really shifts a lot of people's perspective. I think we need a better solution than letting a bunch of people get fucked so that some other set of people in the right place can have shinier toys in the future. Society needs to handle these transitions better, especially as technology raises the stakes with mass servailance and nuclear weapons.
    • _DeadFred_ 9mo ago
      It only took 70 years (1880s to 1950s) and two world wars for the world to digest the industrial revolution and reach the 'capitalism lifts everyone' modern Capitalist(ish) era. Just think of the new kinds of jobs AI will enable our grandchildren to have after we inbetween sacrifice. Space yacht polisher. Space yacht teak refinisher. Space yacht eye candy.
    • int_19h 9mo ago
      FWIW I'm fine with the "sacrifices need to be made" angle in general provided that this sacrifice is fairly spread among the populace. The problem is that you can randomly end up in a group of people destined to be fucked, and there's no compensation.
  • nosianu 9mo ago
    There is one thing different though: Technology allows surveillance on a level and scale that did not ever exist before. I would expect that that in turn allows far greater levels of oppression than ever before. And with all payments going more and more digital, if the powers decide to cut you off you can't even buy anything any more. Or get a job. Or go anywhere without being seen and identified by various cameras. Or, try organizing any kind of movement that those with power don't like. It does not even have to be violent! Here in Germany, as soon as the previous government with the Green Party was in power, a huge never-ending campaign started. Easy - after all, the vast majority of the important media is owned by very few, just like in the US. Funny enough, after inevitably that government failed, turned out the CDU failed many if not most of the promises made, and in other areas does exactly what they heavily criticized. The point is, surveillance, "soft" punishments, and media control and reach are on a whole new level. Trump wanted TikTok for a reason, and Musk wanted X not for the money that company could make. The more tech we have, and it's conveniently concentrated too, the worse it can get if you don't want to play that game. On top pf that, debt and a system of law heavily skewed for those with money, just because of its complexity and to gain access, and no more competition for minds from a block of socialist countries, so no clear alternative apart from obviously stupid ideas most people won't want to vote for, and this "democratic" system can go very far towards being very controlling and restricting for many. We can see for example in Iran, or few decades ago in China, or since it was founded in North Korea what happens when people protest - and how nothing changes. Now we have billionaires who would love to have similar powers, who don't want to be "held back" by laws and regulations.
• Davidzheng 9mo ago
  "People living in less advanced economies will do OK, but the rest of us not so much" how is this possible? are the less advanced economies protected from outside influences? are they also protected from immigration?
  • iugtmkbdfil834 9mo ago
    Not OP, but assuming I am following the argument correctly, I think parent is referring to something else. Advanced economies have participants, who function well in that environment and are shaped by it to a large degree. As a result, if one was to ask them to get food in an environment, where it is not as easily accessible as it is today, they might stumble. On the other hand, in the old country, a lot of people I knew had a tendency to have a little garden, hunt every so often, forage for mushrooms and so on. In other words, more individuals may be able to survive in less developed economies precisely, because they are less developed and less reliant on convenience today brings.
    • Davidzheng 9mo ago
      ah makes a lot of sense! thanks!
• jezzamon 9mo ago
  It's no coincidence that populism is rising. That's the non-violent way out - electing leaders that are willing to change the dynamics a lot.
  • pixl97 9mo ago
    Populism can be a non-violent way out, not is the non-violent way out. As we saw 100 years ago, violent authoritarians will gladly use technology to make themselves look like the populists choice all the while planning to neglect the very thing they promised when they were getting elected.
    • daveguy 9mo ago
      > violent authoritarians will gladly use technology to make themselves look like the populists choice all the while planning to neglect the very thing they promised when they were getting elected. And you don't even have to go back 100 years for an example. About a year will do it.
  • direwolf20 9mo ago
    Populism is how you get elected, not what you do once elected. Disregarding current politics, Adolf Hitler was a populist and that didn't go very well, did it? As I see it now, populism means focusing on truthiness instead of truth, charisma instead of competency, and running the country into the ground because those things you don't have are actually important.
    • jezzamon 9mo ago
      Agreed, my two sentences should probably be a bit more disconnected to each other. Not a proponent of populism myself, but that is the way I see things moving
  • drzaiusx11 9mo ago
    History shows that populism often leads to fascism, we should tread carefully.
• 9rx 9mo ago
  > We stand on the brink of a world where some wealthy people will get more wealthy Not to the degree you might originally think. Most of the wealth being captured today is hypothetical wealth (i.e. promises) to be delivered in a hypothetical future. Except we know that future will never come as the masses, as you point out, have almost nothing, and increasing nothing, to offer to make good on those promises. In other words, it is just a piece of paper with IOU written on it, not real wealth. What that hypothetical wealth does provide and what makes it so appealing, however, is social standing. People are willing to listen to the people who have the most hypothetical wealth. You soon hear of what they have to say. When the hobo on the street corner says something... Wait, there is a hobo on the street corner? A small group of people having the ear of the people is human nature. In ancient times, communication challenges left that small group of people to be limited to a small community (e.g. a tribe, with the people listening to the tribe leader). Now that we can communicate across the world with ease, a few people rising up to capture the attention of the world is the natural outcome. That was, after all, the whole point — to move us away from "small tribes" towards a "global tribe". Hypothetical wealth is the attention-grabbing attribute du jour, but if you remove it, it will just become something else like who is most physically attractive, who tells the funniest jokes, whatever. The handling of "Dunbar's number" doesn't go away. > Trouble who in power is willing to stop it? China has tried with its Great Wall (meaning the internet one, although perhaps you can find relevance in the physical one too), but is it successful? Maybe to some degree, but I expect many people in China still listen to what Elon Musk has to say, all while completely ignoring the millions of Chinese people immediately outside of their door. It isn't really something a power can do (ignoring that there even being a power contradicts the whole thing). The people themselves could in theory, but they would have to overcome their natural urges to do so.