4 ms·

If the rich have control over the communication networks and over highly intelligent AI systems then it follows that they would use that control to prevent the

If the rich have control over the communication networks and over highly intelligent AI systems then it follows that they would use that control to prevent the masses from organizing into a cohesive political unit, and keep them fighting amongst each other for scraps. This is already happening on a smaller scale, of course, but if AI models become capable enough to replace the majority of workers then it will put the golden apple to shame.

FridgeSeal 5mo ago
People will just… form communities and communicate offline?
- phainopepla2 5mo ago
  One might think so, but looking at the trajectory of human communities and communication under current technologies, I'm guessing that it will be a niche-enough phenomenon that the surveillance state (or corporation) will easily be able to crush any IRL dissent. People are already struggling to form offline communities as easily as was done in the past, I can only imagine it will get harder as more AI-powered entertainment seeps into the cracks of the social mind.
nico_h 5mo ago
The rich already have control over the government, as exemplified by the fact that it’s impossible to tax them. Amd also over large part of the media (as they own it and are concentrating the outlets). The poor (all of us HN reader) have some control over small to mid sized towns and somehow new york, except where someone wants a data center constructed and the city can’t afford the lawyer to defend against it.
bluefirebrand 5mo ago
> it follows that they would use that control to prevent the masses from organizing into a cohesive political unit, and keep them fighting amongst each other for scraps I think the mistake they're going to make is that they already have most of us fighting for scraps But they want all of us fighting for even smaller scraps There's always a limit to how far this can be pushed
- phainopepla2 5mo ago
  > There's always a limit That's true, but the limit isn't fixed, it depends on their ability to keep things under control. AI is poised to increase that ability if we allow it to develop entirely under the control of private interests.

FridgeSeal 5mo ago

People will just… form communities and communicate offline?

phainopepla2 5mo ago
One might think so, but looking at the trajectory of human communities and communication under current technologies, I'm guessing that it will be a niche-enough phenomenon that the surveillance state (or corporation) will easily be able to crush any IRL dissent. People are already struggling to form offline communities as easily as was done in the past, I can only imagine it will get harder as more AI-powered entertainment seeps into the cracks of the social mind.

nico_h 5mo ago

The rich already have control over the government, as exemplified by the fact that it’s impossible to tax them. Amd also over large part of the media (as they own it and are concentrating the outlets). The poor (all of us HN reader) have some control over small to mid sized towns and somehow new york, except where someone wants a data center constructed and the city can’t afford the lawyer to defend against it.

bluefirebrand 5mo ago

> it follows that they would use that control to prevent the masses from organizing into a cohesive political unit, and keep them fighting amongst each other for scraps I think the mistake they're going to make is that they already have most of us fighting for scraps But they want all of us fighting for even smaller scraps There's always a limit to how far this can be pushed

phainopepla2 5mo ago
> There's always a limit That's true, but the limit isn't fixed, it depends on their ability to keep things under control. AI is poised to increase that ability if we allow it to develop entirely under the control of private interests.