3 ms·

> I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. This has been bugging me damn near every time people talk about this stuff. An

by ipdashc 1mo ago

> I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. This has been bugging me damn near every time people talk about this stuff. Any attempt to propose or even discuss a solution is met with an endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm, and epic burn clapbacks... and usually nothing further. And I'll be the first to admit that finding a "solution" is hard! It's almost like it's an unprecedented technological change! But could we at least be honest and admit it's hard, or are we just going to keep making fun of anyone who tries to talk about it and then do nothing? Sigh. What can you do, I guess.

meowface 1mo ago
Many people want to critique power rather than propose and judge concrete solutions.
- vrganj 1mo ago
  Maybe the critique is the solution? Maybe the system is so toxic the only way forward is a radical break and solutionism is just a way to distract from that fact? A way to maintain the power structure while making cosmetic changes?
  - ipdashc 1mo ago
    Yes, we've all heard this a million times. I'm afraid you've still given zero actual solution or even anything approaching one. "A radical break" okay, a radical break from what? How? To do what differently?
    - vrganj 1mo ago
      Let's first finish the critique, then we can use its conclusions to talk about what it would actually take to get us out of this mess. Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened. AI threatens to disturb this delicate balance that made things kinda-sorta work for a while. No more dependence on labor means the capital accumulation flywheel will go crazy. Capital can buy compute can generate capital. Now, once you have a ton of capital, you might start thinking: Hmmm, I wonder if I can use this to tilt the rules of the game in my favor. Wonder which politicians could change some regulations in exchange for a hefty "donation". And so the regulatory capture begins. In other words, the end state of things as they are is: existing capitalists get converted to near-feudal lords (which is why they're so excited about the prospect!), while the existing working class loses their only leverage to extract an existence. All solutionist approaches just slightly slow this incentive loop down or make it more marketable, but none change the core mechanism at play. Now, with this critique in mind, what do we actually do about it? We won't be able to stop AI from taking over more and more labor jobs, and we shouldn't even try to. But that's not really the problem anyways, the problem is that with the current ownership structure, the only ones really benefiting from AI productivity are they already-owning class. That is where we have a lever. The only way out of this dystopian path, and into something more appealing, is communal ownership of the means of production. This doesn't have to mean everyone's laptop, this needs to be measured and scaled of course, but as an example, large-scale data centers should not be allowed to be privately controlled. Now, which mechanism we choose here is up for debate. Maybe government ownership? Maybe worker-owned coops? Maybe something else entirely? Lastly, how do we get there? Historically, there's been two schools of thought: The electoral and the revolutionary approach. I think both have their merits, but I actually think they best work together. Think of the Bismarckian example: Why was the conservative German chancellor the one to introduce the German social safety net? To stave off a credible threat of revolution. I think that while I don't really love the idea of a revolution, the ruling class loves it even less, because historically they are the ones that end up beheaded. That's why I see revolutionary movements as a good way to extract concessions, because they don't need to actually go through with it as long as they're threatening enough.
      - globalnode 1mo ago
        Good points, i like them, but i fear you were sucked in by low effort trolling. Your original point was clear, that fiddling with a broken system is a distraction from a better more workable system. If you try to begin to articulate a more workable system you'll then have to contend with a barrage of mindless ad hom and rhetorical rubbish... (ug ug socialism bad) so sometimes critiquing the current system is just easier.
        ipdashc 1mo ago
        "Critiquing the current system" on its own is nearly useless. Literally everyone can do it. Yes, articulating a more workable system is hard, that's why it's actually meaningful.
        meowface 1mo ago
        The problem is that socialism actually is bad. Neoliberalism is a much better idea that leads to better outcomes, and is based on reason and empiricism and systems thinking. Socialism is pseudoscience, vibes, and cults of personality and ideology. Socially conscious neoliberalism in democratic countries has led to the most acceleration towards widespread human prosperity in all of history.
        vrganj 1mo ago
        Could you elaborate your position, maybe make a structural argument like I did above, or maybe refute mine? I'd argue my post above was pure systems thinking, wasn't it? So far you have made an assertion, but have not shared anything to back it.
        vrganj 1mo ago
        Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions. Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies. I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.
watwut 1mo ago
> Any attempt to propose or even discuss a solution is met with an endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm, and epic burn clapbacks... and usually nothing further. Not true. Obviously bad faith actors and those who literally spend large bulks of their lives to build monopolies are met with endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm and epic burn clapbacks. Gates is now proposing to tax his competition. There are long standing proposals about taxing monopolies and large corporations a lot more and enforcing anti trust much more aggressively. Only one of them is met with that cynicism. Funny enough, you dont see Gates do or support anything that would actually limit power of billionaires CEOs.

by ipdashc 1mo ago

meowface 1mo ago

Many people want to critique power rather than propose and judge concrete solutions.

vrganj 1mo ago
Maybe the critique is the solution? Maybe the system is so toxic the only way forward is a radical break and solutionism is just a way to distract from that fact? A way to maintain the power structure while making cosmetic changes?
- ipdashc 1mo ago
  Yes, we've all heard this a million times. I'm afraid you've still given zero actual solution or even anything approaching one. "A radical break" okay, a radical break from what? How? To do what differently?
  - vrganj 1mo ago
    Let's first finish the critique, then we can use its conclusions to talk about what it would actually take to get us out of this mess. Capitalism has always been a tension between capitalists, who want maximum return on capital and workers, who want pesky things like a living wage, sick leave or safe work conditions. For the longest time, the only power labor has had to get those things was the power of collective bargaining. No agreement with your workers meant no production happened. AI threatens to disturb this delicate balance that made things kinda-sorta work for a while. No more dependence on labor means the capital accumulation flywheel will go crazy. Capital can buy compute can generate capital. Now, once you have a ton of capital, you might start thinking: Hmmm, I wonder if I can use this to tilt the rules of the game in my favor. Wonder which politicians could change some regulations in exchange for a hefty "donation". And so the regulatory capture begins. In other words, the end state of things as they are is: existing capitalists get converted to near-feudal lords (which is why they're so excited about the prospect!), while the existing working class loses their only leverage to extract an existence. All solutionist approaches just slightly slow this incentive loop down or make it more marketable, but none change the core mechanism at play. Now, with this critique in mind, what do we actually do about it? We won't be able to stop AI from taking over more and more labor jobs, and we shouldn't even try to. But that's not really the problem anyways, the problem is that with the current ownership structure, the only ones really benefiting from AI productivity are they already-owning class. That is where we have a lever. The only way out of this dystopian path, and into something more appealing, is communal ownership of the means of production. This doesn't have to mean everyone's laptop, this needs to be measured and scaled of course, but as an example, large-scale data centers should not be allowed to be privately controlled. Now, which mechanism we choose here is up for debate. Maybe government ownership? Maybe worker-owned coops? Maybe something else entirely? Lastly, how do we get there? Historically, there's been two schools of thought: The electoral and the revolutionary approach. I think both have their merits, but I actually think they best work together. Think of the Bismarckian example: Why was the conservative German chancellor the one to introduce the German social safety net? To stave off a credible threat of revolution. I think that while I don't really love the idea of a revolution, the ruling class loves it even less, because historically they are the ones that end up beheaded. That's why I see revolutionary movements as a good way to extract concessions, because they don't need to actually go through with it as long as they're threatening enough.
    - globalnode 1mo ago
      Good points, i like them, but i fear you were sucked in by low effort trolling. Your original point was clear, that fiddling with a broken system is a distraction from a better more workable system. If you try to begin to articulate a more workable system you'll then have to contend with a barrage of mindless ad hom and rhetorical rubbish... (ug ug socialism bad) so sometimes critiquing the current system is just easier.
      - ipdashc 1mo ago
        "Critiquing the current system" on its own is nearly useless. Literally everyone can do it. Yes, articulating a more workable system is hard, that's why it's actually meaningful.
      - meowface 1mo ago
        The problem is that socialism actually is bad. Neoliberalism is a much better idea that leads to better outcomes, and is based on reason and empiricism and systems thinking. Socialism is pseudoscience, vibes, and cults of personality and ideology. Socially conscious neoliberalism in democratic countries has led to the most acceleration towards widespread human prosperity in all of history.
        vrganj 1mo ago
        Could you elaborate your position, maybe make a structural argument like I did above, or maybe refute mine? I'd argue my post above was pure systems thinking, wasn't it? So far you have made an assertion, but have not shared anything to back it.
        vrganj 1mo ago
        Oh, I just realized you're the same commenter that was arguing that people just want to criticize and not offer any proposals for solutions. Getting that response to an actual proposal from you is the thickest of ironies. I initially thought globalnode's comment was a bit cynical and mean spirited. But you... kind of proved his point? Instead of proposing and judging solutions as you initially mentioned, you basically enacted the "ug ug socialism is bad" he predicted.

watwut 1mo ago

> Any attempt to propose or even discuss a solution is met with an endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm, and epic burn clapbacks... and usually nothing further. Not true. Obviously bad faith actors and those who literally spend large bulks of their lives to build monopolies are met with endless wave of cynicism, sarcasm and epic burn clapbacks. Gates is now proposing to tax his competition. There are long standing proposals about taxing monopolies and large corporations a lot more and enforcing anti trust much more aggressively. Only one of them is met with that cynicism. Funny enough, you dont see Gates do or support anything that would actually limit power of billionaires CEOs.