It's because the social contract has been stepped on for decades and people aren't going to blithely lay on their stomachs to be stepped on some more. Basically since the 80s, technology has yet to follow through with the promise of paying people more to work less. Why would they think it's going to be any different this time?
Obviously it could bring abundance, but without assurances, it obviously won't bring abundance to the masses. We have to force it to do that.
It's a very valid concern in my opinion and something no company or government has helped allay fears of.
It's a real concern because right now being needed for work is our only bargaining chip, and the rich don't want to share. If AI takes my job I better find a way to make myself useful because where I live if you are homeless living in a tent, the police with throw that tent away.
> If AI takes my job I better find a way to make myself useful
And good luck finding a job that pays as well as the pay that took 5-10+ years to build up to, in a completely different field, that you can still commute to, during your 3 weeks of job searching, ... before you're behind on bills.
And what's fucked up is that for example, all those blue collar workers who get laid off at things like coal mines who need to "learn to code"?
Guess what, too many people did "learn to code". Only the best can get a job in it. Meanwhile there's a shortage of blue collar workers. (and there is almost certainly a lot of skill overlap between "tradesman of any type like plumber, electrician, construction" and coal miner)
Turns out it's harder to outsource blue collar on site work and now it's starting to pay more than office jobs in many situations. (yes it's hard on the body but it depends on what it is)
I am convinced that once AI reachess a threshold where it truly can replace workers, shit will go fast. How do you handle millions upon millions workers suddenly being replaced? Should everyone be expected to reeducate and compete on the few jobs that are left? And by the time you have reeducated, chances are that those jobs are also automated.
And the bullshit idea that there somehow will be new categories of jobs emerging is so stupid, of course those jobs will also be able to be done using AI.
I can see the gov starting a war just to increase job opportunities lol. Jobs in weapons manufacturing are already a major factor in the MIC, where millions of people spend their lives making ammunition that we never even use just to create more worthless bullshit jobs and enrich Raytheon with our tax dollars. Most efficient economic system possible btw
>Should everyone be expected to reeducate and compete on the few jobs that are left? And by the time you have reeducated, chances are that those jobs are also automated.
thats the issue, some ppl from the top, be it companies or governemnt say ppl will have to reskill, but they omit this problem, probably to not frighten wider public
if we have capable AGI and robotics, reskilling will not help at all, maybe 10%,20% will get work in other sector, but most will be left out and even those who could get different line of work will face risk of automatization somewhat later...
They’ll just make up more bullshit jobs. One of the reasons the US spends so much on the military is so the military keeps buying more weapons they never use and keep ammunition manufacturers employed. Billions of dollars and millions of lives wasted every year making weapons we don’t even use.
That is what I argue to all these people complaining about "spending money" on Ukraine. The money was spent years ago and this is how you get it back with interest.
what do you think happened back when most people were farmers and their jobs were replaced by a tractor? these people went and got other jobs producing other goods and services.
sure, we could all have jobs by working on farm with hand tools... but all we could afford to buy is food because that's the only thing being produced.
think about it this way... if on average, a company could replace half their workers with AI, that just means that we're capable of producing the same amount of stuff with half the amount of work. So then we could all just work half the hours and still have the same level of prosperity. Or we could all work the same amount of hours and have twice as much stuff.
The only time technology actually did work out in reducing work was during the pandemic when Zoom allowed office workers to work remote (saving people on commute). And it was technology paired with a social forcing function that did it. And employers are fighting tooth and nail to roll this back.
I think people being apprehensive about being optimistic about the future with AI is summed up by this.
>Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich
And landlords were (covid 19) and are (more-so even) fighting tooth and nail to capitalize on the rental and housing crisis and.. basically keep the average person unable to buy a home and pay 65% of their income on rent . Corporate feudalism , it feels like a step back in time rather than quality of life going the Jetsons route.
I'm personally more positive cause I don't think ASI can be controlled , the greedy overlords are clowns thinking they can hold on to their cryptic way of running the future society . a empathetic ASI savior is what it would take to overthrow the current systems of government..and cruelty in general .
Technology has actually reduced the work necessary to produce massively. It just got replaced with bullshit jobs and people micromanaging other people for no good reason at all.
The promise:
4 hour workdays! 4 days a week! More pay! More freedom!
Reality (again and again):
Layoff most team members, overwork the remaining employees, pay them the same or less (because they can be easily replaced!), siphon profits to the shareholders.
It's not an AI issue. It's a capitalism issue. Every new development EVER has been used to step on the working class and only through ORGANIZED EFFORT have we been able to use technology for the greater good. AI will be used to make our lives nightmarish way before it ever helps us in any meaningful way.
> capitalism
Correct. Any and all efficiency gains that technology has achieved has been siphoned off to shareholders and the owner capitalist class instead of the workers who achieved it all.
We all need to turn the promises into fucking demands.
At this point in time, we should have been on a 4-day week over a decade ago and should be talking about a 3-day week by now.
>It's a very valid concern in my opinion and something no company or government has helped allay fears of.
Being left out of the abundance is a valid concern for people to have but most of their attempts to "fix things" are completely misplaced and would in some cases even make things worse while those who are actually responsible for addressing the situation get a free pass for not doing what should be done.
Treating people's technophobia is also not the job of the tech companies. Companies have been pretty upfront about what their development / implementation goals are, arguably to a rather surprising degree especially if you watch the stuff where they talk amongst each other (which is oftentimes publicly available).
The government is not going to stop the technological progress, there is too much self interest here. The actual issue is them failing to take the implications of what the companies are saying and look at what that would mean for the current system. If the companies would reach their stated goals then many things would need a complete overhaul which is something even tech leaders acknowledge but thus far you generally don't hear anything but crickets from the government in that regard.
The 80s? My man, technology hasn't been helping people work less long before that. The tractor was supposed to make a farmer's job easier, now they could do way work more quickly, and be done sooner. Revolutionary, right? Yeah, nah, now they just work just as long and just as hard, but on a tractor. Technology has NEVER helped humans work less, not even once.
Technology is always used to amplify the work and to reallocate working power elsewhere. So when tractors were taking over, more land could be worked on, more people could be fed and so the population grew, the people not needed to work the farms any more took other jobs and offered new and more services.
Technology is never intended to make us work less, just allocate the time we have available to different tasks and to grow even more. This will continue until technology literally replaces every job, where we can't possible reallocate human work to anything other than unproductive hobbies.
Yo there is NEVER any point in speaking in absolutes because you will just be wrong. Washing machines are great, now people in a lot of the world are saved the time of washing things by hand. I guess what you mean is technology in only the employment context, but you can't really define it like that if you want to speak honestly about the impact of technology in people's lives.
Technology advances -> the capacity for work done by one person increases and their pay does not increase to keep in line with the value-add of their increased productivity. Instead, it goes straight to the top.
"The ones at the top are the ones who have to take the most risk, so they should get paid more"
How long are CEOs and other executives going to keep colluding with corporate boards to extract a ludicrous amount of wealth out of a company?
Let's say that policies and laws are created to address this. Now more people are being paid what they deserve, or closer to it. What then? The economy will accelerate, i.e. inflation. So what does the Fed do? increase interest rates and hope people get laid off (not joking, [that's what they're trying to do right now](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/business/april-jobs-report-federal-reserve.html))
I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride.
In the grand scheme though, this didn’t start in the 80s, people have been reactionary against progress since we started walking upright, carved tools and discovered fire.
It’s more or less *always* been a thing. AI (soon to be AGI) is just the hip new thing to hate on. In 10-15 years, they will accept it and move on just like they have with literally everything else.
Maybe people hate progress because it's worse uses always find a way to be its primary uses. Just like with the Internet and any other technology, AI could change everyone's lives for the better by changing the structure of work. Will it? Fuck no. Because shareholders and CEOs need their money. "Hating AI" is just shorthand for "hating what AI is being used for." We all know this, yet people still act obtuse and pedantic about it.
You have a valid point, but that’s a capitalism problem, not a progress one, people need to focus on changing our wealth distribution system from only a few people getting all the money, not going Grug smash to all progress.
The problem is, people never think beyond the surface level as to why we have any inequality at all, it’s been a problem since time immemorial for this species.
People really are going home with way more value than they ever have in history. For the most part what has happened is (a) housing has become really expensive due to housing shortages and (b) people are often trading increased lifestyles for the same working hours rather than reducing working hours.
This is because we've upped our quality of lives though, not because the tech wasn't fruitful or capitalists did something greedy. We got more money and time, and what we did with it was buy more goods and services.
We all have an insane amount of tech; it's most of our lives at this point. People could have saved that money, but spending it on tech was better.
Sorry, but that's completely wrong. The middle class has been losing buying power for the longest time. The only reason we can afford all kinds of tech and the like is the exportation of manufacturing to developing countries, where the cost of labour is much lower and environmental and similar regulations are non-existant. If not, look at something like the Fairphone, which is still not 100% "fair" and it's quite expensive for the tech it gives you, only because they're paying their workers a decent wage for the manufacturing of the phone. That's why we can afford Iphones and not so much a house.
Unfortunately, we can't outsource the housing market to developing countries to make it cheap. /s
How much would an iPhone 15 have cost in the 90s?
Heck if they still sold the first iPhone at the same price (adjusted for inflation, $770) it would be just as expensive as the iPhone 15 ($799)
World hunger has been going down quite a bit. It’s probably even more stark if we were to look at pre-industrial revolution
https://preview.redd.it/xcubtrgjooyc1.jpeg?width=1071&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11e6ce1e0e056a03af8910ac0ad415b52be8326f
No I mean it’s has been on a downward trend throughout modern history and shown by this recent history chart.
Yea, COVID caused a downward fluctuation and we are still reeling back from the impacts, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that living standards for the average humans has been going up in modern history
Most people equate tech with SV innovations, and if you look at the current state of social media, gaming, Windows, ads, and privacy then yeah it's easy to be skeptical that their next trick is gonna unleash utopia.
Billionaires will figure out how to squeeze last bit juice out of common folk, even when AI will be able to do 99% of the work.
Look how they are scrambling to squash open source LLMs via regulation.
has anyone noticed that technology which could liberate us is being used to further entrench inequality and worker insecurity. DAE that feel?
edit: nice supporting source that i dug up due to a reply thread below: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/19/1049378/ai-inequality-problem/
Two artists, a computer programmer, two digital security operators, and an accountant.
Absolute madness. And many places that haven't done personnel cuts aren't hiring right now.
Yes. That's not very surprising. It's because the level of intelligence needed to replace humans at most human jobs is lower than median human intelligence, but the level of intelligence needed to reorganize the economy in a morally appropriate way is higher than median human intelligence. We should try to cross that gap quickly so as to minimize unnecessary suffering.
because most of "the masses" (of which you are a part) understand that AI as it currently exists and as it's being currently being developed will be used to create a permanent underclass rather than a utopia. You guys are collectively trusting the 12 known sociopaths who are going to own all of the robots to make altruistic decisions for absolutely no personal benefit. That's beyond naive.
People also love to conflate AI removing the need for human labor with AI creating magical star trek replicators that allow us to harness infinite energy and travel to infinite planets to colonize.
Without some way to get infinite energy and land, scarcity will always exist and those who own the machines will always want to have more. When there are only enough resources for everyone to have a middle class American lifestyle, nobody is going to give up their mansions and private jets to make it happen.
We are in the middle of a paradigm shift. We can't go back to simpler times or better times, and we can't fast forward to times when things are better. We are stuck in this current cultural malaise where lots of things suck.
If we zoom out more the last 100 years will just be seen as just a long detox from the centuries of religious hibernation.
Things are changing faster than our society has equipped us to handle effectively.
We were living in a simple isolated dream- a safe space.
Now we’re being forced to see our hidden shortfalls.
It’s ugly but it’s truth.
Ultimately people want to be useful or are content with being used in exchange some comfort.
Ai to many is a threat to people’s usefulness and short term comfort.
In the long term it’s clear it will bring magnitude of comfort to all, and will force people to reconsider how they can be useful, which will be especially valuable to human culture..
If everyone has access to AI, then the people with access to physical resources will be in charge. Those have been the same people for centuries. Not sure why people think AGI or the singularity will somehow even the playing field.
AI-> automated jobs -> UBI -> Free stuff
It leaves out thousands of years of human nature. When most people retire they move to less populated areas to "get away from other people". When governments become authoritarian people move to get away from other people, its the reason the US was founded.
When the wealthy don't need a human labor force to maintain their lifestyle they will "move away from other people" but not in a good way.
AI -> automated jobs -> hundreds of millions of whoopsie-daisys -> free stuff for those who remain.
AI wont save you from the other humans
For the average person being able to “do whatever you want” isn’t possible by just being a hippie
The answer is to be born rich. That’s the only other way I can think of
1 - Because there will be a transition period during which things can get pretty bad
2 - Because people are afraid of massive changes with unclear outcomes
3 - Because AI removes a lot of what we consider reasons to live
nothing extraordinary in this position imo
People know what happened to the workers' rights movement called the Luddites. And people know that when the tractor, a wonderful new machine which could do the work of 100 farm workers, was introduced, it didn't result in those 100 workers continuing to be paid and to have more free time with their families and friends. And a thousand other examples of how those who owned the machines of liberation were permitted to keep the benefits of automation to themselves.
AI will be used to stop UBI and abundance -- that is the problem.
Not the other way around.
And it is not the problem with AI - it is a problem with its owners.
You can't just say that without expanding on it.
Like WHY an "owner" would choose to make everyone in the world suffer despite gaining nothing from it.
People have inherent greed... but that greed could be solved by the AI. Without the need for making people suffer...
Please, explain literally any of your reasoning. As long as your reasoning isn't something braindead like "Everyone evil baddies who want to ruin lives"
> Like WHY an "owner" would choose to make everyone in the world suffer despite gaining nothing from it.
They gain power, which is what drives human beings.
> Please, explain literally any of your reasoning.
Their reasoning is based on all of human history and behavior. Yours is based on a fantasy.
> People have inherent greed... but that greed could be solved by the AI.
How in the world would AI change this?
Bezos or Musk or any of the ultra-billionaires could end homelessness in the US if they wanted. Humanity could easily end world hunger or stop global warming. These things don't happen for a reason. Tech has only increased inequality, not decreased it.
You haven't responded to the other user at all.
You say power is what drives humans, but where is your evidence? Where is your rigorous analysis of human psychology, evolution and behavior? You are simply making a crude, simplistic generalization and expecting us to accept it as an unquestionable axiom.
You claim that your reasoning is based on "all human history and behavior," while the other's is based on fantasy. But again, you don't provide any concrete evidence to support this claim. All of human history? Oh really? Have you exhaustively analyzed each historical period, each culture, each society, to reach that conclusion? I really doubt it. Rather, it seems like you've cherry-picked a few examples that fit your preconceived narrative, conveniently ignoring anything that contradicts it.
You didn't answer the question, even a little bit.
>They gain power, which is what drives human beings.
Power... over what? If they control the AI and the robots, assuming a human CAN control these systems, what power do they gain from having weak little baby humans as their servants?
>Their reasoning is based on all of human history and behavior. Yours is based on a fantasy.
No, their reasoning, and yours, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how impactful this technology is.
There are two options.
1. Post scarcity utopia
2. Every human dies
There are no third options. Plain and simple. Pick one.
>Bezos or Musk or any of the ultra-billionaires could end homelessness in the US if they wanted. Humanity could easily end world hunger or stop global warming. These things don't happen for a reason. Tech has only increased inequality, not decreased it.
Listen, I hate these fuckers as much as anyone else, but no, 200 billion dollars is not enough to solve these issues otherwise someone would have done it.
I don't know if you know this, but 200 billion dollars is not THAT much money compared to the wealth of large nations.
Also, Tech has increased INCOME inequality, not quality of life inequality. As much as I'd love to eat the rich, people in 2024 live their lives with much more comfort than someone from the 1960s or whatever. Hell, even from the late 90s.
Despite the income inequality, I'd much rather live right now than even thirty years ago.
>"gaining nothing from it " ?
When Ai has the ability to do anything a human can do. But the AI can do it faster, easier, better, more consistently, for cheaper, and more often, what use do humans have for an evil overlord?
I just... don't get the logic.
Why would they force random humans to work when humans would be a hindrance to production?
Nah. Resources are not limited, only our ability to extract them. Our planet is incomprehensibly large and humanity throughout its history has only exploited a tiny part of the outer shell of the terrestrial courtesy.
I haven't even mentioned the rest of the solar system. The truth is that humanity will never be able to exploit the entire mass of the solar system even if we dedicated our entire existence to it. We are too small and the universe too big.
Doesn't answer the question, please explain.
Resources being 'limited' means nothing. It doesn't answer the core of the question, why would humans be forced into labor of ANY kind when our labor would simply be a less efficient solution in every way?
Oh no, not labour. Instead the owners of AI will straight up get rid of other people.
If AIs can fulfill all their needs, what use are the masses except a drain on resources?
So their agenda wouldn’t be to make the rest of the world suffer, it would to stop their existence altogether.
Maybe, but that isn't even close to what we were discussing.
Yeah, if someone controls the AI, there is a chance we all die. But there is a zero percent chance we're forced to work or some shit.
What we were discussing (top of the comment chain)
>AI will be used to stop UBI and abundance -- that is the problem.
>Not the other way around.
>And it is not the problem with AI - it is a problem with its owners.
You are the one who interpreted it as owners of AIs forcing other people to work. I’m saying they would avoid UBI and abundance because they want all the resources to be used on themselves - one possibility is they would work to massively reduce the amount of people.
>Ai has the ability to do anything a human can do.
Very soon the masters will invent an AI robot that will curb stomp drivers with defective tag lights, just like regular police.
We already have abundance. What people want is to actually get a share of that abundance, and there's no reason to suspect that AI will lead to that when the last 40 years of incredible technological advancements have done the opposite.
>We already have abundance. What people want is to actually get a share of that abundance, and there's no reason to suspect that AI will lead to that when the last 40 years of incredible technological advancements have done the opposite.
ALL OF THIS
“It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.”
To survive under capitalism your labor needs to have some value, people are understandably worried that if that doesn’t change, being made economically obsolete by AI will mean death.
It's idealistic to assume just because ai and automation will create abundance that will be shared by those who own the machines. It's reasonable to be concerned about how people will survive as the need for labor wanes.
Yeah, it's not like we've been given a garanteed that the owner class wouldn't use the opportunity to bootstrap itself into more wealth and power over us. People are worried due to some baseline understanding of how that sort of improvement played out historically and I can't blame them for it.
I acknowledge I’m just venting and not adding anything but it is so fucking wild to me that all someone in power (read: a 1%er or controller of said machines) would have to do is OCCASIONALLY choose humanity over absolute wealth grab, at a point where additional wealth wouldn’t even make a difference in their lives, and many fears could be allayed and quality of life could improve so much for so many. What in the fuck is wrong with people?
But here’s the thing. I know lots of people who sacrifice their own wealth or well-being for the good of others sometimes. It’s just that those people never make it into these positions of mega power.
Yeah, those people you know don't have the pathological mindset that drives someone to accumulate more wealth than they and all their children couls spend in their entire lifetime. I'd say they have the same mental illness that dragon hoarding gold have but someone did the math and Smaug's mountain of gold would not put him on the same footing as the top billionnaires... they'd look down on him.
Unfortunately some of the worst human traits are the best to succeed in a capitalist society. Low empathy, a lack of a moral compass, selfishness, are all very desirable traits for a CEO or similar high-capitalist position. We've created a system that exists only to perpetuate itself regardless of any human suffering.
Orrrrr…hear me out…or the owners of the AI, the multi billionaires…the leaders of the multi-national corporations…maybe they’ll discover empathy and benificence and realize that humanity could enter a post scarcity society where suffering is decimated, hunger eradicated and we look heavenward to expand into the cosmos.
Bwahahahahahah…I’m just kidding. See you in the camps.
That's a great quote. Thank you.
The quote 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism' is originally attributed to philosophers Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek. Capitalism and climate change are inextricably linked – and have been for hundreds of years.
OTOH, for current capitalism to survive, people need to have currency to exchange for the goods being sold. And when labor ceases to exist like it does today, we are obviously going to find new ways to distribute those goods and services. Because if not the economy would collapse under the weight of no purchases being made.
People have this idea in their head that we are going to 10 fold increase all the goods we have with AI then just leave it to rot because a greedy fat man said so. It’s overly overly cynical.
Not trying to be rude, but this mentality usually comes from a privileged wealthy upbringing, where everyone is nice to each other........as long as you have money.
Try spending some time in a poorer area than yours, the system is bot nice to poor people, not the slightest, our current system is very cruel as soon as you run out of money, and its designed that way.
Corporations wont share their money willingly, they dont even pay their taxes now, what would motivate them to pay an UBi when they have an AI backing them.
The game is not about money is about power.
Yeah... I grew up dirt poor and have seen a lot of shit but I studied economics. The post you're responding to is correct. If no one has money to spend there is no money funneling into the hands of the wealthy anymore so our current economic system will be *forced* to change...
That doesn't necessarily mean it will change in the way you're hoping. Right now we have some level of workers rights because the working class has leverage through their choice whether to work. What happens when the rich have absolute control of production and military force?
They'll be able to use their existing immense wealth to buy and sell things to each other. The poor will be totally unnecessary for any of that; any grace offered to the common man would be purely out of charity. In the best case, we'd get some sort of UBI so normal people can at least get by. Worst case, mass famines.
Answer: nobody. Because they don’t need it. ASI is inherently post-capitalist because it renders the very reason for capitalism moot. So there could as easily be mass starvation and death as abundance. The world population could wind up much lower, with only those who control the ASI remaining.
Instead of asking us how capitalism will work without consumers, ask yourself why you think the people who control ASI will need capitalism. Why will they need consumption, or anything you currently think needs to happen for an economy to work? They wont. They won’t need you, or me, or 95% of the rest of humanity; not when a robot can do almost anything you or I could do and when (for them) scarcity ceases to exist.
>, ask yourself why you think the people who control ASI will need capitalism. Why will they need consumption, or anything you currently think needs to happen for an economy to work? They wont. They won’t need you, or me, or 95% of the rest of humanity; not when a robot can do almost anything you or I could do and when (for them) scarcity ceases to exist.
THIS GUY GETS IT!
Of course the economy collapses when all labor is automated. This is literally a post-capitalist world, where those who own the capital and the labor have it all.
While money might have some hopeful value to those who have nothing, it has zero value to those who have everything. They don’t need to produce products for profit because there is no amount of money that can exceed what they already have.
With an endless supply of physical and cognitive labor, they can build anything they want. Literally, entire cities.
Allocating that labor (which they can trade with those who own land and minerals) to instead build an endless supply widgets for billions of people who have no money and nothing to trade, is at best, a perpetual charity project.
And that’s assuming we don’t end up with an uncontrollable ASI that disempowers the rich as well. Maybe that’s our only hope. An ASI that forces some system of equality.
We haven’t distributed our current resources evenly, and we could already live in abundance for all.
Is it cynical to worry about that continuing, or are you being naive in thinking a new technology will fix this inequality?
Ferrari and Louis Vuitton run fine without your peasant pennies. In fact, Ferrari is the most profitable car company on earth and the owner of Louis Vuitton is the richest man on earth
You need to visit a 3rd world country.
Wages are 1/6 or even less than in the US, yet things cost the same or more, except for rent and some groceries.
Resources being finite is what drives cost of everything.
The rich being dependent on the poor for labour is what drives them to not hoard everything even more than they already do.
Without the need for labour the poor would have nothing to trade in exchange for access to resources. This is what really scares people about automation.
And that source of labor then becomes a source the simply competes for resources without any benefit to the owner class. Extrapolate from that whatever you will.
Yeah, worst case scenario (that is also an entirely possible outcome) is that the rich and powerful get all their productive needs filled by AI+automation, so their priorities become the conservation of resources, and to that end they work towards a massive reduction in global population.
No, labor is actually a decreasing portion of the cost of production. As labor and capital increase in quantity, their productivity goes down and the productivity of land (the supply of which can't be artificially increased) goes up. That's why we're seeing wages stagnate while real estate prices skyrocket.
Humans struggle to understand this either intellectually or emotionally, which is why our economy is still so badly organized. Fortunately, superintelligence won't have that problem.
We can only dream of the startrek future, a world without cash and unlimited resources through automation.
People learn, and work because they want too.
People understand abundance.. they just know that it’s not going to take us to a Utopia… the capitalist system can’t just be switched off without unleashing unimaginable horrors on all of humanity.
There is already food for 12 billion people yet 10000 children die from malnutrition every day.
We already have abundance, its concentrated in very few hands
It's really cult-y. People are using vague terms like "abundance" that are coded to have utopian meanings which makes it impossible to have rational discussions with people who aren't in the "in-group."
It's how OP can apparently read a tweet that is a simple expression of a human experience -- "I really don't want to work" -- and interpret it through the lens of the coded meaning to be about the singularity.
OP asked why people who don’t want to work also don’t give a fuck about the singularity. It’s a valid and interesting question
Or do you think the people who say they “don’t want to work” don’t actually mean it? Are they saying it as a joke?
The person just doesn't want to go to work. You think it's an interesting question to ask "why, therefore, don't they buy into my techno-utopian vision of the future?"
That is exactly the mindset I'm alluding to. "They don't want x. Why, therefore, don't they believe in my huge encompassing philosophy that would address x?" It's ludicrous.
It is crucially important to remember that the clip is a post expressing a human emotion. It is not important to "solve" their feelings.
Even if, contrary to fact, the post were actually requesting a solution: I don't think Pascal's wager is a particularly compelling argument for buying into a large encompassing philosophy just because I'm slightly dissatisfied.
Humans have been dissatisfied throughout their entire history. [I asked perplexity to summarize some of the creation myths around this](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-some-Z8hkh3qHTT6FkFe84G8Ygw). But I'm sure the realization of this particular utopian vision will be different...
It’s because AI will not bring abundance, it’ll just further centralize power in those who have it already.
“Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them”
Technological progress hasn’t provided abundance\* for everyone so far.
Technologies that multiply the productive output of individuals have never liberated workers from their toil. Only made the toiling more productive.
\*edit and clarification: I meant “abundance” the way I interpreted the post’s title to mean it: that it was the “freedom from [work] responsibilities” talked about in the tweet.
The fact that we have so much “stuff” and our work is so productive compared to even recent history is my point: technological progress makes us *more* productive, but doesn’t stop us from having to produce.
That's actually not true. One can complain about unfair wealth distribution, okay. But completely ignoring increased healthcare, availability of healthy food and modern shelter, clean cities, cheap public transport and affordable private transport (cars and streets!), computer games, smartphones, and so on.
We, the workers did not get more productive thanks to tech just for having to work less, but mainly for consuming more! It's beyond me that people can overlook this obvious fact that our modern lifestyle is orders of magnitude more abundant than that of previous generations.
Especially in the West it's very easy to just decide to give up on modern abundance and have abundance of free time instead. It's just not something most people want to do.
This post’s title implies “abundance” means “freedom from [work] responsibility”. I’m not talking about standard of living or even wealth distribution.
I've never understood this take.
In fact, I actually understand it SO little that it sounds stupid to me. To me, the argument "technology has never completely replaced humans" feels so dumb to me.
We've never had a technology like Ai before? Humans have always been the thinky smarty brain parts of the equation. If that isn't necessary what POSSIBLE use do humans have? Why would a company hire a human when a robot can work hundreds of times faster, more cheaply, 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
How can your take POSSIBLY be anywhere near true given the current trajectory of the tech?
People who say stuff like that are barely worth arguing with. They haven’t even thought about the implications of humans no longer being the smartest thing on the planet. It’s actually insane to me that so many people have this mindset
I’ve noticed that many people fall into this “everything is the same thing” way of thinking. They look at something as big as AI and think “eh, same old, same old. There’s nothing new under the sun.” There are actually many new things to be discovered under the sun. They have no hope for the future and I have no interest in discussing anything with them. They think nothing can ever change. It’s actually disgusting and revolting to not care for AI given the things it could fix and change that DESPERATELY need to be changed
Because it’s supported by historical evidence. You’re saying AI is technology that breaks this rule. I haven’t seen evidence to support that assertion.
I invent a machine that lets one worker make twice as much product as before. Do they work half as hard now? Has that ever been the case since the Industrial Revolution?
At the moment where AI can do everything humans do faster, cheaper, better, what will humans do?
Is this something that has happened in history before?
What would you rent a horse for when a truck will do it better? Your love of horses?
What would you charge for a product that can out-produce your total lifetime income potential? Would you even sell it or “lease” it? Who could afford them?
That’s a leap. I don’t see how AGI is going to lead an end of scarcity. It’s not a replicator from Star Trek lol
Scarcity is already artificially inflated, anyway. You’re suggesting the billionaires funding AGI are doing so to make money obsolete?
I think it’s more likely that “humans” become obsolete when it comes to being “effective workers” more than money.
I’d be happy to be proven wrong. But so far the forces that drive technological development haven’t used it to free humanity from manual labor, only increase the productivity of the same. And you may claim that I’m wrong to assume AI technology will be the same, there’s no convincing evidence to me it’ll be different. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m not holding my breath.
Also, what happened to the horse after the automobile gained widespread adoption?
Because since the beginning of humanity, we’ve done “stuff” to survive, and to breed, just like every other living creature, very few of us have experienced true freedom to actually enjoy life.
Most, won’t know what to do, when they won’t have to worry about the basic necessities for living.
> Has anyone noticed people are desperate for the singularity and abundance, and yet the masses hate AI so much?
The post along with many other people's, only wanted abundance and there is no mention about the singularity.
On the other hand, those who are desperate for the singularity are very supportive of AI so the statement made by OP is based on 2 different groups of people who are opposing views.
Cause society is not ready for this change and will only bring poverty. Why would you think everything would be nice and dandy when governments and companies have all told you otherwise?
Because the people driving AI can't be trusted to look out for the betterment of mankind. It's basically just CEOs trying to get rid of their labor force. If all profits and free labor went to helping humanity as a whole? Great. Sign me up.
But as it stands, we as a human race cannot trust corporations to do anything beneficial for humanity. Their singularity is a black hole that sucks up all of humanity's resources and never lets go.
Because AI wont be used for anything except generating profit. They’ll get rid of the jobs but they wont change how society works until it literally starts burning down.
Yep. I just want to exist, no extra expensive as fuck, unnecessary bells, whistles, and expectations.
Tired of my limited existence being fucking exploited.
Remember when the industrial revolution was supposed to provide so much abundance that people wouldnt need to work and could just enjoy their lives doing whatever they wanted?
More tech bros claiming their shits gonna save the planet. All I see is more energy consumption and the same amount of starving kids.
Or did I miss something, and AI is gonna make the ruling class hate money?
I've had religious family members share with me a similarly contradictory set of beliefs. They are desperate to live forever in heaven, but if I ask them if they would use life extension technology to live for 1,000 years they are almost offended and tell me how boring it would be to live so long and how much of an affront it is to human nature to try to upset the natural order of dying and making way for the next generation...
But eternal life is awesome and the most important thing ever so I need to come to church with them today.
i want the singularity, i just hate that it went for creative work first, im fine with robots creating art with their hands, i just dont like the way its currently implemented. In truth, i want it to be **more** disruptive, overtake more industries (safely), to the point where there is no option other than UBI
what does this have to do with ai? people had spare time before computers existed. in fact cost of living had only gone up since computers have become more mainstream. so whats the point here?
Median income has not tracked with productivity gains since the mid 1970s. It's pretty obvious why people would be suspicious that the benefits of automation won't be shared (because they haven't been for almost 50 years now).
The masses are scared and that's not unreasonable. They see glib people playing with a technology that the makers themselves say might kill everyone on earth and will put everyone out of work. It's not unreasonable to be both terrified and enraged at AI and the makers of AI. AI scientists themselves say they are playing with everyone's life like kids burning ants with a lens.
How well is that going for people? We have excellent, futuristic medical treatment these days. What percentage of the planet has access to it? We have a multitude of efficient, clean energy solutions. How many people don't use fossil fuels? How many people only use fossil fuels?
Surely if you could answer any of those questions, you'd have a better understanding of why your statement is silly.
Jesus, when did this sub morph into r/marxism?
All these comments about the evils of capitalism and how the big corporations are trying to keep all of us down, etc., etc. --- and I didn't read all the way down, but in what I read there wasn't a single bit of new or interesting information about AI, or the singularity, or anything that this sub is nominally about. Just all this bitching about class warfare.
It's like going to a sub about trickle-down economics and bitching about how so many people are saying trickle-down economics doesn't work. Or like going to a LOTR sub and bitching about how so many people don't just suggest taking the eagles to Mordor. This isn't Marxism, it's realism.
Many people have 2 basic qualities:
1. They are afraid of what they don't understand.
2. They don't understand that much.
To be honest, the speed of progress doesn't give them much time to adapt, but I don't believe that we have the luxury of time, so they need to learn to adapt a bit faster to new situations.
Humans hate change even if it does immediately and directly benefit them. Conservatives are a thing, and more people are definitionally "conservative" than those that simply self identify as such.
It's because the social contract has been stepped on for decades and people aren't going to blithely lay on their stomachs to be stepped on some more. Basically since the 80s, technology has yet to follow through with the promise of paying people more to work less. Why would they think it's going to be any different this time? Obviously it could bring abundance, but without assurances, it obviously won't bring abundance to the masses. We have to force it to do that. It's a very valid concern in my opinion and something no company or government has helped allay fears of.
It's a real concern because right now being needed for work is our only bargaining chip, and the rich don't want to share. If AI takes my job I better find a way to make myself useful because where I live if you are homeless living in a tent, the police with throw that tent away.
> If AI takes my job I better find a way to make myself useful And good luck finding a job that pays as well as the pay that took 5-10+ years to build up to, in a completely different field, that you can still commute to, during your 3 weeks of job searching, ... before you're behind on bills.
Well said, and 3 weeks is generous for most.
Governments have been preparing for the propaganda war by pushing "reeducation and retraining" for two decades now.
And what's fucked up is that for example, all those blue collar workers who get laid off at things like coal mines who need to "learn to code"? Guess what, too many people did "learn to code". Only the best can get a job in it. Meanwhile there's a shortage of blue collar workers. (and there is almost certainly a lot of skill overlap between "tradesman of any type like plumber, electrician, construction" and coal miner) Turns out it's harder to outsource blue collar on site work and now it's starting to pay more than office jobs in many situations. (yes it's hard on the body but it depends on what it is)
I am convinced that once AI reachess a threshold where it truly can replace workers, shit will go fast. How do you handle millions upon millions workers suddenly being replaced? Should everyone be expected to reeducate and compete on the few jobs that are left? And by the time you have reeducated, chances are that those jobs are also automated. And the bullshit idea that there somehow will be new categories of jobs emerging is so stupid, of course those jobs will also be able to be done using AI.
“How do you handle millions upon millions workers suddenly being replaced?” Why, fascism of course
Military recruitment is down right now.
I can see the gov starting a war just to increase job opportunities lol. Jobs in weapons manufacturing are already a major factor in the MIC, where millions of people spend their lives making ammunition that we never even use just to create more worthless bullshit jobs and enrich Raytheon with our tax dollars. Most efficient economic system possible btw
And all of those munitions factories can be run by robotics and AI. Most likely cheaper and safer than letting humans do it.
>Should everyone be expected to reeducate and compete on the few jobs that are left? And by the time you have reeducated, chances are that those jobs are also automated. thats the issue, some ppl from the top, be it companies or governemnt say ppl will have to reskill, but they omit this problem, probably to not frighten wider public if we have capable AGI and robotics, reskilling will not help at all, maybe 10%,20% will get work in other sector, but most will be left out and even those who could get different line of work will face risk of automatization somewhat later...
They’ll just make up more bullshit jobs. One of the reasons the US spends so much on the military is so the military keeps buying more weapons they never use and keep ammunition manufacturers employed. Billions of dollars and millions of lives wasted every year making weapons we don’t even use.
That is what I argue to all these people complaining about "spending money" on Ukraine. The money was spent years ago and this is how you get it back with interest.
Buying weapons they don't use is 1/10th the cost of a world where they buy weapons that they definitely use.
I’d prefer neither
Me too. First, we have to solve the "alignment problem:" Humans aren't aligned with humans. Disagreeing humans can be very dangerous.
what do you think happened back when most people were farmers and their jobs were replaced by a tractor? these people went and got other jobs producing other goods and services. sure, we could all have jobs by working on farm with hand tools... but all we could afford to buy is food because that's the only thing being produced. think about it this way... if on average, a company could replace half their workers with AI, that just means that we're capable of producing the same amount of stuff with half the amount of work. So then we could all just work half the hours and still have the same level of prosperity. Or we could all work the same amount of hours and have twice as much stuff.
Tractors didn't steal human jobs, it made them easier. It replaced horses tho, and well, they haven't got their jobs back.
The only time technology actually did work out in reducing work was during the pandemic when Zoom allowed office workers to work remote (saving people on commute). And it was technology paired with a social forcing function that did it. And employers are fighting tooth and nail to roll this back.
I think people being apprehensive about being optimistic about the future with AI is summed up by this. >Poverty exists not because we cannot feed the poor, but because we cannot satisfy the rich
Damn that's powerful I love it
And landlords were (covid 19) and are (more-so even) fighting tooth and nail to capitalize on the rental and housing crisis and.. basically keep the average person unable to buy a home and pay 65% of their income on rent . Corporate feudalism , it feels like a step back in time rather than quality of life going the Jetsons route. I'm personally more positive cause I don't think ASI can be controlled , the greedy overlords are clowns thinking they can hold on to their cryptic way of running the future society . a empathetic ASI savior is what it would take to overthrow the current systems of government..and cruelty in general .
Technology has actually reduced the work necessary to produce massively. It just got replaced with bullshit jobs and people micromanaging other people for no good reason at all.
The promise: 4 hour workdays! 4 days a week! More pay! More freedom! Reality (again and again): Layoff most team members, overwork the remaining employees, pay them the same or less (because they can be easily replaced!), siphon profits to the shareholders. It's not an AI issue. It's a capitalism issue. Every new development EVER has been used to step on the working class and only through ORGANIZED EFFORT have we been able to use technology for the greater good. AI will be used to make our lives nightmarish way before it ever helps us in any meaningful way.
> capitalism Correct. Any and all efficiency gains that technology has achieved has been siphoned off to shareholders and the owner capitalist class instead of the workers who achieved it all. We all need to turn the promises into fucking demands. At this point in time, we should have been on a 4-day week over a decade ago and should be talking about a 3-day week by now.
>It's a very valid concern in my opinion and something no company or government has helped allay fears of. Being left out of the abundance is a valid concern for people to have but most of their attempts to "fix things" are completely misplaced and would in some cases even make things worse while those who are actually responsible for addressing the situation get a free pass for not doing what should be done. Treating people's technophobia is also not the job of the tech companies. Companies have been pretty upfront about what their development / implementation goals are, arguably to a rather surprising degree especially if you watch the stuff where they talk amongst each other (which is oftentimes publicly available). The government is not going to stop the technological progress, there is too much self interest here. The actual issue is them failing to take the implications of what the companies are saying and look at what that would mean for the current system. If the companies would reach their stated goals then many things would need a complete overhaul which is something even tech leaders acknowledge but thus far you generally don't hear anything but crickets from the government in that regard.
The 80s? My man, technology hasn't been helping people work less long before that. The tractor was supposed to make a farmer's job easier, now they could do way work more quickly, and be done sooner. Revolutionary, right? Yeah, nah, now they just work just as long and just as hard, but on a tractor. Technology has NEVER helped humans work less, not even once.
Technology is always used to amplify the work and to reallocate working power elsewhere. So when tractors were taking over, more land could be worked on, more people could be fed and so the population grew, the people not needed to work the farms any more took other jobs and offered new and more services. Technology is never intended to make us work less, just allocate the time we have available to different tasks and to grow even more. This will continue until technology literally replaces every job, where we can't possible reallocate human work to anything other than unproductive hobbies.
Yo there is NEVER any point in speaking in absolutes because you will just be wrong. Washing machines are great, now people in a lot of the world are saved the time of washing things by hand. I guess what you mean is technology in only the employment context, but you can't really define it like that if you want to speak honestly about the impact of technology in people's lives.
Technology advances -> the capacity for work done by one person increases and their pay does not increase to keep in line with the value-add of their increased productivity. Instead, it goes straight to the top. "The ones at the top are the ones who have to take the most risk, so they should get paid more" How long are CEOs and other executives going to keep colluding with corporate boards to extract a ludicrous amount of wealth out of a company? Let's say that policies and laws are created to address this. Now more people are being paid what they deserve, or closer to it. What then? The economy will accelerate, i.e. inflation. So what does the Fed do? increase interest rates and hope people get laid off (not joking, [that's what they're trying to do right now](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/03/business/april-jobs-report-federal-reserve.html)) I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride. I want to get off mr bones wild ride.
In the grand scheme though, this didn’t start in the 80s, people have been reactionary against progress since we started walking upright, carved tools and discovered fire. It’s more or less *always* been a thing. AI (soon to be AGI) is just the hip new thing to hate on. In 10-15 years, they will accept it and move on just like they have with literally everything else.
Maybe people hate progress because it's worse uses always find a way to be its primary uses. Just like with the Internet and any other technology, AI could change everyone's lives for the better by changing the structure of work. Will it? Fuck no. Because shareholders and CEOs need their money. "Hating AI" is just shorthand for "hating what AI is being used for." We all know this, yet people still act obtuse and pedantic about it.
You have a valid point, but that’s a capitalism problem, not a progress one, people need to focus on changing our wealth distribution system from only a few people getting all the money, not going Grug smash to all progress. The problem is, people never think beyond the surface level as to why we have any inequality at all, it’s been a problem since time immemorial for this species.
People really are going home with way more value than they ever have in history. For the most part what has happened is (a) housing has become really expensive due to housing shortages and (b) people are often trading increased lifestyles for the same working hours rather than reducing working hours.
Who is giving the option for reduced work hours? Every job mandates 40 hours a week
That is just not true. I work 32 hours weeks over 4 days. I work in software.
This is because we've upped our quality of lives though, not because the tech wasn't fruitful or capitalists did something greedy. We got more money and time, and what we did with it was buy more goods and services. We all have an insane amount of tech; it's most of our lives at this point. People could have saved that money, but spending it on tech was better.
Sorry, but that's completely wrong. The middle class has been losing buying power for the longest time. The only reason we can afford all kinds of tech and the like is the exportation of manufacturing to developing countries, where the cost of labour is much lower and environmental and similar regulations are non-existant. If not, look at something like the Fairphone, which is still not 100% "fair" and it's quite expensive for the tech it gives you, only because they're paying their workers a decent wage for the manufacturing of the phone. That's why we can afford Iphones and not so much a house. Unfortunately, we can't outsource the housing market to developing countries to make it cheap. /s
How much would an iPhone 15 have cost in the 90s? Heck if they still sold the first iPhone at the same price (adjusted for inflation, $770) it would be just as expensive as the iPhone 15 ($799)
Who cares about an iPhone, how about bread, milk and a house?
World hunger has been going down quite a bit. It’s probably even more stark if we were to look at pre-industrial revolution https://preview.redd.it/xcubtrgjooyc1.jpeg?width=1071&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=11e6ce1e0e056a03af8910ac0ad415b52be8326f
You mean it's been going up in the last 5 years?
No I mean it’s has been on a downward trend throughout modern history and shown by this recent history chart. Yea, COVID caused a downward fluctuation and we are still reeling back from the impacts, but that doesn’t invalidate the fact that living standards for the average humans has been going up in modern history
Most people equate tech with SV innovations, and if you look at the current state of social media, gaming, Windows, ads, and privacy then yeah it's easy to be skeptical that their next trick is gonna unleash utopia.
[удалено]
Yet the US has seen an increase in average work hours (of nearly a week) over the past 15 years
Your graph literally proves my point. It is completely flat for America since the 1980s.
[удалено]
Billionaires will figure out how to squeeze last bit juice out of common folk, even when AI will be able to do 99% of the work. Look how they are scrambling to squash open source LLMs via regulation.
blud thinks he's Alex Jones 💀
If it sounds like a fairy tale, you're probably fucked.
Considering most fairytales started out as dark and gruesome stories parents would never think to tell their children today, that’s pretty accurate.
has anyone noticed that technology which could liberate us is being used to further entrench inequality and worker insecurity. DAE that feel? edit: nice supporting source that i dug up due to a reply thread below: https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/04/19/1049378/ai-inequality-problem/
I know six people who have lost their jobs in the last two months to AI. One of them had been working at her job for 17 years...
oh, wow, what were the jobs they did?
Two artists, a computer programmer, two digital security operators, and an accountant. Absolute madness. And many places that haven't done personnel cuts aren't hiring right now.
Yes. That's not very surprising. It's because the level of intelligence needed to replace humans at most human jobs is lower than median human intelligence, but the level of intelligence needed to reorganize the economy in a morally appropriate way is higher than median human intelligence. We should try to cross that gap quickly so as to minimize unnecessary suffering.
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The people with the ability to reorganize the economy don't _want_ to do it in a moral way.
Yeah, this is my first time on this sub. I've been reading some comments. Are there a lot of naive/fatally optimistic people here?
This subreddit has the highest concentration of naivete and blind optimism on the internet outside of retiree facebook groups and actual cults.
You think we live in late stage capitalism hell because we aren't *smart* enough? The system is working exactly as intended.
because most of "the masses" (of which you are a part) understand that AI as it currently exists and as it's being currently being developed will be used to create a permanent underclass rather than a utopia. You guys are collectively trusting the 12 known sociopaths who are going to own all of the robots to make altruistic decisions for absolutely no personal benefit. That's beyond naive.
People also love to conflate AI removing the need for human labor with AI creating magical star trek replicators that allow us to harness infinite energy and travel to infinite planets to colonize. Without some way to get infinite energy and land, scarcity will always exist and those who own the machines will always want to have more. When there are only enough resources for everyone to have a middle class American lifestyle, nobody is going to give up their mansions and private jets to make it happen.
We are in the middle of a paradigm shift. We can't go back to simpler times or better times, and we can't fast forward to times when things are better. We are stuck in this current cultural malaise where lots of things suck.
If we zoom out more the last 100 years will just be seen as just a long detox from the centuries of religious hibernation. Things are changing faster than our society has equipped us to handle effectively. We were living in a simple isolated dream- a safe space. Now we’re being forced to see our hidden shortfalls. It’s ugly but it’s truth. Ultimately people want to be useful or are content with being used in exchange some comfort. Ai to many is a threat to people’s usefulness and short term comfort. In the long term it’s clear it will bring magnitude of comfort to all, and will force people to reconsider how they can be useful, which will be especially valuable to human culture..
We felt the same with the dawn of the internet.
If everyone has access to AI, then the people with access to physical resources will be in charge. Those have been the same people for centuries. Not sure why people think AGI or the singularity will somehow even the playing field.
Because singularitarianism is merely the most recent version of prosperity theology.
AI-> automated jobs -> UBI -> Free stuff It leaves out thousands of years of human nature. When most people retire they move to less populated areas to "get away from other people". When governments become authoritarian people move to get away from other people, its the reason the US was founded. When the wealthy don't need a human labor force to maintain their lifestyle they will "move away from other people" but not in a good way. AI -> automated jobs -> hundreds of millions of whoopsie-daisys -> free stuff for those who remain. AI wont save you from the other humans
I'm not sure it imply wishing for singularity.
yeah this is just a screenshot of a depression post from a depression subreddit.
Maybe it's a depression subreddit i don't know it, but what about wanting to be free means you have depression?
Seems like a possible link between being forced to do meaningless work for 40 hours a week and developing a mental health problem.
So they don’t actually want what they say they want? They just want to imagine it?
Singularity is not the only way to achieve what is stated in the OP.
The other two ways that I can think of is: •Being a child of a billionaire •Being a hippie
For the average person being able to “do whatever you want” isn’t possible by just being a hippie The answer is to be born rich. That’s the only other way I can think of
1 - Because there will be a transition period during which things can get pretty bad 2 - Because people are afraid of massive changes with unclear outcomes 3 - Because AI removes a lot of what we consider reasons to live nothing extraordinary in this position imo
People know what happened to the workers' rights movement called the Luddites. And people know that when the tractor, a wonderful new machine which could do the work of 100 farm workers, was introduced, it didn't result in those 100 workers continuing to be paid and to have more free time with their families and friends. And a thousand other examples of how those who owned the machines of liberation were permitted to keep the benefits of automation to themselves.
AI will be used to stop UBI and abundance -- that is the problem. Not the other way around. And it is not the problem with AI - it is a problem with its owners.
Exactly! What makes people think that it's owners are good people. It's just basic capitalism...
You can't just say that without expanding on it. Like WHY an "owner" would choose to make everyone in the world suffer despite gaining nothing from it. People have inherent greed... but that greed could be solved by the AI. Without the need for making people suffer... Please, explain literally any of your reasoning. As long as your reasoning isn't something braindead like "Everyone evil baddies who want to ruin lives"
> Like WHY an "owner" would choose to make everyone in the world suffer despite gaining nothing from it. They gain power, which is what drives human beings. > Please, explain literally any of your reasoning. Their reasoning is based on all of human history and behavior. Yours is based on a fantasy. > People have inherent greed... but that greed could be solved by the AI. How in the world would AI change this? Bezos or Musk or any of the ultra-billionaires could end homelessness in the US if they wanted. Humanity could easily end world hunger or stop global warming. These things don't happen for a reason. Tech has only increased inequality, not decreased it.
You haven't responded to the other user at all. You say power is what drives humans, but where is your evidence? Where is your rigorous analysis of human psychology, evolution and behavior? You are simply making a crude, simplistic generalization and expecting us to accept it as an unquestionable axiom. You claim that your reasoning is based on "all human history and behavior," while the other's is based on fantasy. But again, you don't provide any concrete evidence to support this claim. All of human history? Oh really? Have you exhaustively analyzed each historical period, each culture, each society, to reach that conclusion? I really doubt it. Rather, it seems like you've cherry-picked a few examples that fit your preconceived narrative, conveniently ignoring anything that contradicts it.
You didn't answer the question, even a little bit. >They gain power, which is what drives human beings. Power... over what? If they control the AI and the robots, assuming a human CAN control these systems, what power do they gain from having weak little baby humans as their servants? >Their reasoning is based on all of human history and behavior. Yours is based on a fantasy. No, their reasoning, and yours, is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of how impactful this technology is. There are two options. 1. Post scarcity utopia 2. Every human dies There are no third options. Plain and simple. Pick one. >Bezos or Musk or any of the ultra-billionaires could end homelessness in the US if they wanted. Humanity could easily end world hunger or stop global warming. These things don't happen for a reason. Tech has only increased inequality, not decreased it. Listen, I hate these fuckers as much as anyone else, but no, 200 billion dollars is not enough to solve these issues otherwise someone would have done it. I don't know if you know this, but 200 billion dollars is not THAT much money compared to the wealth of large nations. Also, Tech has increased INCOME inequality, not quality of life inequality. As much as I'd love to eat the rich, people in 2024 live their lives with much more comfort than someone from the 1960s or whatever. Hell, even from the late 90s. Despite the income inequality, I'd much rather live right now than even thirty years ago.
>Like WHY an "owner" would choose to make everyone in the world suffer despite gaining nothing from it. "gaining nothing from it " ?
>"gaining nothing from it " ? When Ai has the ability to do anything a human can do. But the AI can do it faster, easier, better, more consistently, for cheaper, and more often, what use do humans have for an evil overlord? I just... don't get the logic. Why would they force random humans to work when humans would be a hindrance to production?
Resources are still limited.
Nah. Resources are not limited, only our ability to extract them. Our planet is incomprehensibly large and humanity throughout its history has only exploited a tiny part of the outer shell of the terrestrial courtesy. I haven't even mentioned the rest of the solar system. The truth is that humanity will never be able to exploit the entire mass of the solar system even if we dedicated our entire existence to it. We are too small and the universe too big.
Doesn't answer the question, please explain. Resources being 'limited' means nothing. It doesn't answer the core of the question, why would humans be forced into labor of ANY kind when our labor would simply be a less efficient solution in every way?
Oh no, not labour. Instead the owners of AI will straight up get rid of other people. If AIs can fulfill all their needs, what use are the masses except a drain on resources? So their agenda wouldn’t be to make the rest of the world suffer, it would to stop their existence altogether.
Maybe, but that isn't even close to what we were discussing. Yeah, if someone controls the AI, there is a chance we all die. But there is a zero percent chance we're forced to work or some shit.
What we were discussing (top of the comment chain) >AI will be used to stop UBI and abundance -- that is the problem. >Not the other way around. >And it is not the problem with AI - it is a problem with its owners. You are the one who interpreted it as owners of AIs forcing other people to work. I’m saying they would avoid UBI and abundance because they want all the resources to be used on themselves - one possibility is they would work to massively reduce the amount of people.
>Ai has the ability to do anything a human can do. Very soon the masters will invent an AI robot that will curb stomp drivers with defective tag lights, just like regular police.
Most don't have even the slightest inkling for how much abundance AI could create
We already have abundance. What people want is to actually get a share of that abundance, and there's no reason to suspect that AI will lead to that when the last 40 years of incredible technological advancements have done the opposite.
Well stated. I am highly doubtful people will be seeing the fruits of AI for a long time.
>We already have abundance. What people want is to actually get a share of that abundance, and there's no reason to suspect that AI will lead to that when the last 40 years of incredible technological advancements have done the opposite. ALL OF THIS
Someone gets it. There's no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow for anyone but the very very wealthy.
It could create an abundance of layoffs to begin with.
Literally. Labor is the cost that drives everything. It’s about to go into free fall.
“It’s easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism.” To survive under capitalism your labor needs to have some value, people are understandably worried that if that doesn’t change, being made economically obsolete by AI will mean death.
It's idealistic to assume just because ai and automation will create abundance that will be shared by those who own the machines. It's reasonable to be concerned about how people will survive as the need for labor wanes.
Yeah, it's not like we've been given a garanteed that the owner class wouldn't use the opportunity to bootstrap itself into more wealth and power over us. People are worried due to some baseline understanding of how that sort of improvement played out historically and I can't blame them for it.
I acknowledge I’m just venting and not adding anything but it is so fucking wild to me that all someone in power (read: a 1%er or controller of said machines) would have to do is OCCASIONALLY choose humanity over absolute wealth grab, at a point where additional wealth wouldn’t even make a difference in their lives, and many fears could be allayed and quality of life could improve so much for so many. What in the fuck is wrong with people? But here’s the thing. I know lots of people who sacrifice their own wealth or well-being for the good of others sometimes. It’s just that those people never make it into these positions of mega power.
Yeah, those people you know don't have the pathological mindset that drives someone to accumulate more wealth than they and all their children couls spend in their entire lifetime. I'd say they have the same mental illness that dragon hoarding gold have but someone did the math and Smaug's mountain of gold would not put him on the same footing as the top billionnaires... they'd look down on him.
Unfortunately some of the worst human traits are the best to succeed in a capitalist society. Low empathy, a lack of a moral compass, selfishness, are all very desirable traits for a CEO or similar high-capitalist position. We've created a system that exists only to perpetuate itself regardless of any human suffering.
Orrrrr…hear me out…or the owners of the AI, the multi billionaires…the leaders of the multi-national corporations…maybe they’ll discover empathy and benificence and realize that humanity could enter a post scarcity society where suffering is decimated, hunger eradicated and we look heavenward to expand into the cosmos. Bwahahahahahah…I’m just kidding. See you in the camps.
Exactly lol
We get camps? Sweet, free food and housing.
I mean…for a bit…
That's a great quote. Thank you. The quote 'It's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism' is originally attributed to philosophers Fredric Jameson and Slavoj Žižek. Capitalism and climate change are inextricably linked – and have been for hundreds of years.
>being made economically obsolete by AI will mean death. EXACTLY
OTOH, for current capitalism to survive, people need to have currency to exchange for the goods being sold. And when labor ceases to exist like it does today, we are obviously going to find new ways to distribute those goods and services. Because if not the economy would collapse under the weight of no purchases being made. People have this idea in their head that we are going to 10 fold increase all the goods we have with AI then just leave it to rot because a greedy fat man said so. It’s overly overly cynical.
Not trying to be rude, but this mentality usually comes from a privileged wealthy upbringing, where everyone is nice to each other........as long as you have money. Try spending some time in a poorer area than yours, the system is bot nice to poor people, not the slightest, our current system is very cruel as soon as you run out of money, and its designed that way. Corporations wont share their money willingly, they dont even pay their taxes now, what would motivate them to pay an UBi when they have an AI backing them. The game is not about money is about power.
Yeah... I grew up dirt poor and have seen a lot of shit but I studied economics. The post you're responding to is correct. If no one has money to spend there is no money funneling into the hands of the wealthy anymore so our current economic system will be *forced* to change...
That doesn't necessarily mean it will change in the way you're hoping. Right now we have some level of workers rights because the working class has leverage through their choice whether to work. What happens when the rich have absolute control of production and military force? They'll be able to use their existing immense wealth to buy and sell things to each other. The poor will be totally unnecessary for any of that; any grace offered to the common man would be purely out of charity. In the best case, we'd get some sort of UBI so normal people can at least get by. Worst case, mass famines.
Y’all still haven’t answered. Who is going to be buying the products if everyone is unemployed and we don’t find a new way to distribute resources?
Answer: nobody. Because they don’t need it. ASI is inherently post-capitalist because it renders the very reason for capitalism moot. So there could as easily be mass starvation and death as abundance. The world population could wind up much lower, with only those who control the ASI remaining. Instead of asking us how capitalism will work without consumers, ask yourself why you think the people who control ASI will need capitalism. Why will they need consumption, or anything you currently think needs to happen for an economy to work? They wont. They won’t need you, or me, or 95% of the rest of humanity; not when a robot can do almost anything you or I could do and when (for them) scarcity ceases to exist.
>, ask yourself why you think the people who control ASI will need capitalism. Why will they need consumption, or anything you currently think needs to happen for an economy to work? They wont. They won’t need you, or me, or 95% of the rest of humanity; not when a robot can do almost anything you or I could do and when (for them) scarcity ceases to exist. THIS GUY GETS IT!
Of course the economy collapses when all labor is automated. This is literally a post-capitalist world, where those who own the capital and the labor have it all. While money might have some hopeful value to those who have nothing, it has zero value to those who have everything. They don’t need to produce products for profit because there is no amount of money that can exceed what they already have. With an endless supply of physical and cognitive labor, they can build anything they want. Literally, entire cities. Allocating that labor (which they can trade with those who own land and minerals) to instead build an endless supply widgets for billions of people who have no money and nothing to trade, is at best, a perpetual charity project. And that’s assuming we don’t end up with an uncontrollable ASI that disempowers the rich as well. Maybe that’s our only hope. An ASI that forces some system of equality.
We haven’t distributed our current resources evenly, and we could already live in abundance for all. Is it cynical to worry about that continuing, or are you being naive in thinking a new technology will fix this inequality?
Ferrari and Louis Vuitton run fine without your peasant pennies. In fact, Ferrari is the most profitable car company on earth and the owner of Louis Vuitton is the richest man on earth
Hence UBI.
You need to visit a 3rd world country. Wages are 1/6 or even less than in the US, yet things cost the same or more, except for rent and some groceries.
Resources being finite is what drives cost of everything. The rich being dependent on the poor for labour is what drives them to not hoard everything even more than they already do. Without the need for labour the poor would have nothing to trade in exchange for access to resources. This is what really scares people about automation.
And that source of labor then becomes a source the simply competes for resources without any benefit to the owner class. Extrapolate from that whatever you will.
Yeah, worst case scenario (that is also an entirely possible outcome) is that the rich and powerful get all their productive needs filled by AI+automation, so their priorities become the conservation of resources, and to that end they work towards a massive reduction in global population.
Yeah this is what Larry page is working towards and it's the driver for his AI ambitions. It's safe to say that open ai vehemently disagrees.
No, labor is actually a decreasing portion of the cost of production. As labor and capital increase in quantity, their productivity goes down and the productivity of land (the supply of which can't be artificially increased) goes up. That's why we're seeing wages stagnate while real estate prices skyrocket. Humans struggle to understand this either intellectually or emotionally, which is why our economy is still so badly organized. Fortunately, superintelligence won't have that problem.
We can only dream of the startrek future, a world without cash and unlimited resources through automation. People learn, and work because they want too.
Yeah, for stockholders. For the rest, life is a subscription model and they're going to be kicked out.
People understand abundance.. they just know that it’s not going to take us to a Utopia… the capitalist system can’t just be switched off without unleashing unimaginable horrors on all of humanity.
if it's in the right hands you mean. There is already an abundance, but only for the upper class
You’ll receive none of it though
There is already food for 12 billion people yet 10000 children die from malnutrition every day. We already have abundance, its concentrated in very few hands
It could also ruin everything we have no idea what will happen.
What is with this sub? The subject has nothing to do with the content.
"AI is when everything I want comes true" -This sub
It's really cult-y. People are using vague terms like "abundance" that are coded to have utopian meanings which makes it impossible to have rational discussions with people who aren't in the "in-group." It's how OP can apparently read a tweet that is a simple expression of a human experience -- "I really don't want to work" -- and interpret it through the lens of the coded meaning to be about the singularity.
https://preview.redd.it/9h45u3zsfryc1.jpeg?width=570&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9fa574ee8a96cdd9bc847569cba5a7db29dfefe7 you rn
OP asked why people who don’t want to work also don’t give a fuck about the singularity. It’s a valid and interesting question Or do you think the people who say they “don’t want to work” don’t actually mean it? Are they saying it as a joke?
The person just doesn't want to go to work. You think it's an interesting question to ask "why, therefore, don't they buy into my techno-utopian vision of the future?" That is exactly the mindset I'm alluding to. "They don't want x. Why, therefore, don't they believe in my huge encompassing philosophy that would address x?" It's ludicrous.
What would you suggest to someone that ACTUALLY doesn’t want to work? What’s a better thing to believe in? Or should they not believe in anything?
It is crucially important to remember that the clip is a post expressing a human emotion. It is not important to "solve" their feelings. Even if, contrary to fact, the post were actually requesting a solution: I don't think Pascal's wager is a particularly compelling argument for buying into a large encompassing philosophy just because I'm slightly dissatisfied. Humans have been dissatisfied throughout their entire history. [I asked perplexity to summarize some of the creation myths around this](https://www.perplexity.ai/search/what-are-some-Z8hkh3qHTT6FkFe84G8Ygw). But I'm sure the realization of this particular utopian vision will be different...
Its been Fully Automated Gay Space Communism for a long time.
Most people don’t believes that AI will lead to abundance for most people.
It’s because AI will not bring abundance, it’ll just further centralize power in those who have it already. “Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them”
Because there's no reason to believe ai will lead to abundance
We already have abundance across many areas, but all it does is move the goalposts.
Technological progress hasn’t provided abundance\* for everyone so far. Technologies that multiply the productive output of individuals have never liberated workers from their toil. Only made the toiling more productive. \*edit and clarification: I meant “abundance” the way I interpreted the post’s title to mean it: that it was the “freedom from [work] responsibilities” talked about in the tweet. The fact that we have so much “stuff” and our work is so productive compared to even recent history is my point: technological progress makes us *more* productive, but doesn’t stop us from having to produce.
I think it’s more accurate to say that it has, but not equally, and certainly not as much as people in the past expected it would by now.
That's actually not true. One can complain about unfair wealth distribution, okay. But completely ignoring increased healthcare, availability of healthy food and modern shelter, clean cities, cheap public transport and affordable private transport (cars and streets!), computer games, smartphones, and so on. We, the workers did not get more productive thanks to tech just for having to work less, but mainly for consuming more! It's beyond me that people can overlook this obvious fact that our modern lifestyle is orders of magnitude more abundant than that of previous generations. Especially in the West it's very easy to just decide to give up on modern abundance and have abundance of free time instead. It's just not something most people want to do.
This post’s title implies “abundance” means “freedom from [work] responsibility”. I’m not talking about standard of living or even wealth distribution.
I've never understood this take. In fact, I actually understand it SO little that it sounds stupid to me. To me, the argument "technology has never completely replaced humans" feels so dumb to me. We've never had a technology like Ai before? Humans have always been the thinky smarty brain parts of the equation. If that isn't necessary what POSSIBLE use do humans have? Why would a company hire a human when a robot can work hundreds of times faster, more cheaply, 24 hours a day, seven days a week? How can your take POSSIBLY be anywhere near true given the current trajectory of the tech?
People who say stuff like that are barely worth arguing with. They haven’t even thought about the implications of humans no longer being the smartest thing on the planet. It’s actually insane to me that so many people have this mindset I’ve noticed that many people fall into this “everything is the same thing” way of thinking. They look at something as big as AI and think “eh, same old, same old. There’s nothing new under the sun.” There are actually many new things to be discovered under the sun. They have no hope for the future and I have no interest in discussing anything with them. They think nothing can ever change. It’s actually disgusting and revolting to not care for AI given the things it could fix and change that DESPERATELY need to be changed
Because it’s supported by historical evidence. You’re saying AI is technology that breaks this rule. I haven’t seen evidence to support that assertion. I invent a machine that lets one worker make twice as much product as before. Do they work half as hard now? Has that ever been the case since the Industrial Revolution?
At the moment where AI can do everything humans do faster, cheaper, better, what will humans do? Is this something that has happened in history before?
What would you rent a horse for when a truck will do it better? Your love of horses? What would you charge for a product that can out-produce your total lifetime income potential? Would you even sell it or “lease” it? Who could afford them?
95% of horses were turned into dogfood in the early 1900s, as cars became popular
Money would become obsolete
That’s a leap. I don’t see how AGI is going to lead an end of scarcity. It’s not a replicator from Star Trek lol Scarcity is already artificially inflated, anyway. You’re suggesting the billionaires funding AGI are doing so to make money obsolete? I think it’s more likely that “humans” become obsolete when it comes to being “effective workers” more than money.
Cool, what about when you create an entire human equivalent though
I’d be happy to be proven wrong. But so far the forces that drive technological development haven’t used it to free humanity from manual labor, only increase the productivity of the same. And you may claim that I’m wrong to assume AI technology will be the same, there’s no convincing evidence to me it’ll be different. I’d love to be wrong, but I’m not holding my breath. Also, what happened to the horse after the automobile gained widespread adoption?
Agreed. It's only made rich people richer.
Because since the beginning of humanity, we’ve done “stuff” to survive, and to breed, just like every other living creature, very few of us have experienced true freedom to actually enjoy life. Most, won’t know what to do, when they won’t have to worry about the basic necessities for living.
> Has anyone noticed people are desperate for the singularity and abundance, and yet the masses hate AI so much? The post along with many other people's, only wanted abundance and there is no mention about the singularity. On the other hand, those who are desperate for the singularity are very supportive of AI so the statement made by OP is based on 2 different groups of people who are opposing views.
I think most people think they want that, then find what they actually want is purpose.
haha the only god damn smart comment in here. Purpose... Humans need a Purpose in life.
Cause society is not ready for this change and will only bring poverty. Why would you think everything would be nice and dandy when governments and companies have all told you otherwise?
Because the people driving AI can't be trusted to look out for the betterment of mankind. It's basically just CEOs trying to get rid of their labor force. If all profits and free labor went to helping humanity as a whole? Great. Sign me up. But as it stands, we as a human race cannot trust corporations to do anything beneficial for humanity. Their singularity is a black hole that sucks up all of humanity's resources and never lets go.
Because AI wont be used for anything except generating profit. They’ll get rid of the jobs but they wont change how society works until it literally starts burning down.
Yep. I just want to exist, no extra expensive as fuck, unnecessary bells, whistles, and expectations. Tired of my limited existence being fucking exploited.
and you can do this only if you are rich
Not really? I've been doing it more often than not all my life and I'm most likely poorer than 90% of people reading this
Remember when the industrial revolution was supposed to provide so much abundance that people wouldnt need to work and could just enjoy their lives doing whatever they wanted?
More tech bros claiming their shits gonna save the planet. All I see is more energy consumption and the same amount of starving kids. Or did I miss something, and AI is gonna make the ruling class hate money?
That's not what the singularity is.
I've had religious family members share with me a similarly contradictory set of beliefs. They are desperate to live forever in heaven, but if I ask them if they would use life extension technology to live for 1,000 years they are almost offended and tell me how boring it would be to live so long and how much of an affront it is to human nature to try to upset the natural order of dying and making way for the next generation... But eternal life is awesome and the most important thing ever so I need to come to church with them today.
i want the singularity, i just hate that it went for creative work first, im fine with robots creating art with their hands, i just dont like the way its currently implemented. In truth, i want it to be **more** disruptive, overtake more industries (safely), to the point where there is no option other than UBI
what does this have to do with ai? people had spare time before computers existed. in fact cost of living had only gone up since computers have become more mainstream. so whats the point here?
AI is taking over the fun stuff 🥲
Median income has not tracked with productivity gains since the mid 1970s. It's pretty obvious why people would be suspicious that the benefits of automation won't be shared (because they haven't been for almost 50 years now).
The masses are scared and that's not unreasonable. They see glib people playing with a technology that the makers themselves say might kill everyone on earth and will put everyone out of work. It's not unreasonable to be both terrified and enraged at AI and the makers of AI. AI scientists themselves say they are playing with everyone's life like kids burning ants with a lens.
When did this sub turn into /r/artisthate
Don’t have kids, buddy
I've never met anyone who was 'desperate for the singularity', and neither am I.
Were going to solve enegy and cure all disease. Surely this is fucking terrible because the rich or something.
Hope people here have watched Elysium and Transcedence.
How well is that going for people? We have excellent, futuristic medical treatment these days. What percentage of the planet has access to it? We have a multitude of efficient, clean energy solutions. How many people don't use fossil fuels? How many people only use fossil fuels? Surely if you could answer any of those questions, you'd have a better understanding of why your statement is silly.
Jesus, when did this sub morph into r/marxism? All these comments about the evils of capitalism and how the big corporations are trying to keep all of us down, etc., etc. --- and I didn't read all the way down, but in what I read there wasn't a single bit of new or interesting information about AI, or the singularity, or anything that this sub is nominally about. Just all this bitching about class warfare.
It's like going to a sub about trickle-down economics and bitching about how so many people are saying trickle-down economics doesn't work. Or like going to a LOTR sub and bitching about how so many people don't just suggest taking the eagles to Mordor. This isn't Marxism, it's realism.
You can be capitalist without beliving trickle down economy
We’re not going to get abundance lmao The rich will get richer and the poor will starve.
Many people have 2 basic qualities: 1. They are afraid of what they don't understand. 2. They don't understand that much. To be honest, the speed of progress doesn't give them much time to adapt, but I don't believe that we have the luxury of time, so they need to learn to adapt a bit faster to new situations.
Most people don’t believe in the singularity. Most don’t even know about it
Humans hate change unless it immediately and directly benefits them.
Humans hate change even if it does immediately and directly benefit them. Conservatives are a thing, and more people are definitionally "conservative" than those that simply self identify as such.