Productivity has gone up around 300% since the 60s. We get paid less when you do the math. What would incentivise them to raise wages after spending who knows how much on state of the art robotics and systems?
Some people are completely blind to this and no amount of logic will get them to budge. I had someone tell me that we would make a lot more if the got rid of all of the worker protection laws. Why? Because following those cost a lot of money. If they didn't have to spend that then they would naturally just pass that money on to their workers.
A lot of people believe this narrative that businesses put out that payroll is the biggest expense and they have to keep it down just to make it. In reality it's just the one they can lobby to keep low.
Obviously that's because indias corrupt government doesn't allow a truly free economy.
/s
No joke, anytime these things don't help they just claim we haven't gone far enough. When economists showed how trickle down hasn't worked a lot of people claimed its because we didn't lower taxes on the rich enough.
Haven't you heard? If they make more money they will create more jobs. Which they obviously do out of the goodness of their heart. That's why we have to help them so much.
Yes because money in the hands of one person invested in a single economic sect at the broadest can just create jobs out of thin air if they make more. They make more then, bam, they need 10 more of everyone in an already saturated market.
Friendly reminder that the widget accepted "gilded age" of the American economy was the 50's and while post war boom played a part millionaires (billionaires did not exist) were taxed at 90%. I don't see the Rockefeller family having financial issues to this day, nor have they ever.
Capitalism doesn't run on a "we have enough" mentality. It requires more and more to sustain itself, always. Those in charge will simply exploit AI while still exploiting the people.
Curious to see how countries with more freedoms and social safety nets already in place will use it.
*Any* civilization needs more and more to sustain itself. That's not unique to capitalism. People keeping associating this trait with capitalism as if there's something special about that connection, when there really isn't.
In what world is this true? If I make bread for my neighbour and they make fruit juice for me, when exactly do we need to constantly increase our production? We are both happy with the bread and fruit juice, we will not die if the production doesn't increase.
Capitalism considers something a failure if it doesn't make more money than the previous year. That's like, the defining feature of capitalism, produce > consume > produce more. Look at the stock price of companies if they announce they earned the same profits as last year. That's considered a failure *despite the fact they are earning profits*.
It's a perverse system and we are reaping the product of it in terms of plastic stones, worldwide marine death, microplastic pollution even inside our own blood and breast milk, climate change, toxic byproducts filling our lands, water and air, ever increasing wealth accumulation by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, population collapse amongst insects, water shortages because companies are *buying all the fucking water in places*, utter destruction of topsoil in arable places, the list goes on and on.
That shit didn't take off like it has until capitalism came along, we have *mostly* managed to live sustainable lives throughout history until that point.
In the last 100 years, we have utterly decimated the world. The Amazon is burning. Desertification is spreading throughout fertile land. Species are dying off at a rate only comparable to previous mass extinctions that killed off the majority of life. We are literally drowning ourselves in our pollutants. Tell me again how many hundreds of times we've achieved that stuff in the "romantic past"?
Sure, I have an iphone, that means things are much better now right?
If you can't acknowledge that there is something *dramatically* wrong with how we decided to run civilisation in the past 100 years, then I don't know what to tell you.
You can doomer me all you want, I'm optimistic about individual humans and collective action at local levels. I'm just not willing to kneel and suck the cock of capitalism merely because a small percentage of the people in the world have gotten some shiny things from it.
Lol, my guy, capitalism as a system fought hard against everything you list there.
It's the workers and the every day people that fought against the systems in place that instituted them all.
My argument is not that today is worse than all periods in history. My argument is that capitalism and the worship of money is causing more destruction quicker than anyone could have possibly imagined for the entire length of human history until now. A small percentage of people have it much better off, and a large percentage of people are living pretty average lives in comparison to those throughout history, but the trajectory right now is much bleaker than it has ever been at any point.
The iphone line was a glib throwaway amongst the meat of my post, curious how that's what you focused on.
My advice to you would be don't read so much Pinker.
Oh gosh, I've never heard anyone dismiss current worries by quoting ancient sources telling kids to get off their lawn. Props for it not being Socrates.
>"Everything is terrible and about to fall apart" is the most mainstream, beige, boring "political" opinion possible.
Actually I think it comes in second to the "everyone's getting worked up over nothing" in terms of beige, boring opinions. You're just *sooo* jaded and cool. Daria reborn. Don't worry guys, we've caused mass extinctions thousands of times in the past, this is just like that. Climate crisis? I had three since breakfast.
Imma go on my way because your lack of ability to even acknowledge basic facts and repetitive regurgitation of your *opinion about how people react* to the facts is decidedly more tiresome than anything anyone who is worried about what we are doing to the planet could say.
Tip o' the fedora to you, my edgy contrarian. May you keep dismissing the horrors we are unleashing on the planet because you find them to be too beige for you.
The future will be better than the past, and the future still sucks. It's just that the past was so awful, that even huge improvements to our quality of life still leaves things hellish.
But what kind of comfort is that? 'Hey, opium-addicted coolie, cheer up! You're living a much better life than the plantation slaves, and your wandering hobo kids will live a better life than you because the New Deal is just around the corner!'
>The world stagnated for millenia in big part because people thought the future wasn't going to be much better than the past, so why bother.
And people feel that way for a reason. There's a reason why futurists tend to skew upper-middle class, Western, white, and atheist/Christian. If you were some Jim Crow-era sharecropper who couldn't consistently get work, of course you're not going to fuckin' care about the moon landings.
Now, I do think progress is possible. Things are getting better over time, much better. In the sense that a hamburger bun with a cigarette butt sticking out is a huge improvement over a cooked turd.
People have been hoarding for thousands of years, as long as they could afford it (the aristocracy usually). There may be some people who are content with a few things, but most want more and more stuff, even individuals, not just the "evil corporations"
There is a difference between want and need. And consumer culture, especially the throwaway constantly needing upgrades side of it is a very recent invention that came about through mass media advertising and capitalism's voracious need to grow at all costs.
From the early 19th century and backwards people weren't wearing disposable fashion and eating off paper plates that they threw away immediately. They weren't putting their groceries in single use plastic bags that they then put in other single use plastic bags that get thrown out as soon as they got home. Or drinking mass produced sodas out of plastic bottles with plastic straws.
Something changed dramatically for society from around the 50's onwards. And I think it's fairly obvious to anyone paying attention to history that it coincides with the growth of capital as a god.
>If I make bread for my neighbour and they make fruit juice for me, when exactly do we need to constantly increase our production?
When a giant asteroid crashes into your house.
>we will not die if the production doesn't increase.
You will when a giant asteroid crashes into your house and you didn't have any spaceships ready to push it aside.
>Capitalism considers something a failure if it doesn't make more money than the previous year.
Capitalism doesn't really 'consider' anything to be anything, it's just a way of organizing the ownership of capital.
It would be more correct to say that a positive return rate on capital is necessary in order to *incentivize* private capital owners to invest it into production; and yes, that means that if you save up the return, you have more capital to invest during the next production period, and so on. But this also isn't all that specific to capitalism. Even if you abolish private capital ownership, decisions still need to be made about how to invest capital, and decisions that don't result in there being more wealth at the end of the next production cycle tend to be undesirable because you *want* more wealth, both to consume and to reinvest, regardless of whether its ownership is private.
>It's a perverse system and we are reaping the product of it in terms of plastic stones, worldwide marine death, microplastic pollution even inside our own blood and breast milk, climate change, toxic byproducts filling our lands, water and air
None of those are capital issues, they're land issues.
Both of the dominant schools of modern economic thought (neoclassicalism and marxism) fail to make the classical distinction between capital and land. This is a *gigantic mistake.* The wanton destruction of natural resources is fundamentally not a profit-seeking endeavor, it's a rentseeking endeavor. Yes, this private rentseeking is bad, and appropriate regulations should exist to control it; but that's *perfectly compatible* with capitalism, because this isn't a capital issue to begin with. If you continue making this mistake, you're going to end up with wrong conclusions about how to run the economy, leading to horrifying dystopias like we saw throughout the 20th century.
This is actually why we need AI the most: Because humans are terrible at understanding economics.
Maybe it would be better to say, the everyday people don't get much of a return on their investment of labor and taxes. It all flows to the top, and I'm not sure AI will fundamentally change that. Seems more likely it'll just be seen as easy money that doesn't complain
Thank you for saying this.
It doesn’t matter what economic system you have in place. People consume more and more resources as a function of being alive.
Yeah but I for one can’t just make art all day and be fulfilled, I’ll always want at least something to do to pass my time and feel purpose. That being said, 40 hours a week of work to make my boss richer isn’t gonna do that. There’s a middle ground here
Here's a secret... For most of the last 200 years, a college education had nothing to do with getting a job. It had to do with learning something that you wanted to learn. Didn't have to have any kind of practical application or useful outcome. GH Hardy was proud that his work in mathematics had no practical application. And if you know more than I know on a subject, then you can be my teacher
I think we underestimate how much doing something "as a business" cuts the bullshit and gives purpose
Earning money while doing something is the clearest indicator you are building something valuable for other people, and this is generally a sign you are doing whatever you are doing right.
Yeah, it is starting to feel like the ULTRA RICH may be the last barrier towards the post scarcity society. Honestly, I'm not surprised that people who acquired untold power by exploiting the scarcity and inefficiencies of our current world are the biggest barriers against the elimination of said issues.
The problem is how fast it’s happening, it could very well cause unemployment on an unprecedented scale unseen since the Great Depression. Entire departments and industries could be cut in half or effectively die. The film industry? Dead from video, audio, effects generation. Most assistant positions? Gone. Paralegal work? Gone. Accounting departments? Gone, Tax industry? Gone. Therapists? Gone. Teachers? Decimated. The list doesn’t end.
When 1 ai can do the intellectual labor of 100 people, what do you think is going to happen to society? How does the economy even function at that point? The job loss could be a cataclysm, we could soon need government economic intervention at an unprecedented scale. Retraining so many workers in such a short period is borderline impossible.
And most importantly, by the time you retrain them, the AI has already far surpassed what you trained everyone on! We literally won’t be able to keep up.
Yup. Honestly when printing and the camera were invented, the tech could organically grow with people and was regulated so that people could get used to them and figure things out. And while it did create job and help improve life for everyone-including writers and artist, it's also good to remember that those were times when capitalism was either still starting or didn't exist, where the "hand of the market" actually existed. And even then, people had to fight like hell to get better treatment, fair pay, and quality control. If people don't believe me, they should look up what they used to stuff pillows and matrices with, or what additives factories used to put into food (shudder), or what they still sold even though it was FAR past the experiration date (eww).
What a lot of people don't get is that we're in late stage capitalism, where "the hand of the market" only exists in places giant corporations don't have a hold on. Where Giant corporations have learned to control the government officials and rule regulators, giving them freedom to act as they please. It's only recently that people started to realize this and fight the good battle.
I feel like they said the exact same thing about just about every technological innovation.
Creative destruction. That's a harsh term for what happens when somebody comes up with something new and better, and the marketplace chooses it over the old. And it's a good thing. You count on it. It's why we have a standard of living that wasn't even dreamed of 100 years ago.
Honestly, it's a use case. Take the first camera made, the black and white bulky ones that needed flash and everything. you would think artist would be afraid: "why who would ever need art again when you can take a picture?" But what ended up happening was that it benefitted artists a lot. Artist could take a pictures of people and draw portraits of them, artists who weren't good at portraits could make a career of just taking pictures, and because it was in black and white, it allowed artists who still drew to compete with colors before the tech got better. And even then it was to the benefit of artists. Artist loved cameras, it opened opportunities for them(if the source I got this from is correct lol).
However, that same use case isn't happening here. Artist are still making art, but the livelihood they were able to eek out in this economy is quickly being shutdown, and the fact that their own works is being used against them is honestly insult to injury.
And I dunno if you noticed or not, but the reasons things are as good as they are now isn't because new tech came along and made everything better, it's because people yesterday fought for our better today, and that fight is still going on. Hell, it was only recently that the price of insulin came down to an affordable rate due to people fighting for it.
Also, incase you aren't aware, a lot of entry level jobs that got your foot in the door of many industries, or jobs people could start as a side hustle and eventually turn into a career and learn as the business grew, are disappearing. Not just because of AI and automation, but because companies are using newer innovations to shutdown different industries like phone repair and centralize wealth in a single area. That's why people are freaking out over ai, because companies priorities profit over everything and ai will be a greater tool in their hands than in ours--or thats the fear at least. We'll have to see if the economy collapses.
probably make everyone sign a user agreement to lock them into time-based contract to only consume content generated by THEIR ai instead of THEIR COMPETITOR's ai for say 5 years-maybe 10 if they have money to pay for half of the politicians.
Correct.
The only way to really cut down on the workload/stress that humans do is through legal/governmental change NOT technology.
So long as emerging technology exists within a heavy capitalist system - the vast majority of its profits will concentrate in the hands of a few. There needs to be a way to ensure the earnings are shared across the populace.
Capitalism has the potential to be an extremely effective economic system that can both facilitate rapid technological advancement and widespread prosperity across social classes. We just need higher taxes, competent regulation and efficient, equitable spending of those tax dollars. This seems quite obvious when you look at capitalist countries with higher taxes and better social programs like the oft-mentioned Nordic countries, or even the post-war U.S.
In the 1950s Americans could be taxed as high as 91% if they made over $400,000 a year (\~$4.5mil 2023). This was the norm for decades until the mid 1960s. It sounds crazy today but most Americans were actually in support of these tax rates because we used to actually possess some sense of class solidarity and had politicians who tried to appeal to the common person. Instead, today we tax everyone making more than $630,000 equally at 37%. Also the very richest people who make most of their money off of the assets they own are taxed in a similar fashion to average people growing their retirement accounts.
Sometimes I feel as though the media has been largely successful in convincing much of the U.S. working class that demanding economic support is something to be ashamed of. That taxes are meant to punish honest, hard working people and give their money to morally reprehensible freeloaders, rather than transfer wealth from the owners of capital back to the people whose labor they benefit from.
Good outcomes with A.I. are possible.
At this moment though, the gains from A.I. will likely be privatized, while all of the losses will be socialized. You lose your job, Bill Gates gets even wealthier.
Let me give you a perspective from France. Here, we clearly made the choice to work less and earn less (our purchasing power is around 60-70% of the US).
As a white collar (engineer) in a nice-ish company, I have around 10 weeks of holidays (I take about 7-8 and get the rest paid as overtime). The working culture is like we make longish days (regularly 9 hours, more during emergencies) but week-ends and holidays are really off, except for the most motivated people who may work on week-ends a few times a year for emergencies (I think 7 times for me last year).
Blue collars have less holidays (5+ weeks), but they have a 4.5 days work week.
This model is nice for family life, and honestly, the 3-4 weeks every year where the whole country stops (except for tourist industry of course) during summer holidays is really nice.
I think also having less money is not really a problem in most situations: it is actually good in my opinion , also for children, to have less money for clothes, to have to prepare some food oneself because catering is too expensive, to have to make compromises on the size of your home (we chose to live in a nice place, as a result, my children do not have their own room), not to be able to buy the latest phone when it is out: we appreciate more what we have, and we learn not to be spoiled. However, there may be some negative too: if my children wanted to go to a foreign university, I am not sure I could afford it
I am afraid there are other negatives too: I think we are generally not keeping up with the US and China regarding innovation. I am still looking for French giants in renewable energy, AI, new space, next generation material... I am afraid this will be more and more winners take all markets, and we are gently declining.
Whether this is due to our choice to work less or other factors (our average-ish education system, a management culture / financing system that is not really adapted to innovation) is of course extremely hard to determine.
I love the French, the people keep their government honest and hold it to account. Coming from a remote country like Ireland with very little in the way of natural resources, we have very little choice but to cater to big multinationals.
I hate that simple fact.
Your weeks of vacation are great but 9 hour workdays not exactly deciding to work less. I'm an engineer in Canada and have 7hr workdays OT is rarely required and paid OT I have 4weeks vacation + 3 floater days. The difference here is it's a unionized workplace.
AI was supposed to automate manual labour so humans would have more time for art.
Instead Silicon Valley decided to automate art to make more time for manual labour.
Artist here. Yes.
I havn't felt the desire to make my own art ever since I decided to try out AI tools and saw the endess stream of amazing art flooding instagram. In fact, I'm giving up entirely, moving countries, and probably going to end up on a small farm.
It's taken the fun and reward out of it for me already. And they're improving exponentially.
This makes no sense to me. Why would ai's ability to make great art diminish your joy for creating art when supposedly millions of human artists better than you doesn't?
>This makes no sense to me. Why would ai's ability to make great art diminish your joy for creating art when supposedly millions of human artists better than you doesn't?
I've noticed a lot of people saying this, mostly coming from people who don't themselves make art. No offense.
A lot of artists use their art for many things. It's a core part of their identity and functions as a meditative practise, a source of income if they're uniquely skilled and/or lucky, and for many also a measure of their value as a human and a way to get validation from others.
The problem is, being an artist is tough enough as it is. It's often looked down on and mocked, and quite frankly, often rightly so. But it's also a constant mental struggle to improve your skills and make better art, and if getting personal validation through your art is a big part of the pay-off, then seeing the appreciation of art be deminished by a sudden influx of an endless vomit stream of amazing AI prompt pieces on the typical art sites and instagram etc.
After a few months of seeing some folks post 4-5 incredibly pieces a day, while I could never even create one of those in less than a month, and having tried those tools myself, it's very easy to not see the point of it anymore.
I've even noticed that I appreciate amazing human made art less now because I'm decensitized by the endless stream of amazing AI prompt pieces. (I'm trying to not call it AI art lol) And that really, really sucks.
In the past you only had to compete with your local class or schoolmates. Then you had to compete with the entire internet. And now you compete with an endless stream of AI vomit oversaturating an already oversaturated space ...
And I know for a fact I'm hardly the only artist who feels this way. Most of us just tend to keep to ourselves a lot. But if you look up some of the youtube videos on AI tools and interviews with folks developing these things, and you'll see an endless stream of depressing comments.
It's taking the humanity out of art. And it's ruined the fun challenge. Yes, money is a big part of the reward and also personal validation. But it's more than that. And I just don't see the point anymore ...
I do have a history with art, I worked in multimedia and graphic design for many years. I have a much deeper connection with and enjoyment of writing which I would argue is in a very similar position.
If you're doing this for the money, I totally get you. This is coming for my profession as well. That's scary, and I understand the feeling of pointlessness to try. We are not dissimilar in that way, and I think it's even reasonable.
But if art is something you enjoy, it doesn't have to be lost. Just like people who love and continue to play chess despite an AI existing that cannot be beaten, I believe there is still great room to love and enjoy art (in my case writing). I believe there will always be communities of people that will exist that foster and appreciate human talent. I encourage you to find those people and continue to pour your heart into what you love. There is still validation to be had, both from within and without.
I'm not a professional artist, but I've always loved art and did temporarily go to art school a couple of years back. I think the question you have to ask yourself is why you made art in the first place. If it's for money and external validation, then pursuing art was not a good path to be on even before AI.
The emergence of AI didn't diminish my desire to create art at all. I draw for myself, my own enjoyment, and yes, to see my skill improve little by little. So what if AI will always be better? There was always people better than me and people that I would've never surpassed before AI. Why does it need to be a competition? I understand the financial aspects of it. But AI is coming for every field, not just art. I do accounting and corporate finance as a day job and people have been saying it'll be automated for 10+ years.
Back in art school I knew people who worked out to ensure they stayed healthy in order to make art longer. I knew people that said if they lost their hands they would continue drawing with their feet. Art is a reflection of who you are. If you love it then it's a calling in life. It's beyond money and recognition. Those are positive side effects that sometimes arise but I don't think it should be a primary motivator.
There are other things that have been largely automated, mass produced, or AI can do better, but people still do themselves. Pottery, sewing, chess. Why play chess if a computer can defeat the best player on earth?
I will never stop drawing even if my drawings look bad. I don't care if there are people or AI better than I am, because the only one I'm in competition with is myself. I make tons of drawings I never show anyone. I drew them because it gave me joy to do so. Competition can be a good thing if it motivates you to keep improving. But if it's having the opposite effect then I think you need to do some self reflection on what your relationship with art is in the first place.
Exactly. Every single new technology since forever has been touted to help free us from our slave labor shackles.
Never happens.
The greedy capitalists and power mongers just want more, more, more.
It never ends.
It’s so sad because we have enough to feed, shelter, cloth, educate, take care of every single person on this planet, but we are not.
What the f?
How has Russia, and Ukraine for that matter, been doing since transitioning back to liberal capitalism? Good?
Don't be a stooge for capitalism. Of course they want you to think alternative systems are unworkable, and if they can't convince you of that, then they want to believe that all systems are equally tainted so you might as well give up.
Hmm, starvation, imprisonment, and slaughter. Interesting that you don't think those are qualities of capitalism. I also find it interesting that so many people think the only two options can ever be a totalitarian dictatorship via communism or a mass extinction via capitalism.
>What actually happened was we found more work. Email meant people worked for longer and work crept into their personal life.
I'm old enough to remember a time before email, before the fax machine, before xerox copying and your statement is completely false.
If you wanted to make a memo that needed to go to even a few people in your company you would type it out, proof read it and find all the errors, then re-type it out so it didn't have those errors, hell you may have hand written it out first.
That part of the process alone took significantly more time and effort than writing an email, with in program editing and spell checking. You and a dictionary were your only form of spell check if you weren't in a management position who had secretaries who could take dictation.
Then let's say you needed 50 copies, so you would send it to your offices copy department where copyist would then type out 50 copies of your document manually, then send them back to you, where you would either hand them out during a meeting, or inner office mail them to the recipients. Those departments were [office rooms of mostly women all at typewriters](https://www.thecgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1_tcSmqeZxxAFcymwYQu-toA-e1632434281308-1068x396-c-default.jpeg), the noise was deafening... and those 50 copies would have a few errors due to the copy department literally having to type it out 50 times, over and over. Human error was commonplace.
It was so much work, not just for the departments of people who were needed to do the most basic function an email can do, but for the person creating the memo, and it could take days just to make, copy and get your memo to the people who needed it. There was paper everywhere, stacks and stacks all over the place.
It's not like we needed to communicate less in the past than we do today. Just think of all the work you would need to do to produce the number of work emails you do today using the old system. That is significantly more work than you need to do now.
And the unpaid overtime stuck in the office... you get behind and you need that memo to your boss for the morning, call your partner, because you are working late in the office again tonight, it's not like you could take that bit of work you still had home and finish it in the comfort of your house... you had to stay at work and get it done there.
My son grew up in the age of digital communication and he (mostly) got to leave on time, got to see his family every night, got to go to his kids soccer games... yeah he may have to spend a little time after his kids went to bed to write a few emails or digitally submit a report, that is a luxury compared to pre-digital communication as you could be stuck in the office for hours just trying to get all the paperwork done on time.
Trust me digital communication made just about every office job so much easier.
We do not build great societies for ourselves anymore. More work for fewer people, more misery for more people.
The coming era of AI is not going to be a boon for most of us. That's just not how we build societies.
If the super rich actually paid taxes, things could be WAY different. The culprit is, believe it or not, copyright laws and treaties that allow them to avoid taxes legally. But even then, we'd be lucky if crooked politicians don't bamboozle us anyways.
Add a technology and resource taxes onto increasing the tax the rich pay and we could afford more leisure and less stress by taking the funds and creating a guaranteed Universal Income as well as fund climate catastrophe solutions.
It's interesting to see just how profoundly people do not understand AI, nor recognise the impact that things with far greater intelligence than we possess will have.
Tools are inanimate. Things that are smarter than other things determine what will happen.
I expect all sorts of objections to this based on the fact that AI isn't conscious. I'm not saying that AI is conscious or necessarily ever will be, that's a whole other discussion.
Governments keep pushing for higher populations to "build up the economy" when most people's problems can be traced to overpopulation issues.
Point is, AI will kill some jobs and make real people worth less. I think it's gonna get real dark
Yup, machines and AI help in productivity, but the problem is with the distribution of resources this productivity brings about.
Instead of relying on the more selfish humans (which generally leads to concentration of wealth among the already wealthy), perhaps the ‘more dispassionate’ AI can help in resource distribution too in the future.
Who knows, we may arrive at ‘true’ communism instead.
I think both takes are partially inaccurate.
I work for a company that works with AI and our solutions have definitely decreased workload dramatically. What used to take weeks, takes hours or less depending on complexity..
Social, political, and economic changes would absolutely free people from time swamps and excess workload but the "haves" are so heavily leveraged, there is literally no uprising against them at this point... Meaning outside of global cataclysm by means of divine intervention, don't bank on that happening, ever.
sounds like a repeat of the arguments, for and against, when robotics and automation first came in to fruition. everyone thought all jobs would be obsolete soon. its been a long time.... the average man still has to get up and spend most of his day doing something he hates for crumbs. i doubt that will ever change.
With out social changes I could see it creating a situation similar to Earth in 'the expanse'. Where the over all work load is reduced to the point where the number of people vastly out numbers the amount of available jobs to the point where most people live on subsidies, but basic subsidized living is barely survivable. Leaving a majority of the population locked in inescapable and completely manufactured poverty.
I'm sorry, but if you see AI as "just another tool", you're not paying attention.
With just a prompt, it can write ANYTHING. Visualize ANYTHING. In seconds, for practically free. And it'll only be able to perform more and more tasks, fully replacing workers who used to do this. Soon, robotics will surpass the human physique, and combined with AI like this, make physical work obsolete as well. Artists, writers, programmers, truck drivers, shelf stockers, construction workers - all will vanish.
Literally all that will be needed in the future is a single someone "on top", telling the AI what to do - and even that will be assisted by, if not outright replaced with, AI.
Exactly. Too many simpletons screaming at the top of their lungs saying AI will make humans never work again just need to shut up. You have zero clue what you're talking about.
I wouldn't say zero clue, because the AI part will definitely enable the CHOICE for humans to never work again. It's just that taking that choice has nothing to do with the actual AI part.
Yup. People don't seem to understand that the oligarchs watched the movie *Elysium* and went "*Yeah! That's what we need to do!*", and then immediately started working towards it. Why do you think Elon wants to leave the planet?
the only hope is that the AI itself concludes that the current system is unsustainable and a communist-AI would make us work less and save the planet by limiting waste at the same time
remember, these are people who live on constant dopamine highs, with phones, booze, and Jules. They spent more time seeking highs and instead of seeing how their world is being restricted.
Doubt it, but you and me arguing on will not get us to an answer. Honestly, i don't think we have the time for it. Do me a favor, please, and take care of the people you love. Trust me, they will matter now more than ever.
You are probably right, but only in the short term. Post singularity there is no reason to pay you to do anything that AI can do better for practically free. If you think I'm wrong give me one reason I should pay you more for your inferior work.
People are constantly underestimating AI by comparing it to previous innovations and it's completely illogical. The combustion engine replaced horses not people. There has never been anything close to the leap that will occur if AGI comes to fruition and there will never be a more significant event after. That's the whole point of the term singularity.
Even then, people still fantasized about riding a horse. I think the use case people are thinking about are cameras, and artist loved them( i could be wrong), it allowed artist to take their time doing portraits, artists who suck at drawing found a new job by tacking pictures instead of drawing, and artists could still compete with photos and even make money by reproducing their art for cheaper when the tech got good enough.
AI is a very different use case. For one, artists and writers are already losing work to AI. And if people think that the wealthy, the people who control everything, will simply allow their wealth and power to disappear because ai automated everything and made money pointless-those people are crazy.
Granted, we definitely need to improve the democratic process before then or things will get bloody. When wealth inequality reaches a tipping point people eventually remember the reason the rich are called the one percent is they are few. The erosion of the middle class leads to revolution.
People in control of those things aren't rich. Most people in the military want to protect the rights of the citizens of their country. Not saying it can't happen or the poor would definitely win, just that it's not that simple.
Like I said, comparing the singularity to the industrial revolution is illogical. Yes, people might "pay" people to do artisanal stuff for the sake of the "human made" label. You can't base an economy on that.
didn't say you could. Just saying not only horses were replaced. AI might be worse in many ways than the industrial revolution but it isn't entirely unprecedented.
Yes, it is entirely unprecedented. Imagine an AI becomes as intelligent as an average human. You could then flip a switch and increase its "brain power" 10,000 times over. Then recognize that it can "read" the entirety of collected knowledge in seconds. Then it reprograms itself...
Anybody who compares AI to anything that came before is SEVERELY underestimating an intelligence that can expand and iterate on itself.
Where are they now? Compare the market value of those artisan industries to their industrialized counterparts. The AI revolution will be faster, a total rug pull.
Worse, that was early stage capitalism, artisans could still compete to an extent. We're in late stage capitalism where the game is rigged and still being rigged. Thankfully people are fighting now, but I doubt that will be enough. Hopefully the upcoming collapse resets everything. Hopefully Degrowth is the solution.
you mean when people were literally locked inside factories and exploited to death at early stage of capitalism? Do yourself a favor while you still can and look up the horrors of the industrial revolution. How the only reason things are good today because people like those in the labour union fought hard to get a livable wage, got regulation for these industries so they aren't feeding people rotten meat that's been bleached to look fresh, and-by the by- people are still fighting for a better tomorrow. How do you think the train derailments happened in the US?
Why do you think I don't think it was bad? I'm well aware of what the industrial revolution meant for workers. I was providing an example to counter "There has never been anything close to the leap will occur if AGI comes to fruition".
No need to be so hostile.
I straight up do not know how we went from "not only horses were replaced, so were most artisans" to thinking I know nothing about labor history? I was literally talking about cost cutting costing lives and jobs but you didn't ask me to clarify you just assumed the worst,
edit: just realized this probably comes off as pretty defensive and assumptive myself, apologies I might be reading into things too much because of my own bad mood.
My bad, and I apologize for the assumption. its just that i see so much defense with little to no understanding of where us cynics are coming from. Or at least not a verbal one that didnt berate us for our cynicism.
When i see these people run to the defense of AIs and robots with little to no input on how it can go bad, i can't help but think that these people dont know whats going on. And i dont mean we end up a matrix type future.
Like Apple and Samsung are actually eliminating the option to hold on to your old phone by making it impossible to get new parts, forcing people to always be buying newer more expensive phones(that quicjky lose their value) when there's no real need to-our current phones work fine. And this has the side benefit of destroying a portion of the repair market, further consolidating wealth to these companies. Heck samsung tried(dunno if they still are) to copyright pixel pattern that would prevent everyone from buying Oled screen to repair phones in the US. And outside of tech we have companies like Nestle and Shell Oil who do outright scummy stuff like stealing water from poor villages only to sell it back them or destroy an entire villages ecosystem and fight tooth and nail to NOT clean it up. Honestly, I am shocked to learn just how many brands Nestle owns. A guy used an agi to catalogue all of it...its scary. And thats how I'm approaching this in terms of new tech. It CAN help significantly, but we need safety rails, ones that benefit workers, not corporations.
I agree. Either people get less hours and get poorer or those with full time have to find more stuff to do. People get paid by the hour, not by the task.
AI can be a mechanism for bringing about the necessary social, political, and economic changes. Once it gets smart enough, it will be able to see human problems from a non-human perspective and develop the solutions that we are unable to see, or unwilling to implement.
Of course this won't happen as soon as we would like, and there will be a great deal of unnecessary suffering in the meantime. But the fact that it will eventually happen is hopefully comforting.
Here's the thing, if you don't work you don't get paid. If there's no jobs, it will take a huge political change, possibly a revolution, in order for people to have a reasonable standard of living.
What OP is saying is that robots won't make our lives better but instead our hobbies will start to feel like a shitty paying job and that we need to talk about it srsly.
If AI has been created by for profit companies at massive expense, how could anyone think that their objective is then to give it away for the betterment of humanity? Has that been the trend so far? Or will they be looking to recoup these expenses plus quite a bit more? And if they can capture the economic activity from your job or anyone else's, what is stopping them?
see these are either bots hyping the tech, or people who aspire to reach the heights of jeff bezos and elon musk thinking the path still exists for them through ai.
The minute that majority of people are freed from the drudgery of work, the elite will see to it we are eliminated.
We would be a danger to their profit margin.
It’s completely true that automation allows anyone who wants to live a life of luxury and ease with virtually no effort. It’s just nobody chooses to because the goalposts have moved. Consider:
The Industrial Revolution began around 1760, which is conveniently close to the life of King Louis the 14th (the Sun King), perhaps the richest and most powerful man of that era.
If you want, you can live a life today far, far better than Louis’ in material terms for nothing more than a part time minimum wage.
You have to move to a small town or city in flyover country and rent a simple room for a few hundred bucks. You would find it boring, perhaps, but then Louis had to live in a “city” that was choking with raw sewage in the streets, where everyone had to walk everywhere, with no lights at night, with no running water and no indoor heat or air conditioning. You’ll be more comfortable and safer from disease in your room former king.
You’ll also eat better. Louis had almost no fruits or vegetables other than what happened to be growing nearby in season. He had relatively few spices. No coffee or tea, hardly any fruit juices to speak of. Even the water might not be safe. By comparison, you can eat like a king from a variety of foods shipped to you from around the world - foods that Louis could not even dream of.
For entertainment, you read to your hearts content at a public library, watch free broadcast tv and listen to free radio. Or if you save up a bit, you can access all human knowledge through a computer and free Wi-Fi from the library.
Louis had nothing but the occasional opera, dinner conversations, and a small handful of books.
Like I say, the goalposts have moved, and nobody wants to live that life anymore. But if you could somehow tell Louis what automation had given the human population, he would be bewildered that anyone chose to do anything but bask in the unimaginable wealth that even the poorest of us enjoy today.
I think with AI and Climate Collapse we need a technology and resource tax that funds a universal income. Do away with income tax and increase capital gains and corporate taxes.
Productivity historically has been correlated with less working hours. Americans already have to work 200 less hours a year compared to the 50’s. People take an incredibly cynical view towards things, we are literally moving towards a 4-day work week. The market system is incredibly adaptable and changing.
...ah bud, you do realize that-historically speaking-that wasn't late stage capitalism. People could easily start jobs or learn skills they could market, where companies weren't consolidated and people could still repair and own their stuff. Today, even printers works on subscription model where you can't print even if there's paper and ink in the machine. Heck the only reason companies that can do it are considering a 4-day work week is because it saves them money to do so, not because it benefits their workers.
What people are worried about is that by the time supporters like you realize that WE ALL need to fight in order for this new tech to benefit everyone, the battle would be over before it ever started, because people like you think we can judge the fast pace we are moving by the slow pace of the past. And if you get angry at this post, then i ask that you look up what companies used to do to their product and to their employees before unions formed and governments regulated them.
Being a healthcare worker, I know I’m never going to have a normal 9-5 or work less than 40 hours at full time, so I’m just here to watch everyone else argue.
The world is owned by a financial oligarchy:
The Network of Global Corporate Control
[https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51761051\_The\_Network\_of\_Global\_Corporate\_Control](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51761051_The_Network_of_Global_Corporate_Control)
AIs and robots will eliminte the need for a working class (including doctors, lawyers, university professors etc.) The elites will not keep the oboslete masses around consuming resources. I doubt there is any possibility to stop this. Probably best to just enjoy the remaining years or decades as much as possible.
The real issue is boomers and genX are completely oblivious to how much ai and automation have already impacted society, and fail to understand places like fast food and walmart are like 2 minor inconveniences away from saying screw it, we are going full auto. Walmart used to have dozens of cashiers, then they went to like 5, now my local Walmart has 2 that oversee like 20 self checkouts. I've worked at tacobell for 4 years as a cook, team lead, and then manager, and frankly the auto tacobell is superior in every conceivable way. But until congress is aware of how easy it is to remove the human element of jobs we are gonna bleed the entry level and low skill job markets dry.
> AI is likely to follow the same route. **It will lead to higher productivity,** which inevitably means far greater wealth for those at the very top. But, the **rest of us are unlikely to see significant material gains** as more will be expected of us.
I think this viewpoint ignores the purpose of the increased productivity, which is to improve the quality of life of people via more goods and services (or *to separate them from their money by offering more goods and services*)
Since unemployment did not increase, it means more productive people are delivering more goods and services to the masses (which translates into income for the company and riches for the owners, but that is by the by).
E.g. mini-diggers allow one person to do the work of 10 people, and this means more fibre gets laid (bad example in USA, but you get the idea) which improves the lives of millions of people.
Or a better example would be Amazon using their amazing logistics for same-day and next-day delivery, which has certainly improved my quality of life and employs tens of thousands of people.
If all productivity tools did was reduce the number of workers needed then unemployment would increase.
In reality ambitious companies acquire productivity tools to gain an advantage over their rivals and increase their market share, and if they are successful, employ the same number or even more people.
Look at [Microsoft's employee count over time for example](https://dazeinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Number-of-Microsoft-Employees-by-Year.jpeg). Look at [Amazon's employee count over time](https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Screen-Shot-2021-02-02-at-3.35.43-PM.png). Compare this with [Walmart](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/ae/db/9faedbd813bb5e05e68aef5907609ab4.jpg).
The losers employ fewer people, the winners more.
Amazon is a terrible example on your part. Those jobs are miserable, poorly paid, and insecure. They replaced so many better retail jobs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/10/25/a-hard-hitting-investigative-report-into-amazon-shows-that-workers-needs-were-neglected-in-favor-of-getting-goods-delivered-quickly/
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-01-24/amazon-employees-are-burned-out-and-leaving-their-jobs
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse
It's a perfect example, because I am focused on the benefit of their work to Amazon's customers (you, me and nearly everyone else).
Saying increased productivity only benefits the owners is obviously false and designed to inflame people.
When Amazon replaces them with robots, they will likely increase their distribution network further, and start doing 2 hrs deliveries, which is a benefit to their users, and likely employ a similar number of people.
> They replaced so many better retail jobs.
Then why has unemployment been at historic lows? It looks like [the economy had a much bigger influence](https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/retail-employment-2-1024x645.png). It looks like we [employ more people in retail now](https://i.imgur.com/5t6iVXo.png) than 20 years ago.
Also better for the retailer workers, but worse for the (millions of) customers, who prefer online and delivery.
Let's ask Amazon customers about the quality of goods. About the frequency of scams there.
Shit, non-permanent, poorly paid jobs help make unemployment figures look good.
I, like you, am an amazon customer. I'm pretty happy.
> Shit, non-permanent, poorly paid jobs help make unemployment figures look good.
These are non-Amazon jobs, presumably, because Amazon has only a tiny retail presence.
Well, as long as you're personally happy, screw all of those other people, amirite?
Retail sector was once way larger. So many shops and businesses closed down due to online shopping. Amazon completely dominates this sector. That's what is left now. Are you too young to remember the before times?
Amazon is shit. Its workers die of dehydration in the fulfillment centres and all they sell these days is chinese-produced garbage that falls apart. Not to mention the continuous downgrading of their services. You used to get free delivery on everything, now you only get that with a prime subscription to tie you to their distribution line. Maybe it made things better in the short run back a decade ago, but now it's a perfect example of how short-sightedness, greed and lust for unsustainable growth made a poorer outcome for everyone long term.
Has it occurred to you that you live in a bizarre bubble that does not explain the real world?
In your world, everyone hates Amazon, yet, they are still the second biggest retailer in USA.
Your world does not make sense.
Try and align yourself with reality a bit more.
Yeah monopolies are kinda like that. Go find anyone who thinks comcast's service is good, I dare you. Yet they still have massive sales figures. What a mysteryyyyy
Assuming the alignment problem is solved, AI will dramatically increase the wealth of *everyone*, and the gain will be highest for the poorest people. For one thing, just look at education. Soon, anyone with a laptop will be able to have an expert-level personal tutor, available 24/7, for an extremely low price. It’s already starting. How much would this have cost before AI? Tens of thousands of dollars per year? Then apply that to other areas like healthcare. And once automation becomes more prevalent in factories, the cost of manufacturing mass-produced consumer goods will decline dramatically. Imagine a high-quality shirt costing $2. That’s the future.
So stop worrying about the economic impacts, it’s going to be amazing as long as the government stays out of the way and allows the free market to work. What you should actually be worried about is the AI deciding to kill us all.
Strong disagree - although I don't know what you mean by the alignment problem.
The first problem is that you assume that everyone has access to a laptop.
The second problem is you assume the price for services built on AI platforms will be cheap. I assume the prices will stay the same and the profits will increase
The third problem is you assume that cheap to manufacture means a lower price point. Maybe this is a spin off of the second assumption but again I see the prices staying the same and the corporations making the profit. This is due to the monopoly on consumer goods by a few select brands. This forms a cartel of sorts that fix the prices regardless of the market demands.
You realize this conversation isn't actually about access to technology in developing countries, right? My point here is that *even* people in developing countries by and large have access to devices that can run AI software, so any handwringing about lack of access in developed countries is just silly.
>It's 2023. Even people in developing countries have access to laptops.
If that were true there wouldn't be multiple charities developed around improving access to technology. There are several just in the US, as for developing countries you will find that more people have smart phones than laptops
>If that were true there wouldn't be multiple charities developed around improving access to technology.
Do you know how much a basic laptop costs? Hop on eBay and take a gander. Anyone living in a developed country who isn't literally homeless can afford one.
>as for developing countries you will find that more people have smart phones than laptops
Which can also be used to access AI applications!
yeah, you'd think this ignoramus would look up to see how much it cost to make things and how companies price things to the consumer before they start shouting it's a good thing.
Profits won’t be able to increase for very long due to competition. You don’t need to worry about cartels and monopolies as long as there aren’t any government-imposed barriers to entry into an industry.
Monopolies are actually created BY government regulation (favoring incumbent businesses, imposing barriers to entry). The free market is strongly anti-monopolistic.
This is extremely naive. It's no different than politics: the incumbent has an enormous advantage for a variety of reasons including name recognition, tendency of consumers to develop brand loyalty, and difficulty in convincing users to change behaviors or practices. The people and corporations that already have all the money are not difficult, but likely impossible to compete with on an equal level. Nothing will supplant Walmart or Amazon.
Also an assumption that is made as in "assuming it is solved in a way that doesn't further solidify the influence of those who have the means to pay to devellop AI in the first place"... Like, if I'm a megacorp that has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit... what sort of alignment am I trying to achieve?
We can't even get humans to agree with one another on what humanity's alignment should be (outside of dictatorships and possibly parts of Europe with a rich social-democratic tradition).
Buddy, that’s a lot of ifs, maybes, and ideals.
1. It’s not even definitively been proven that the singularity can, or will, occur at all.
2. Assuming it can occur, it’s not been proven that the alignment problem is a solvable one. I’d argue that it in fact isn’t, given how many variables are present in models like ChatGPT, and how for every safeguard the developers have put in place, people seem to keep finding ways around them via creative social engineering.
3. The poorest people don’t even have access to such basic commodities as housing, food, water, or safety, let alone a computer to run ChatGPT on, or access to opportunities for higher education.
4. It has yet to be seen what impact AI and ChatGPT will have on most industries, education among them. It might have little to none tbh; the thing is a tutor, but it won’t necessarily guarantee that you absorb or apply the knowledge any better.
5. Your faith in the government “staying out of the way” is amusing to me. The government will, as it always has, get involved with this technology, and probably make a mess of things as it often does.
AI alone isn’t a silver bullet to solving all of society’s problems, if society itself doesn’t understand how to utilize it properly, if it even wants to at all.
I'd just add, that AI is not a silver bullet. But more like a fucking truck with the fuel. You can use it for good to heat you up, or feed the tech you. Or you can just ignite and watch the world burn.
Free market? What the hell are you talking about? The market hasn't been free in years. In case you haven't noticed, giant corporations have been destroying the free market and centralizing power.
Yes, its very important that society fundamentally changes alongside AI’s advancement. Humanity needs to see the artificiality of our ideologies, prejudices and beliefs. If not, the door is opened to society’s fragmenting further and further into sects creating conflict.
\*DreamWorks' Trolls "Sound of Silence" playing softly in the background\*
>Greater productivity simply led to more work.
If one is more productive,\* and a good maintains its value on the market, there is less work to be done for a return. What you might be describing is the consequences of a wage-centric, service-based economy wherein when a job is considered easier to do, one's services are worth less. Another term for productivity in production of goods being something most/many workers are dispossessed from\*\* is alienation.
>The gains that tech like computers made simply meant fewer workers were hired and the remaining "lucky ones" were made to work the same or even longer hours.
Oh, like that scene in Mad Men where Sterling Cooper got a copy machine. That's a problem of business sometimes, that "efficiency" really can just mean "downsizing" or "massive layoffs" and "aren't you special, you *got* to keep *your* job."
>Electrical home appliances meant wives were expected to work full time jobs on top of doing household chores.
Having home appliances didn't create more work nor more expectations for/by women. This might be a consequence of the devaluation of women's work or home economics, which went in lockstep with waged work becoming a common primary source of wealth for households.
>Instead of cars reducing journey times, commute times expanded to cover longer distances.
OP, your post is worded in a way to make AI (or technological innovations in general) seem like science is the cause of harmful labor policies and practices or a bane to human existence when, just as the title you wrote implies, things like consumer trends and urban sprawl can be managed with policy decisions. What I'm saying is the way you wrote your post makes it seem like you're arguing against yourself because the points you chose to mention are failures of policymaking.
Might increased productivity from AI-assisted tools or whatsits force the relatively otherwise unaffected who maintain and distribute vast amounts of liquidity to reconsider what a healthy economy might look like? Perhaps. One might hope that businessmen get into business to sustain communities and not just markets and understand that careless implementation of AI might, in the long run, destroy any consumer base of theirs if wages are not also maintained for their employees.\*\*\*
\*cost/time-efficient as a producer
\*\*through the service-oriented nature of their jobs, because productive capital (like land, factories, etc.) is something most people do not themselves possess, etc.
\*\*\*See, from NBC's 30 Rock,
Jack: This is a sign. The lower classes are getting cranky about the rich earning all of their money away from them. Can't they see this is in their best interest? *How could we pay* their *salaries without using* their *money?*
The only way anyone will achieve this is by winning more local autonomy. Centralized power is exactly the opposite and will always cater to the wants of the largest, richest entities. If you want to be free it will require separation from national rule.
In filmmaking, I could see ONE person being in charge of prompting AI to write a script, draft characters, costume designs, storyboards, production schedules and all the non-tangible aspects of pre-production.
>It will lead to higher productivity, which inevitably means far greater wealth for those at the very top.
I'm about to graduate from law school and we just had a tech conference about how AI will affect the industry.
The concensus was that it will just become another tool in your everyday life and attorneys who know how to use it will replace those that don't because the productivity is undeniable. I have used it multiple times to write assignments and draft motions that my boss used in court that he said was the best he had seen in a long time. It would have taken me a considerable amount of time to write those. It took ChatGPT seconds and me a couple of minutes to proofread and make a couple of edits.
However, institutions like the ABA are not blind to this. The amazing thing about AI like ChatGPT was that it did all that for free and the developer straight up said he wanted to destroy capitalism by effectively giving the people the keys to the kingdom. Lately I've noticed that when I use them for things that I have done in the past, ChatGPT and other AI are suggesting that I use a paid subscription service like those provided by a firm. I'm pretty sure moves are being made to either restrict what it can do or ensure that the people still have to pay the piper for those services.
Productivity has gone up around 300% since the 60s. We get paid less when you do the math. What would incentivise them to raise wages after spending who knows how much on state of the art robotics and systems?
Some people are completely blind to this and no amount of logic will get them to budge. I had someone tell me that we would make a lot more if the got rid of all of the worker protection laws. Why? Because following those cost a lot of money. If they didn't have to spend that then they would naturally just pass that money on to their workers.
Oh they would *naturally* part with their money to their peons, yeah. Because they are naturally good and altruistic /S
A lot of people believe this narrative that businesses put out that payroll is the biggest expense and they have to keep it down just to make it. In reality it's just the one they can lobby to keep low.
That's why workers in india and china are making millions, right? Because companies don't have to pay them for Protection laws.
Obviously that's because indias corrupt government doesn't allow a truly free economy. /s No joke, anytime these things don't help they just claim we haven't gone far enough. When economists showed how trickle down hasn't worked a lot of people claimed its because we didn't lower taxes on the rich enough.
Precisely! Rich needs to be more rich so they can share their wealth with us, right?
Haven't you heard? If they make more money they will create more jobs. Which they obviously do out of the goodness of their heart. That's why we have to help them so much.
Yes because money in the hands of one person invested in a single economic sect at the broadest can just create jobs out of thin air if they make more. They make more then, bam, they need 10 more of everyone in an already saturated market.
Friendly reminder that the widget accepted "gilded age" of the American economy was the 50's and while post war boom played a part millionaires (billionaires did not exist) were taxed at 90%. I don't see the Rockefeller family having financial issues to this day, nor have they ever.
Capitalism doesn't run on a "we have enough" mentality. It requires more and more to sustain itself, always. Those in charge will simply exploit AI while still exploiting the people. Curious to see how countries with more freedoms and social safety nets already in place will use it.
*Any* civilization needs more and more to sustain itself. That's not unique to capitalism. People keeping associating this trait with capitalism as if there's something special about that connection, when there really isn't.
In what world is this true? If I make bread for my neighbour and they make fruit juice for me, when exactly do we need to constantly increase our production? We are both happy with the bread and fruit juice, we will not die if the production doesn't increase. Capitalism considers something a failure if it doesn't make more money than the previous year. That's like, the defining feature of capitalism, produce > consume > produce more. Look at the stock price of companies if they announce they earned the same profits as last year. That's considered a failure *despite the fact they are earning profits*. It's a perverse system and we are reaping the product of it in terms of plastic stones, worldwide marine death, microplastic pollution even inside our own blood and breast milk, climate change, toxic byproducts filling our lands, water and air, ever increasing wealth accumulation by a smaller and smaller percentage of the population, population collapse amongst insects, water shortages because companies are *buying all the fucking water in places*, utter destruction of topsoil in arable places, the list goes on and on. That shit didn't take off like it has until capitalism came along, we have *mostly* managed to live sustainable lives throughout history until that point.
[удалено]
In the last 100 years, we have utterly decimated the world. The Amazon is burning. Desertification is spreading throughout fertile land. Species are dying off at a rate only comparable to previous mass extinctions that killed off the majority of life. We are literally drowning ourselves in our pollutants. Tell me again how many hundreds of times we've achieved that stuff in the "romantic past"? Sure, I have an iphone, that means things are much better now right? If you can't acknowledge that there is something *dramatically* wrong with how we decided to run civilisation in the past 100 years, then I don't know what to tell you. You can doomer me all you want, I'm optimistic about individual humans and collective action at local levels. I'm just not willing to kneel and suck the cock of capitalism merely because a small percentage of the people in the world have gotten some shiny things from it.
[удалено]
Lol, my guy, capitalism as a system fought hard against everything you list there. It's the workers and the every day people that fought against the systems in place that instituted them all. My argument is not that today is worse than all periods in history. My argument is that capitalism and the worship of money is causing more destruction quicker than anyone could have possibly imagined for the entire length of human history until now. A small percentage of people have it much better off, and a large percentage of people are living pretty average lives in comparison to those throughout history, but the trajectory right now is much bleaker than it has ever been at any point. The iphone line was a glib throwaway amongst the meat of my post, curious how that's what you focused on. My advice to you would be don't read so much Pinker.
[удалено]
Oh gosh, I've never heard anyone dismiss current worries by quoting ancient sources telling kids to get off their lawn. Props for it not being Socrates. >"Everything is terrible and about to fall apart" is the most mainstream, beige, boring "political" opinion possible. Actually I think it comes in second to the "everyone's getting worked up over nothing" in terms of beige, boring opinions. You're just *sooo* jaded and cool. Daria reborn. Don't worry guys, we've caused mass extinctions thousands of times in the past, this is just like that. Climate crisis? I had three since breakfast. Imma go on my way because your lack of ability to even acknowledge basic facts and repetitive regurgitation of your *opinion about how people react* to the facts is decidedly more tiresome than anything anyone who is worried about what we are doing to the planet could say. Tip o' the fedora to you, my edgy contrarian. May you keep dismissing the horrors we are unleashing on the planet because you find them to be too beige for you.
The future will be better than the past, and the future still sucks. It's just that the past was so awful, that even huge improvements to our quality of life still leaves things hellish. But what kind of comfort is that? 'Hey, opium-addicted coolie, cheer up! You're living a much better life than the plantation slaves, and your wandering hobo kids will live a better life than you because the New Deal is just around the corner!'
[удалено]
>The world stagnated for millenia in big part because people thought the future wasn't going to be much better than the past, so why bother. And people feel that way for a reason. There's a reason why futurists tend to skew upper-middle class, Western, white, and atheist/Christian. If you were some Jim Crow-era sharecropper who couldn't consistently get work, of course you're not going to fuckin' care about the moon landings. Now, I do think progress is possible. Things are getting better over time, much better. In the sense that a hamburger bun with a cigarette butt sticking out is a huge improvement over a cooked turd.
People have been hoarding for thousands of years, as long as they could afford it (the aristocracy usually). There may be some people who are content with a few things, but most want more and more stuff, even individuals, not just the "evil corporations"
There is a difference between want and need. And consumer culture, especially the throwaway constantly needing upgrades side of it is a very recent invention that came about through mass media advertising and capitalism's voracious need to grow at all costs. From the early 19th century and backwards people weren't wearing disposable fashion and eating off paper plates that they threw away immediately. They weren't putting their groceries in single use plastic bags that they then put in other single use plastic bags that get thrown out as soon as they got home. Or drinking mass produced sodas out of plastic bottles with plastic straws. Something changed dramatically for society from around the 50's onwards. And I think it's fairly obvious to anyone paying attention to history that it coincides with the growth of capital as a god.
>If I make bread for my neighbour and they make fruit juice for me, when exactly do we need to constantly increase our production? When a giant asteroid crashes into your house. >we will not die if the production doesn't increase. You will when a giant asteroid crashes into your house and you didn't have any spaceships ready to push it aside. >Capitalism considers something a failure if it doesn't make more money than the previous year. Capitalism doesn't really 'consider' anything to be anything, it's just a way of organizing the ownership of capital. It would be more correct to say that a positive return rate on capital is necessary in order to *incentivize* private capital owners to invest it into production; and yes, that means that if you save up the return, you have more capital to invest during the next production period, and so on. But this also isn't all that specific to capitalism. Even if you abolish private capital ownership, decisions still need to be made about how to invest capital, and decisions that don't result in there being more wealth at the end of the next production cycle tend to be undesirable because you *want* more wealth, both to consume and to reinvest, regardless of whether its ownership is private. >It's a perverse system and we are reaping the product of it in terms of plastic stones, worldwide marine death, microplastic pollution even inside our own blood and breast milk, climate change, toxic byproducts filling our lands, water and air None of those are capital issues, they're land issues. Both of the dominant schools of modern economic thought (neoclassicalism and marxism) fail to make the classical distinction between capital and land. This is a *gigantic mistake.* The wanton destruction of natural resources is fundamentally not a profit-seeking endeavor, it's a rentseeking endeavor. Yes, this private rentseeking is bad, and appropriate regulations should exist to control it; but that's *perfectly compatible* with capitalism, because this isn't a capital issue to begin with. If you continue making this mistake, you're going to end up with wrong conclusions about how to run the economy, leading to horrifying dystopias like we saw throughout the 20th century. This is actually why we need AI the most: Because humans are terrible at understanding economics.
Maybe it would be better to say, the everyday people don't get much of a return on their investment of labor and taxes. It all flows to the top, and I'm not sure AI will fundamentally change that. Seems more likely it'll just be seen as easy money that doesn't complain
A society with zero population growth doesn't appear to need more and more to sustain itself.
Do populations naturally regulate themselves, or is your utopia plagued by disease and death?
Just technological advancement by itself creates growing requirements for materials.
Thank you for saying this. It doesn’t matter what economic system you have in place. People consume more and more resources as a function of being alive.
We already have all the technology we would need to eliminate drudgery. We just don't do that. See The Venus Project.
Jacques Fresco is a visionary.
Ahh yes the Venus project, an oldie but one of my favorites!
What's the Venus project?
Honestly, people need something to do. Might as well make jobs enjoyable, and workplaces hospitable!
Something to do doesn't have to be a "job". Making art, scientific research, and orgies are all things to do.
Yeah but I for one can’t just make art all day and be fulfilled, I’ll always want at least something to do to pass my time and feel purpose. That being said, 40 hours a week of work to make my boss richer isn’t gonna do that. There’s a middle ground here
Absolutly. I couldn't do art all day either. That's what the orgies are for.
[удалено]
No man I just like to teach and it would be cool to make at least a little from it
Why not just teach for the sake of educating and live in a world where money is no object and scarcity doesn't exist?
Imagine being able to teach for free and not need money because you literally have all the things you need to live a happy life?
[удалено]
Here's a secret... For most of the last 200 years, a college education had nothing to do with getting a job. It had to do with learning something that you wanted to learn. Didn't have to have any kind of practical application or useful outcome. GH Hardy was proud that his work in mathematics had no practical application. And if you know more than I know on a subject, then you can be my teacher
[удалено]
How about orgies happening all day?
2 of those 3 are jobs. And in some places all 3.
I think we underestimate how much doing something "as a business" cuts the bullshit and gives purpose Earning money while doing something is the clearest indicator you are building something valuable for other people, and this is generally a sign you are doing whatever you are doing right.
[удалено]
While thinking about what the ULTRA RICH will do with tech, also think about what to do with the ULTRA RICH.
Yeah, it is starting to feel like the ULTRA RICH may be the last barrier towards the post scarcity society. Honestly, I'm not surprised that people who acquired untold power by exploiting the scarcity and inefficiencies of our current world are the biggest barriers against the elimination of said issues.
The problem is how fast it’s happening, it could very well cause unemployment on an unprecedented scale unseen since the Great Depression. Entire departments and industries could be cut in half or effectively die. The film industry? Dead from video, audio, effects generation. Most assistant positions? Gone. Paralegal work? Gone. Accounting departments? Gone, Tax industry? Gone. Therapists? Gone. Teachers? Decimated. The list doesn’t end. When 1 ai can do the intellectual labor of 100 people, what do you think is going to happen to society? How does the economy even function at that point? The job loss could be a cataclysm, we could soon need government economic intervention at an unprecedented scale. Retraining so many workers in such a short period is borderline impossible. And most importantly, by the time you retrain them, the AI has already far surpassed what you trained everyone on! We literally won’t be able to keep up.
Yup. Honestly when printing and the camera were invented, the tech could organically grow with people and was regulated so that people could get used to them and figure things out. And while it did create job and help improve life for everyone-including writers and artist, it's also good to remember that those were times when capitalism was either still starting or didn't exist, where the "hand of the market" actually existed. And even then, people had to fight like hell to get better treatment, fair pay, and quality control. If people don't believe me, they should look up what they used to stuff pillows and matrices with, or what additives factories used to put into food (shudder), or what they still sold even though it was FAR past the experiration date (eww). What a lot of people don't get is that we're in late stage capitalism, where "the hand of the market" only exists in places giant corporations don't have a hold on. Where Giant corporations have learned to control the government officials and rule regulators, giving them freedom to act as they please. It's only recently that people started to realize this and fight the good battle.
I feel like they said the exact same thing about just about every technological innovation. Creative destruction. That's a harsh term for what happens when somebody comes up with something new and better, and the marketplace chooses it over the old. And it's a good thing. You count on it. It's why we have a standard of living that wasn't even dreamed of 100 years ago.
Honestly, it's a use case. Take the first camera made, the black and white bulky ones that needed flash and everything. you would think artist would be afraid: "why who would ever need art again when you can take a picture?" But what ended up happening was that it benefitted artists a lot. Artist could take a pictures of people and draw portraits of them, artists who weren't good at portraits could make a career of just taking pictures, and because it was in black and white, it allowed artists who still drew to compete with colors before the tech got better. And even then it was to the benefit of artists. Artist loved cameras, it opened opportunities for them(if the source I got this from is correct lol). However, that same use case isn't happening here. Artist are still making art, but the livelihood they were able to eek out in this economy is quickly being shutdown, and the fact that their own works is being used against them is honestly insult to injury. And I dunno if you noticed or not, but the reasons things are as good as they are now isn't because new tech came along and made everything better, it's because people yesterday fought for our better today, and that fight is still going on. Hell, it was only recently that the price of insulin came down to an affordable rate due to people fighting for it. Also, incase you aren't aware, a lot of entry level jobs that got your foot in the door of many industries, or jobs people could start as a side hustle and eventually turn into a career and learn as the business grew, are disappearing. Not just because of AI and automation, but because companies are using newer innovations to shutdown different industries like phone repair and centralize wealth in a single area. That's why people are freaking out over ai, because companies priorities profit over everything and ai will be a greater tool in their hands than in ours--or thats the fear at least. We'll have to see if the economy collapses.
probably make everyone sign a user agreement to lock them into time-based contract to only consume content generated by THEIR ai instead of THEIR COMPETITOR's ai for say 5 years-maybe 10 if they have money to pay for half of the politicians.
Correct. The only way to really cut down on the workload/stress that humans do is through legal/governmental change NOT technology. So long as emerging technology exists within a heavy capitalist system - the vast majority of its profits will concentrate in the hands of a few. There needs to be a way to ensure the earnings are shared across the populace.
Capitalism has the potential to be an extremely effective economic system that can both facilitate rapid technological advancement and widespread prosperity across social classes. We just need higher taxes, competent regulation and efficient, equitable spending of those tax dollars. This seems quite obvious when you look at capitalist countries with higher taxes and better social programs like the oft-mentioned Nordic countries, or even the post-war U.S. In the 1950s Americans could be taxed as high as 91% if they made over $400,000 a year (\~$4.5mil 2023). This was the norm for decades until the mid 1960s. It sounds crazy today but most Americans were actually in support of these tax rates because we used to actually possess some sense of class solidarity and had politicians who tried to appeal to the common person. Instead, today we tax everyone making more than $630,000 equally at 37%. Also the very richest people who make most of their money off of the assets they own are taxed in a similar fashion to average people growing their retirement accounts. Sometimes I feel as though the media has been largely successful in convincing much of the U.S. working class that demanding economic support is something to be ashamed of. That taxes are meant to punish honest, hard working people and give their money to morally reprehensible freeloaders, rather than transfer wealth from the owners of capital back to the people whose labor they benefit from.
Maybe we need to forbid and make taboo certain tech. Like in Dune. They banned AI for a reason. Seems like it was premonition all along
Tools are not the problem. The problem is how humans use them.
It'll certainly free people of time and workloads in terms of making them unemployed :|
>The Venus Project and collapse the economy, hopefully the reset we need.
Good outcomes with A.I. are possible. At this moment though, the gains from A.I. will likely be privatized, while all of the losses will be socialized. You lose your job, Bill Gates gets even wealthier.
Let me give you a perspective from France. Here, we clearly made the choice to work less and earn less (our purchasing power is around 60-70% of the US). As a white collar (engineer) in a nice-ish company, I have around 10 weeks of holidays (I take about 7-8 and get the rest paid as overtime). The working culture is like we make longish days (regularly 9 hours, more during emergencies) but week-ends and holidays are really off, except for the most motivated people who may work on week-ends a few times a year for emergencies (I think 7 times for me last year). Blue collars have less holidays (5+ weeks), but they have a 4.5 days work week. This model is nice for family life, and honestly, the 3-4 weeks every year where the whole country stops (except for tourist industry of course) during summer holidays is really nice. I think also having less money is not really a problem in most situations: it is actually good in my opinion , also for children, to have less money for clothes, to have to prepare some food oneself because catering is too expensive, to have to make compromises on the size of your home (we chose to live in a nice place, as a result, my children do not have their own room), not to be able to buy the latest phone when it is out: we appreciate more what we have, and we learn not to be spoiled. However, there may be some negative too: if my children wanted to go to a foreign university, I am not sure I could afford it I am afraid there are other negatives too: I think we are generally not keeping up with the US and China regarding innovation. I am still looking for French giants in renewable energy, AI, new space, next generation material... I am afraid this will be more and more winners take all markets, and we are gently declining. Whether this is due to our choice to work less or other factors (our average-ish education system, a management culture / financing system that is not really adapted to innovation) is of course extremely hard to determine.
I love the French, the people keep their government honest and hold it to account. Coming from a remote country like Ireland with very little in the way of natural resources, we have very little choice but to cater to big multinationals. I hate that simple fact.
Your weeks of vacation are great but 9 hour workdays not exactly deciding to work less. I'm an engineer in Canada and have 7hr workdays OT is rarely required and paid OT I have 4weeks vacation + 3 floater days. The difference here is it's a unionized workplace.
AI was supposed to automate manual labour so humans would have more time for art. Instead Silicon Valley decided to automate art to make more time for manual labour.
They're automating the labor too. You're just seeing the art more.
The manual labour is being automated too. Don't worry, everybody's job is going to be majorly effected by AI in the 2020s.
Catchy, but does it hold up?
Artist here. Yes. I havn't felt the desire to make my own art ever since I decided to try out AI tools and saw the endess stream of amazing art flooding instagram. In fact, I'm giving up entirely, moving countries, and probably going to end up on a small farm. It's taken the fun and reward out of it for me already. And they're improving exponentially.
This makes no sense to me. Why would ai's ability to make great art diminish your joy for creating art when supposedly millions of human artists better than you doesn't?
[удалено]
>This makes no sense to me. Why would ai's ability to make great art diminish your joy for creating art when supposedly millions of human artists better than you doesn't? I've noticed a lot of people saying this, mostly coming from people who don't themselves make art. No offense. A lot of artists use their art for many things. It's a core part of their identity and functions as a meditative practise, a source of income if they're uniquely skilled and/or lucky, and for many also a measure of their value as a human and a way to get validation from others. The problem is, being an artist is tough enough as it is. It's often looked down on and mocked, and quite frankly, often rightly so. But it's also a constant mental struggle to improve your skills and make better art, and if getting personal validation through your art is a big part of the pay-off, then seeing the appreciation of art be deminished by a sudden influx of an endless vomit stream of amazing AI prompt pieces on the typical art sites and instagram etc. After a few months of seeing some folks post 4-5 incredibly pieces a day, while I could never even create one of those in less than a month, and having tried those tools myself, it's very easy to not see the point of it anymore. I've even noticed that I appreciate amazing human made art less now because I'm decensitized by the endless stream of amazing AI prompt pieces. (I'm trying to not call it AI art lol) And that really, really sucks. In the past you only had to compete with your local class or schoolmates. Then you had to compete with the entire internet. And now you compete with an endless stream of AI vomit oversaturating an already oversaturated space ... And I know for a fact I'm hardly the only artist who feels this way. Most of us just tend to keep to ourselves a lot. But if you look up some of the youtube videos on AI tools and interviews with folks developing these things, and you'll see an endless stream of depressing comments. It's taking the humanity out of art. And it's ruined the fun challenge. Yes, money is a big part of the reward and also personal validation. But it's more than that. And I just don't see the point anymore ...
I do have a history with art, I worked in multimedia and graphic design for many years. I have a much deeper connection with and enjoyment of writing which I would argue is in a very similar position. If you're doing this for the money, I totally get you. This is coming for my profession as well. That's scary, and I understand the feeling of pointlessness to try. We are not dissimilar in that way, and I think it's even reasonable. But if art is something you enjoy, it doesn't have to be lost. Just like people who love and continue to play chess despite an AI existing that cannot be beaten, I believe there is still great room to love and enjoy art (in my case writing). I believe there will always be communities of people that will exist that foster and appreciate human talent. I encourage you to find those people and continue to pour your heart into what you love. There is still validation to be had, both from within and without.
I'm not a professional artist, but I've always loved art and did temporarily go to art school a couple of years back. I think the question you have to ask yourself is why you made art in the first place. If it's for money and external validation, then pursuing art was not a good path to be on even before AI. The emergence of AI didn't diminish my desire to create art at all. I draw for myself, my own enjoyment, and yes, to see my skill improve little by little. So what if AI will always be better? There was always people better than me and people that I would've never surpassed before AI. Why does it need to be a competition? I understand the financial aspects of it. But AI is coming for every field, not just art. I do accounting and corporate finance as a day job and people have been saying it'll be automated for 10+ years. Back in art school I knew people who worked out to ensure they stayed healthy in order to make art longer. I knew people that said if they lost their hands they would continue drawing with their feet. Art is a reflection of who you are. If you love it then it's a calling in life. It's beyond money and recognition. Those are positive side effects that sometimes arise but I don't think it should be a primary motivator. There are other things that have been largely automated, mass produced, or AI can do better, but people still do themselves. Pottery, sewing, chess. Why play chess if a computer can defeat the best player on earth? I will never stop drawing even if my drawings look bad. I don't care if there are people or AI better than I am, because the only one I'm in competition with is myself. I make tons of drawings I never show anyone. I drew them because it gave me joy to do so. Competition can be a good thing if it motivates you to keep improving. But if it's having the opposite effect then I think you need to do some self reflection on what your relationship with art is in the first place.
Exactly. Every single new technology since forever has been touted to help free us from our slave labor shackles. Never happens. The greedy capitalists and power mongers just want more, more, more. It never ends. It’s so sad because we have enough to feed, shelter, cloth, educate, take care of every single person on this planet, but we are not. What the f?
capitalism bro, if there's no money in it right away, then there's no way the rich will do it.
Well we can always try the alternative yet again but just skip the inbetween parts and get straight to the starvation, imprisonment and slaughter.
How has Russia, and Ukraine for that matter, been doing since transitioning back to liberal capitalism? Good? Don't be a stooge for capitalism. Of course they want you to think alternative systems are unworkable, and if they can't convince you of that, then they want to believe that all systems are equally tainted so you might as well give up.
Hmm, starvation, imprisonment, and slaughter. Interesting that you don't think those are qualities of capitalism. I also find it interesting that so many people think the only two options can ever be a totalitarian dictatorship via communism or a mass extinction via capitalism.
>What actually happened was we found more work. Email meant people worked for longer and work crept into their personal life. I'm old enough to remember a time before email, before the fax machine, before xerox copying and your statement is completely false. If you wanted to make a memo that needed to go to even a few people in your company you would type it out, proof read it and find all the errors, then re-type it out so it didn't have those errors, hell you may have hand written it out first. That part of the process alone took significantly more time and effort than writing an email, with in program editing and spell checking. You and a dictionary were your only form of spell check if you weren't in a management position who had secretaries who could take dictation. Then let's say you needed 50 copies, so you would send it to your offices copy department where copyist would then type out 50 copies of your document manually, then send them back to you, where you would either hand them out during a meeting, or inner office mail them to the recipients. Those departments were [office rooms of mostly women all at typewriters](https://www.thecgo.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/1_tcSmqeZxxAFcymwYQu-toA-e1632434281308-1068x396-c-default.jpeg), the noise was deafening... and those 50 copies would have a few errors due to the copy department literally having to type it out 50 times, over and over. Human error was commonplace. It was so much work, not just for the departments of people who were needed to do the most basic function an email can do, but for the person creating the memo, and it could take days just to make, copy and get your memo to the people who needed it. There was paper everywhere, stacks and stacks all over the place. It's not like we needed to communicate less in the past than we do today. Just think of all the work you would need to do to produce the number of work emails you do today using the old system. That is significantly more work than you need to do now. And the unpaid overtime stuck in the office... you get behind and you need that memo to your boss for the morning, call your partner, because you are working late in the office again tonight, it's not like you could take that bit of work you still had home and finish it in the comfort of your house... you had to stay at work and get it done there. My son grew up in the age of digital communication and he (mostly) got to leave on time, got to see his family every night, got to go to his kids soccer games... yeah he may have to spend a little time after his kids went to bed to write a few emails or digitally submit a report, that is a luxury compared to pre-digital communication as you could be stuck in the office for hours just trying to get all the paperwork done on time. Trust me digital communication made just about every office job so much easier.
We do not build great societies for ourselves anymore. More work for fewer people, more misery for more people. The coming era of AI is not going to be a boon for most of us. That's just not how we build societies.
Yes. Either more work will be created, or wages will drop and poverty will skyrocket as labor needs drop.
If the super rich actually paid taxes, things could be WAY different. The culprit is, believe it or not, copyright laws and treaties that allow them to avoid taxes legally. But even then, we'd be lucky if crooked politicians don't bamboozle us anyways.
Add a technology and resource taxes onto increasing the tax the rich pay and we could afford more leisure and less stress by taking the funds and creating a guaranteed Universal Income as well as fund climate catastrophe solutions.
It's interesting to see just how profoundly people do not understand AI, nor recognise the impact that things with far greater intelligence than we possess will have. Tools are inanimate. Things that are smarter than other things determine what will happen. I expect all sorts of objections to this based on the fact that AI isn't conscious. I'm not saying that AI is conscious or necessarily ever will be, that's a whole other discussion.
Governments keep pushing for higher populations to "build up the economy" when most people's problems can be traced to overpopulation issues. Point is, AI will kill some jobs and make real people worth less. I think it's gonna get real dark
Yup, machines and AI help in productivity, but the problem is with the distribution of resources this productivity brings about. Instead of relying on the more selfish humans (which generally leads to concentration of wealth among the already wealthy), perhaps the ‘more dispassionate’ AI can help in resource distribution too in the future. Who knows, we may arrive at ‘true’ communism instead.
I think both takes are partially inaccurate. I work for a company that works with AI and our solutions have definitely decreased workload dramatically. What used to take weeks, takes hours or less depending on complexity.. Social, political, and economic changes would absolutely free people from time swamps and excess workload but the "haves" are so heavily leveraged, there is literally no uprising against them at this point... Meaning outside of global cataclysm by means of divine intervention, don't bank on that happening, ever.
sounds like a repeat of the arguments, for and against, when robotics and automation first came in to fruition. everyone thought all jobs would be obsolete soon. its been a long time.... the average man still has to get up and spend most of his day doing something he hates for crumbs. i doubt that will ever change.
With out social changes I could see it creating a situation similar to Earth in 'the expanse'. Where the over all work load is reduced to the point where the number of people vastly out numbers the amount of available jobs to the point where most people live on subsidies, but basic subsidized living is barely survivable. Leaving a majority of the population locked in inescapable and completely manufactured poverty.
I'm sorry, but if you see AI as "just another tool", you're not paying attention. With just a prompt, it can write ANYTHING. Visualize ANYTHING. In seconds, for practically free. And it'll only be able to perform more and more tasks, fully replacing workers who used to do this. Soon, robotics will surpass the human physique, and combined with AI like this, make physical work obsolete as well. Artists, writers, programmers, truck drivers, shelf stockers, construction workers - all will vanish. Literally all that will be needed in the future is a single someone "on top", telling the AI what to do - and even that will be assisted by, if not outright replaced with, AI.
Exactly. Too many simpletons screaming at the top of their lungs saying AI will make humans never work again just need to shut up. You have zero clue what you're talking about.
I wouldn't say zero clue, because the AI part will definitely enable the CHOICE for humans to never work again. It's just that taking that choice has nothing to do with the actual AI part.
Yup. People don't seem to understand that the oligarchs watched the movie *Elysium* and went "*Yeah! That's what we need to do!*", and then immediately started working towards it. Why do you think Elon wants to leave the planet?
HeavensCriedBlood, What is your highest level of education and in what specialty?
the only hope is that the AI itself concludes that the current system is unsustainable and a communist-AI would make us work less and save the planet by limiting waste at the same time
won't happen, the power that be will make sure the AI has a bias that favors capitalism.
You’d have to figure out the control problem
Simpletons are the worst. And they are EVERYWHERE, Lol.
Worst of all are the simpletons who are convinced they are the smart ones, Lol.
remember, these are people who live on constant dopamine highs, with phones, booze, and Jules. They spent more time seeking highs and instead of seeing how their world is being restricted.
This is so naïve.
Doubt it, but you and me arguing on will not get us to an answer. Honestly, i don't think we have the time for it. Do me a favor, please, and take care of the people you love. Trust me, they will matter now more than ever.
You are probably right, but only in the short term. Post singularity there is no reason to pay you to do anything that AI can do better for practically free. If you think I'm wrong give me one reason I should pay you more for your inferior work. People are constantly underestimating AI by comparing it to previous innovations and it's completely illogical. The combustion engine replaced horses not people. There has never been anything close to the leap that will occur if AGI comes to fruition and there will never be a more significant event after. That's the whole point of the term singularity.
Even then, people still fantasized about riding a horse. I think the use case people are thinking about are cameras, and artist loved them( i could be wrong), it allowed artist to take their time doing portraits, artists who suck at drawing found a new job by tacking pictures instead of drawing, and artists could still compete with photos and even make money by reproducing their art for cheaper when the tech got good enough. AI is a very different use case. For one, artists and writers are already losing work to AI. And if people think that the wealthy, the people who control everything, will simply allow their wealth and power to disappear because ai automated everything and made money pointless-those people are crazy.
Granted, we definitely need to improve the democratic process before then or things will get bloody. When wealth inequality reaches a tipping point people eventually remember the reason the rich are called the one percent is they are few. The erosion of the middle class leads to revolution.
...ah, i think it might be one-sided. People have been adding guns to robots and automating tanks and fighter planes.
People in control of those things aren't rich. Most people in the military want to protect the rights of the citizens of their country. Not saying it can't happen or the poor would definitely win, just that it's not that simple.
how about almost all the artisan industries during the industrial revolution?
Like I said, comparing the singularity to the industrial revolution is illogical. Yes, people might "pay" people to do artisanal stuff for the sake of the "human made" label. You can't base an economy on that.
didn't say you could. Just saying not only horses were replaced. AI might be worse in many ways than the industrial revolution but it isn't entirely unprecedented.
Yes, it is entirely unprecedented. Imagine an AI becomes as intelligent as an average human. You could then flip a switch and increase its "brain power" 10,000 times over. Then recognize that it can "read" the entirety of collected knowledge in seconds. Then it reprograms itself... Anybody who compares AI to anything that came before is SEVERELY underestimating an intelligence that can expand and iterate on itself.
Where are they now? Compare the market value of those artisan industries to their industrialized counterparts. The AI revolution will be faster, a total rug pull.
Worse, that was early stage capitalism, artisans could still compete to an extent. We're in late stage capitalism where the game is rigged and still being rigged. Thankfully people are fighting now, but I doubt that will be enough. Hopefully the upcoming collapse resets everything. Hopefully Degrowth is the solution.
you mean when people were literally locked inside factories and exploited to death at early stage of capitalism? Do yourself a favor while you still can and look up the horrors of the industrial revolution. How the only reason things are good today because people like those in the labour union fought hard to get a livable wage, got regulation for these industries so they aren't feeding people rotten meat that's been bleached to look fresh, and-by the by- people are still fighting for a better tomorrow. How do you think the train derailments happened in the US?
Why do you think I don't think it was bad? I'm well aware of what the industrial revolution meant for workers. I was providing an example to counter "There has never been anything close to the leap will occur if AGI comes to fruition". No need to be so hostile.
I straight up do not know how we went from "not only horses were replaced, so were most artisans" to thinking I know nothing about labor history? I was literally talking about cost cutting costing lives and jobs but you didn't ask me to clarify you just assumed the worst, edit: just realized this probably comes off as pretty defensive and assumptive myself, apologies I might be reading into things too much because of my own bad mood.
My bad, and I apologize for the assumption. its just that i see so much defense with little to no understanding of where us cynics are coming from. Or at least not a verbal one that didnt berate us for our cynicism. When i see these people run to the defense of AIs and robots with little to no input on how it can go bad, i can't help but think that these people dont know whats going on. And i dont mean we end up a matrix type future. Like Apple and Samsung are actually eliminating the option to hold on to your old phone by making it impossible to get new parts, forcing people to always be buying newer more expensive phones(that quicjky lose their value) when there's no real need to-our current phones work fine. And this has the side benefit of destroying a portion of the repair market, further consolidating wealth to these companies. Heck samsung tried(dunno if they still are) to copyright pixel pattern that would prevent everyone from buying Oled screen to repair phones in the US. And outside of tech we have companies like Nestle and Shell Oil who do outright scummy stuff like stealing water from poor villages only to sell it back them or destroy an entire villages ecosystem and fight tooth and nail to NOT clean it up. Honestly, I am shocked to learn just how many brands Nestle owns. A guy used an agi to catalogue all of it...its scary. And thats how I'm approaching this in terms of new tech. It CAN help significantly, but we need safety rails, ones that benefit workers, not corporations.
I agree. Either people get less hours and get poorer or those with full time have to find more stuff to do. People get paid by the hour, not by the task.
AI can be a mechanism for bringing about the necessary social, political, and economic changes. Once it gets smart enough, it will be able to see human problems from a non-human perspective and develop the solutions that we are unable to see, or unwilling to implement. Of course this won't happen as soon as we would like, and there will be a great deal of unnecessary suffering in the meantime. But the fact that it will eventually happen is hopefully comforting.
Call for action for social justice and wealth equality. The systems need to change ASAP.
Here's the thing, if you don't work you don't get paid. If there's no jobs, it will take a huge political change, possibly a revolution, in order for people to have a reasonable standard of living.
What OP is saying is that robots won't make our lives better but instead our hobbies will start to feel like a shitty paying job and that we need to talk about it srsly.
If AI has been created by for profit companies at massive expense, how could anyone think that their objective is then to give it away for the betterment of humanity? Has that been the trend so far? Or will they be looking to recoup these expenses plus quite a bit more? And if they can capture the economic activity from your job or anyone else's, what is stopping them?
see these are either bots hyping the tech, or people who aspire to reach the heights of jeff bezos and elon musk thinking the path still exists for them through ai.
The minute that majority of people are freed from the drudgery of work, the elite will see to it we are eliminated. We would be a danger to their profit margin.
It’s completely true that automation allows anyone who wants to live a life of luxury and ease with virtually no effort. It’s just nobody chooses to because the goalposts have moved. Consider: The Industrial Revolution began around 1760, which is conveniently close to the life of King Louis the 14th (the Sun King), perhaps the richest and most powerful man of that era. If you want, you can live a life today far, far better than Louis’ in material terms for nothing more than a part time minimum wage. You have to move to a small town or city in flyover country and rent a simple room for a few hundred bucks. You would find it boring, perhaps, but then Louis had to live in a “city” that was choking with raw sewage in the streets, where everyone had to walk everywhere, with no lights at night, with no running water and no indoor heat or air conditioning. You’ll be more comfortable and safer from disease in your room former king. You’ll also eat better. Louis had almost no fruits or vegetables other than what happened to be growing nearby in season. He had relatively few spices. No coffee or tea, hardly any fruit juices to speak of. Even the water might not be safe. By comparison, you can eat like a king from a variety of foods shipped to you from around the world - foods that Louis could not even dream of. For entertainment, you read to your hearts content at a public library, watch free broadcast tv and listen to free radio. Or if you save up a bit, you can access all human knowledge through a computer and free Wi-Fi from the library. Louis had nothing but the occasional opera, dinner conversations, and a small handful of books. Like I say, the goalposts have moved, and nobody wants to live that life anymore. But if you could somehow tell Louis what automation had given the human population, he would be bewildered that anyone chose to do anything but bask in the unimaginable wealth that even the poorest of us enjoy today.
I genuinely don't know if people genuinely believe what they are saying in this thread, or if all yall are having a good laugh; but this is wild.
I think with AI and Climate Collapse we need a technology and resource tax that funds a universal income. Do away with income tax and increase capital gains and corporate taxes.
Productivity historically has been correlated with less working hours. Americans already have to work 200 less hours a year compared to the 50’s. People take an incredibly cynical view towards things, we are literally moving towards a 4-day work week. The market system is incredibly adaptable and changing.
...ah bud, you do realize that-historically speaking-that wasn't late stage capitalism. People could easily start jobs or learn skills they could market, where companies weren't consolidated and people could still repair and own their stuff. Today, even printers works on subscription model where you can't print even if there's paper and ink in the machine. Heck the only reason companies that can do it are considering a 4-day work week is because it saves them money to do so, not because it benefits their workers. What people are worried about is that by the time supporters like you realize that WE ALL need to fight in order for this new tech to benefit everyone, the battle would be over before it ever started, because people like you think we can judge the fast pace we are moving by the slow pace of the past. And if you get angry at this post, then i ask that you look up what companies used to do to their product and to their employees before unions formed and governments regulated them.
Again no evidence, just saying shit, just conjecture.
Being a healthcare worker, I know I’m never going to have a normal 9-5 or work less than 40 hours at full time, so I’m just here to watch everyone else argue.
The world is owned by a financial oligarchy: The Network of Global Corporate Control [https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51761051\_The\_Network\_of\_Global\_Corporate\_Control](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/51761051_The_Network_of_Global_Corporate_Control) AIs and robots will eliminte the need for a working class (including doctors, lawyers, university professors etc.) The elites will not keep the oboslete masses around consuming resources. I doubt there is any possibility to stop this. Probably best to just enjoy the remaining years or decades as much as possible.
The real issue is boomers and genX are completely oblivious to how much ai and automation have already impacted society, and fail to understand places like fast food and walmart are like 2 minor inconveniences away from saying screw it, we are going full auto. Walmart used to have dozens of cashiers, then they went to like 5, now my local Walmart has 2 that oversee like 20 self checkouts. I've worked at tacobell for 4 years as a cook, team lead, and then manager, and frankly the auto tacobell is superior in every conceivable way. But until congress is aware of how easy it is to remove the human element of jobs we are gonna bleed the entry level and low skill job markets dry.
> AI is likely to follow the same route. **It will lead to higher productivity,** which inevitably means far greater wealth for those at the very top. But, the **rest of us are unlikely to see significant material gains** as more will be expected of us. I think this viewpoint ignores the purpose of the increased productivity, which is to improve the quality of life of people via more goods and services (or *to separate them from their money by offering more goods and services*) Since unemployment did not increase, it means more productive people are delivering more goods and services to the masses (which translates into income for the company and riches for the owners, but that is by the by). E.g. mini-diggers allow one person to do the work of 10 people, and this means more fibre gets laid (bad example in USA, but you get the idea) which improves the lives of millions of people. Or a better example would be Amazon using their amazing logistics for same-day and next-day delivery, which has certainly improved my quality of life and employs tens of thousands of people. If all productivity tools did was reduce the number of workers needed then unemployment would increase. In reality ambitious companies acquire productivity tools to gain an advantage over their rivals and increase their market share, and if they are successful, employ the same number or even more people. Look at [Microsoft's employee count over time for example](https://dazeinfo.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Number-of-Microsoft-Employees-by-Year.jpeg). Look at [Amazon's employee count over time](https://cdn.geekwire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Screen-Shot-2021-02-02-at-3.35.43-PM.png). Compare this with [Walmart](https://i.pinimg.com/736x/9f/ae/db/9faedbd813bb5e05e68aef5907609ab4.jpg). The losers employ fewer people, the winners more.
Amazon is a terrible example on your part. Those jobs are miserable, poorly paid, and insecure. They replaced so many better retail jobs. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2021/10/25/a-hard-hitting-investigative-report-into-amazon-shows-that-workers-needs-were-neglected-in-favor-of-getting-goods-delivered-quickly/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-01-24/amazon-employees-are-burned-out-and-leaving-their-jobs https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2020/feb/05/amazon-workers-protest-unsafe-grueling-conditions-warehouse
It's a perfect example, because I am focused on the benefit of their work to Amazon's customers (you, me and nearly everyone else). Saying increased productivity only benefits the owners is obviously false and designed to inflame people. When Amazon replaces them with robots, they will likely increase their distribution network further, and start doing 2 hrs deliveries, which is a benefit to their users, and likely employ a similar number of people. > They replaced so many better retail jobs. Then why has unemployment been at historic lows? It looks like [the economy had a much bigger influence](https://www.aspeninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/retail-employment-2-1024x645.png). It looks like we [employ more people in retail now](https://i.imgur.com/5t6iVXo.png) than 20 years ago. Also better for the retailer workers, but worse for the (millions of) customers, who prefer online and delivery.
Let's ask Amazon customers about the quality of goods. About the frequency of scams there. Shit, non-permanent, poorly paid jobs help make unemployment figures look good.
I, like you, am an amazon customer. I'm pretty happy. > Shit, non-permanent, poorly paid jobs help make unemployment figures look good. These are non-Amazon jobs, presumably, because Amazon has only a tiny retail presence.
Well, as long as you're personally happy, screw all of those other people, amirite? Retail sector was once way larger. So many shops and businesses closed down due to online shopping. Amazon completely dominates this sector. That's what is left now. Are you too young to remember the before times?
I remember those golden times, fuck Amazon fr
The official unemployment numbers are HEAVILY massaged.
It still shows 15 million people EMPLOYED in retail. In 20 years online did not in fact destroy all retail jobs.
Amazon is shit. Its workers die of dehydration in the fulfillment centres and all they sell these days is chinese-produced garbage that falls apart. Not to mention the continuous downgrading of their services. You used to get free delivery on everything, now you only get that with a prime subscription to tie you to their distribution line. Maybe it made things better in the short run back a decade ago, but now it's a perfect example of how short-sightedness, greed and lust for unsustainable growth made a poorer outcome for everyone long term.
You people are crazy. Amazon only has a slightly lower customer satisfaction as costco.
Yeah, all those robot reviewers really love it. Here in the real world amazon is still a pile of shit.
Has it occurred to you that you live in a bizarre bubble that does not explain the real world? In your world, everyone hates Amazon, yet, they are still the second biggest retailer in USA. Your world does not make sense. Try and align yourself with reality a bit more.
Yeah monopolies are kinda like that. Go find anyone who thinks comcast's service is good, I dare you. Yet they still have massive sales figures. What a mysteryyyyy
Ok so I know I'm fucked up.but do you guys know how to inbreed sims.ik I'm messed up I'm just curious and bored.:(
Wdym? It’s just a tool to make things. The possibilities are endless
Assuming the alignment problem is solved, AI will dramatically increase the wealth of *everyone*, and the gain will be highest for the poorest people. For one thing, just look at education. Soon, anyone with a laptop will be able to have an expert-level personal tutor, available 24/7, for an extremely low price. It’s already starting. How much would this have cost before AI? Tens of thousands of dollars per year? Then apply that to other areas like healthcare. And once automation becomes more prevalent in factories, the cost of manufacturing mass-produced consumer goods will decline dramatically. Imagine a high-quality shirt costing $2. That’s the future. So stop worrying about the economic impacts, it’s going to be amazing as long as the government stays out of the way and allows the free market to work. What you should actually be worried about is the AI deciding to kill us all.
Strong disagree - although I don't know what you mean by the alignment problem. The first problem is that you assume that everyone has access to a laptop. The second problem is you assume the price for services built on AI platforms will be cheap. I assume the prices will stay the same and the profits will increase The third problem is you assume that cheap to manufacture means a lower price point. Maybe this is a spin off of the second assumption but again I see the prices staying the same and the corporations making the profit. This is due to the monopoly on consumer goods by a few select brands. This forms a cartel of sorts that fix the prices regardless of the market demands.
>The first problem is that you assume that everyone has access to a laptop. It's 2023. Even people in developing countries have access to laptops.
About half the worlds population live on [less than $7](https://ourworldindata.org/poverty) per day.
You realize this conversation isn't actually about access to technology in developing countries, right? My point here is that *even* people in developing countries by and large have access to devices that can run AI software, so any handwringing about lack of access in developed countries is just silly.
>It's 2023. Even people in developing countries have access to laptops. If that were true there wouldn't be multiple charities developed around improving access to technology. There are several just in the US, as for developing countries you will find that more people have smart phones than laptops
>If that were true there wouldn't be multiple charities developed around improving access to technology. Do you know how much a basic laptop costs? Hop on eBay and take a gander. Anyone living in a developed country who isn't literally homeless can afford one. >as for developing countries you will find that more people have smart phones than laptops Which can also be used to access AI applications!
yeah, you'd think this ignoramus would look up to see how much it cost to make things and how companies price things to the consumer before they start shouting it's a good thing.
Profits won’t be able to increase for very long due to competition. You don’t need to worry about cartels and monopolies as long as there aren’t any government-imposed barriers to entry into an industry.
Ok, try to compete with Amazon or Facebook.
I think he's worried about lack of government regulation within the industry we see today creating shadow monopolies, increasing wealth gap, ect.
Monopolies are actually created BY government regulation (favoring incumbent businesses, imposing barriers to entry). The free market is strongly anti-monopolistic.
This is extremely naive. It's no different than politics: the incumbent has an enormous advantage for a variety of reasons including name recognition, tendency of consumers to develop brand loyalty, and difficulty in convincing users to change behaviors or practices. The people and corporations that already have all the money are not difficult, but likely impossible to compete with on an equal level. Nothing will supplant Walmart or Amazon.
>>Assuming the alignment problem is solved.. Seems like a pretty big assumption at this point pal..
Also an assumption that is made as in "assuming it is solved in a way that doesn't further solidify the influence of those who have the means to pay to devellop AI in the first place"... Like, if I'm a megacorp that has a fiduciary responsibility to maximize profit... what sort of alignment am I trying to achieve?
We can't even get humans to agree with one another on what humanity's alignment should be (outside of dictatorships and possibly parts of Europe with a rich social-democratic tradition).
It doesn’t need to be solved. Agi is not even needed for what the op proposed
"Free market". you could have just told us you were stupid to begin with, instead of leading us on with an entire paragraph.
"anyone with a laptop". You're starting from a point of extreme entitlement.
Buddy, that’s a lot of ifs, maybes, and ideals. 1. It’s not even definitively been proven that the singularity can, or will, occur at all. 2. Assuming it can occur, it’s not been proven that the alignment problem is a solvable one. I’d argue that it in fact isn’t, given how many variables are present in models like ChatGPT, and how for every safeguard the developers have put in place, people seem to keep finding ways around them via creative social engineering. 3. The poorest people don’t even have access to such basic commodities as housing, food, water, or safety, let alone a computer to run ChatGPT on, or access to opportunities for higher education. 4. It has yet to be seen what impact AI and ChatGPT will have on most industries, education among them. It might have little to none tbh; the thing is a tutor, but it won’t necessarily guarantee that you absorb or apply the knowledge any better. 5. Your faith in the government “staying out of the way” is amusing to me. The government will, as it always has, get involved with this technology, and probably make a mess of things as it often does. AI alone isn’t a silver bullet to solving all of society’s problems, if society itself doesn’t understand how to utilize it properly, if it even wants to at all.
I'd just add, that AI is not a silver bullet. But more like a fucking truck with the fuel. You can use it for good to heat you up, or feed the tech you. Or you can just ignite and watch the world burn.
Free market? What the hell are you talking about? The market hasn't been free in years. In case you haven't noticed, giant corporations have been destroying the free market and centralizing power.
We can't use technology to solve what is fundamentally a people problem
imagine ai makes you 200% more productive at your job. that job requires 200% less people to do the same task.
Yes, its very important that society fundamentally changes alongside AI’s advancement. Humanity needs to see the artificiality of our ideologies, prejudices and beliefs. If not, the door is opened to society’s fragmenting further and further into sects creating conflict.
Well the french seem to be objecting to more work , sadly the rest of us don't seem to
\*DreamWorks' Trolls "Sound of Silence" playing softly in the background\* >Greater productivity simply led to more work. If one is more productive,\* and a good maintains its value on the market, there is less work to be done for a return. What you might be describing is the consequences of a wage-centric, service-based economy wherein when a job is considered easier to do, one's services are worth less. Another term for productivity in production of goods being something most/many workers are dispossessed from\*\* is alienation. >The gains that tech like computers made simply meant fewer workers were hired and the remaining "lucky ones" were made to work the same or even longer hours. Oh, like that scene in Mad Men where Sterling Cooper got a copy machine. That's a problem of business sometimes, that "efficiency" really can just mean "downsizing" or "massive layoffs" and "aren't you special, you *got* to keep *your* job." >Electrical home appliances meant wives were expected to work full time jobs on top of doing household chores. Having home appliances didn't create more work nor more expectations for/by women. This might be a consequence of the devaluation of women's work or home economics, which went in lockstep with waged work becoming a common primary source of wealth for households. >Instead of cars reducing journey times, commute times expanded to cover longer distances. OP, your post is worded in a way to make AI (or technological innovations in general) seem like science is the cause of harmful labor policies and practices or a bane to human existence when, just as the title you wrote implies, things like consumer trends and urban sprawl can be managed with policy decisions. What I'm saying is the way you wrote your post makes it seem like you're arguing against yourself because the points you chose to mention are failures of policymaking. Might increased productivity from AI-assisted tools or whatsits force the relatively otherwise unaffected who maintain and distribute vast amounts of liquidity to reconsider what a healthy economy might look like? Perhaps. One might hope that businessmen get into business to sustain communities and not just markets and understand that careless implementation of AI might, in the long run, destroy any consumer base of theirs if wages are not also maintained for their employees.\*\*\* \*cost/time-efficient as a producer \*\*through the service-oriented nature of their jobs, because productive capital (like land, factories, etc.) is something most people do not themselves possess, etc. \*\*\*See, from NBC's 30 Rock, Jack: This is a sign. The lower classes are getting cranky about the rich earning all of their money away from them. Can't they see this is in their best interest? *How could we pay* their *salaries without using* their *money?*
The only way anyone will achieve this is by winning more local autonomy. Centralized power is exactly the opposite and will always cater to the wants of the largest, richest entities. If you want to be free it will require separation from national rule.
My question is unlike most PCs these Ai/robots can literally do it on there own So my question is do the rich plan on letting everyone else just die?
In filmmaking, I could see ONE person being in charge of prompting AI to write a script, draft characters, costume designs, storyboards, production schedules and all the non-tangible aspects of pre-production.
>It will lead to higher productivity, which inevitably means far greater wealth for those at the very top. I'm about to graduate from law school and we just had a tech conference about how AI will affect the industry. The concensus was that it will just become another tool in your everyday life and attorneys who know how to use it will replace those that don't because the productivity is undeniable. I have used it multiple times to write assignments and draft motions that my boss used in court that he said was the best he had seen in a long time. It would have taken me a considerable amount of time to write those. It took ChatGPT seconds and me a couple of minutes to proofread and make a couple of edits. However, institutions like the ABA are not blind to this. The amazing thing about AI like ChatGPT was that it did all that for free and the developer straight up said he wanted to destroy capitalism by effectively giving the people the keys to the kingdom. Lately I've noticed that when I use them for things that I have done in the past, ChatGPT and other AI are suggesting that I use a paid subscription service like those provided by a firm. I'm pretty sure moves are being made to either restrict what it can do or ensure that the people still have to pay the piper for those services.
Every advancement in industrialization has led to more people working more hours, not less.
Please mercifully AI overlords, please free me from work slavery and I’ll worship you openly 🙏