Where it comes to automation and AI we are genuinely standing on the precipice of a dystopian reality.
How Class Warfare Fails Game Theory
Posts
Total:
166
-->
@badger
Who owns and operates the means of production then? Private individuals? Forever?
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. In contrast to what? Private individuals own the means of production currently.
There is no reason to be against a minimum wage.
Never said I was.
-->
@cristo71
I’m not sure what you’re asking here. In contrast to what? Private individuals own the means of production currently.
Currently we share in the wealth of that production. We are an essential part of it.
What about when we're not? We got government coupons that do what exactly?
Never said I was.
I appreciate that.
-->
@badger
Currently we share in the wealth of that production. We are an essential part of it.What about when we're not?
We all can only speculate. What I will say is that when technology replaces a certain skillset, the need for other skillsets is also created. Such as when automobiles took over horses and carriages, the need for car and engine designers and manufacturers and mechanics arose.
-->
@cristo71
We all can only speculate. What I will say is that when technology replaces a certain skillset, the need for other skillsets is also created. Such as when automobiles took over horses and carriages, the need for car and engine designers and manufacturers and mechanics arose.
Because we have not yet built anything so versatile as ourselves. When we have built technology that can do everything we can do with the ease we can do it, we have replaced ourselves. That should be an obvious truth. We are probably not far off that.
Because we have not yet built anything so versatile as ourselves. When we have built technology that can do everything we can do with the ease we can do it, we have replaced ourselves.We are probably not far off that.
Well, yes, AI will replace you and be much better than you at everything. We are borg. We cannot resist.
-->
@badger
What do you want, Mom and pop's formerly-a-meth-lab pharmaceuticals? If you think this isn't a business area that requires extreme rigor then I can't have a conversation with you like you are a rational adult.
How does Linux work?
Is that an operating system that takes a billion dollars of bribes to get to market or is it something that works well without government who is practically owned by the donor class?
All open source projects are really evidence that we don't need to give the government who is owned by the donor class all the power. We can in fact give people the power. That citizens can do great things.
If you think that it really takes a billion dollars to bring a drug to market that there is no room for a university biochemistry lab to design a drug and have the FDA test it for say 100 million instead of a billion than maybe I can't have a rational conversation with you .
Let's not forget also that slowing technological progression say by making a cure take 10 years to come to market is also a type of murder. If somebody is dying of cancer and given 3 months to live, they don't have time for a drug to take 10 years to get to market. They kind of need immediate help
What about when we're not? We got government coupons that do what exactly?
The conservatives in the United States have created a plan to pay everyone a minimum basic income for just existing. It is called "The fair tax" as a marketing ploy. Democrats here typically shoot it down because it involves a tax on consumption so it would make it so you can't weaponize the tax system against political opponents.
If you think that it really takes a billion dollars to bring a drug to market that there is no room for a university biochemistry lab to design a drug and have the FDA test it for say 100 million instead of a billion than maybe I can't have a rational conversation with you .
Fine. Still requires 100 million in testing. Will always still require extreme rigour to get the drug over the line. If you want to open source it up to that point, I got no problem with that.
Regulatory bodies are still not the problem. Play the game of Monopoly with your kids this evening. Try to understand how the game is actually instructive. Limited resources inevitably means monopolies without intervention.
-->
@WyIted
The conservatives in the United States have created a plan to pay everyone a minimum basic income for just existing
Well, thats probably great as long as its not too much. Like, 300$ to every adult and child is probably good.
-->
@WyIted
The conservatives in the United States have created a plan to pay everyone a minimum basic income for just existing. It is called "The fair tax" as a marketing ploy. Democrats here typically shoot it down because it involves a tax on consumption so it would make it so you can't weaponize the tax system against political opponents.
You don't understand what UBI is. The money we're paid currently gets its value from the work we do we to earn it. It's a two-way street.
If money doesn't mean anybody's work, what does it mean?
-->
@WyIted
Although a better way is to limit the money help to poor only. I find helping the poor with money directly to be superior to universal basic income.
When you hand over money you are buying somebody else's work. We are into very strange territory when that is no longer the case.
-->
@badger
If money doesn't mean anybody's work, what does it mean?
I don't know. I just think consumption tax works elsewhere.
Getting into what money means is beyond the scope of my knowledge so I can only guess but cryptocurrency seems to go against what we think money should be.
When the world went away from the gold standard it also seemed to move away from currency holding some real value,
I almost think it would be useless for me to dig into "what money is" because we are in for a paradigm shift soon.
_______
I am sure to you maybe the money question is common sense. I don't have much of that. I have to work a bit harder for what I know. which means I just have to say I don't know.
One of the things I respect about you is that you seem to know a lot of things through having good intuition.
For me simple questions take a lot more work. Had you asked me what money is a few years ago I would have said it represents the value of goods or services to get around barter. so it would represent time or labor in that way as you wouldn't pay for an apple you can find on the ground or on a tree as walking so it's a type of mixture of labor with nature.
Today I don't know how to answer the same question. Given how much people like Logan Paul makes, I think we would also have an argument that money also represents attention.
I appreciate the compliment. Honestly I'm feeling around in the dark here too, pretty much everything I'm writing in this thread is kinda just coming to me, but once I have it it seems the most basic of basic. I think you're a bit of a fucking lunatic tbh Wylted but I don't think you're shy of the truth lol. That's what I respect about you.
If one person owns everything, if his machines build and produce everything, what is our money? That's the question that shows what money is today. That guy doesn't care about our paper and whatever is written on it. That paper meant other people's work.
UBI is paper with some bullshit written on it.
Today I don't know how to answer the same question. Given how much people like Logan Paul makes, I think we would also have an argument that money also represents attention.
What is the definition of money?
A medium of exchange that is centralized, generally accepted, recognized, and facilitates transactions of goods and services, is known as money. Money is a medium of exchange for various goods and services in an economy.
-->
@thett3
@whiteflame
@rbelivb
I would be very interested to hear you guys' opinions here also. I kinda hijacked this thread, but I feel like I was driving this particular discussion across multiple threads anyway.
If money doesn't mean anybody's work, what does it mean?
What is the definition of money?
A medium of exchange that is centralized, generally accepted, recognized, and facilitates transactions of goods and services, is known as money. Money is a medium of exchange for various goods and services in an economy. The money system varies with the governments and countries.
-->
@badger
AI is like the next iteration of the internet, a connection-machine. It makes vast connections between disparate things, and therefore it threatens the stability of any system based on some assumed, pragmatic stability, or common-sense connections which only take place within an implicit boundary. It isn't a distinct being, which would "replace" human labourers. Really, it is something much more like an environment. If it is automating anything, it is replacing the nation-state itself, capitalism. The automation of workers has been predicted endlessly, but the amount of workers actually automated has been negligible. AI is reshaping the environment, and corporations from the previous paradigm are locked into a race to the bottom, attempting to harness it. If AI is allowed to develop further, workers will increasingly have the option of leaving their 9-5 positions to work on their own terms. In a sense, they will automate their employers. Corporate cultures, and governance structures, will be "replaced" by AI. The attempt to turn AI into an employee is not an inevitability, it’s a survival strategy.
-->
@rbelivb
I think people wont have to work anymore. Everyone will own robots and robots will work for them, or government will force robot owners to share their goods with even those who dont own robots. Its an inevitable future, really. The countries which dont transition to AI economy will be left far behind.
-->
@rbelivb
Good to see you buddy. Where else are posting these incredibly dense paragraphs or for what are you crafting them?
I like the idea of AI as an environment. What do you think of the idea of capitalism as a balancing act, only operational so long as wealth inequality is kept in check?
Honestly I am very dubious of the idea of automation "giving options" to anyone. In the short term at least, I think it is locking people out of access to wealth. Do you not think we come up against serous difficulties where a large part of finite resources are owned by very few?
-->
@badger
Where else are posting these incredibly dense paragraphs or for what are you crafting them?
It is only for my personal interest.
What do you think of the idea of capitalism as a balancing act, only operational so long as wealth inequality is kept in check?
I agree, and the extension of the wealth of the elite beyond any proportion, the development of tech monopolies, is not sustainable and is a direct threat to democracy. However, I would view this within the context that we are within the transition to the next world order. The developing technologies are not compatible or conducive to the industrial nation-state, and the next form of human civilisation is slowly developing.
Honestly I am very dubious of the idea of automation "giving options" to anyone. In the short term at least, I think it is locking people out of access to wealth.
Personally, I used ChatGPT to go from doing repetitive work at almost minimum wage, to being an engineer. In a sense, it is not automating work as much as changing the nature of the work. And different work creates a different reward structure. It is no longer only the most patient, diligent person who is only successful. Soon, you can have an individual maintaining the same software that might have needed an entire company otherwise. Tech monopolies can train a giant pre-trained model, then others just use that to distil it into a much cheaper model that performs equally well. That is why I call it a race to the bottom, I see it as levelling the entire system. Technology proliferates connections faster than the control systems can recuperate them and restore balance.
Do you not think we come up against serous difficulties where a large part of finite resources are owned by very few?
On that point I completely agree. I would also say that relative wealth is in many ways more important than absolute. For example, relationships, job security, social status, most of the things that truly give people meaning, are functions of relative wealth rather than absolute wealth.
-->
@rbelivb
Honestly I am very dubious of the idea of automation "giving options" to anyone. In the short term at least, I think it is locking people out of access to wealth.Personally, I used ChatGPT to go from doing repetitive work at almost minimum wage, to being an engineer. In a sense, it is not automating work as much as changing the nature of the work. And different work creates a different reward structure. It is no longer only the most patient, diligent person who is only successful. Soon, you can have an individual maintaining the same software that might have needed an entire company otherwise. Tech monopolies can train a giant pre-trained model, then others just use that to distil it into a much cheaper model that performs equally well. That is why I call it a race to the bottom, I see it as levelling the entire system. Technology proliferates connections faster than the control systems can recuperate them and restore balance.
I agree with this too really. I think LLM's are overhyped in ways. I don't think they're ever going to replace engineers tbh, but it has definitely boosted my productivity in terms of searching out problems and solutions and finicky questions in general. Just have to make sure to check myself that I am always learning and not copy/pasting. They don't do depth. They'll write an essay but they'll never write a book. Likewise you'll never hand it a sizable project with all its moving parts and expect any real help from it. That's baked into the token by token generation. Coherence dilutes with each additional step. And I think there's no overcoming that.
Honestly I think AI in general is massively overhyped. AGI in particular I think is a fairy tale notion, nobody even has a hint of how we would bring it about. What AI amounts to is massive number-crunching and memory via neural nets but we're still steering everything it learns. We're the ones using its learning. But it isn't really so much AI I would worry about. It's machine automation. There it's not just increased productivity, its entire roles being made redundant and fast.
I think we will all agree big money should stay out of politics.
-->
@Reece101
I think we will all agree big money should stay out of politics.
the Supreme Court ruled that any laws that try to restrict the political spending of corporations and unions is a violation of the First Amendment’s right of free speech. This significantly impacted campaign finance laws.
-->
@rbelivb
It seems from the way you write that you have just written off all current politics as defunct. Must be serene.
-->
@rbelivb
On that point I completely agree. I would also say that relative wealth is in many ways more important than absolute. For example, relationships, job security, social status, most of the things that truly give people meaning, are functions of relative wealth rather than absolute wealth.
Relative wealth give meaning to relationships, job security, social status on a temporary basis whereas absolute wealth makes the same relationships, job security, social status permanent.
-->
@badger
It seems from the way you write that you have just written off all current politics as defunct. Must be serene.
Yes, that is true. But that has basically always been my position