Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdmmhis wrote

Billionaires will be winners and the rest of humanity will be losers.

60

MistyDev t1_jdmruk6 wrote

I'm so tired of these pointless one liner comments. Do people honestly think these "rich get richer and we are all screwed" comments are actually adding anything of value?

If people want to make this argument, for gods sake please just add some level of original thought. These sheep comments aren't helping anyone.

What should we be watching out for? How might we prevent this from happening?Historically is there a similar situation?

Or maybe take the opportunity to respond to the OP instead circling around to the same talking point.

2

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdmu6sa wrote

Telling the truth, instead letting people indulge in naive optimism, adds something of value. Once humans are no longer needed because the people with power have machines to do everything for them, they'll leave the rest of us to starve in the streets.

Too many worship billionaires and hate their fellow humans (especially those of another color, religion, sexuality, etc.) to try to do anything to stop it. The hateful morons will stop any attempts to organize to make post-AI capitalism non-genocidal because they'd rather see others suffer, then not suffer themselves.

14

peadith t1_jdmurx1 wrote

I agree with what you say about celebrity billionaireism but it's already starting to look like billionaires are going to find out first about how much they're really worth and the followers will have to find something more significant to worship.

1

Assembly_R3quired t1_jdmvhaa wrote

How does this comment add value to your prior comment? I still don't understand after reading why billionaires are going to win because of AI.

−3

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdmw0rn wrote

The reason capitalism works now is that billionaires need workers, so they pay people to work, and those people use the money for things they need.

When they don't need workers anymore, because they can use AI, the vast majority of humans won't have a way to contribute to society well enough to earn a living.

5

Assembly_R3quired t1_jdmyejm wrote

Ah yes, just like how the average quality of life dropped when the plow was invented.

Or how the average quality of life dropped when electricity was discovered.

Or how the average quality of life dropped when assembly lines were automated.

−2

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdn8thv wrote

I don't think you understand the difference. Those things still required humans to run them. Now we're talking a technology that can do everything humans can do.

8

Assembly_R3quired t1_jdrwdii wrote

That's cute, but ultimately, all of the above directly caused the destruction of millions of jobs. You can make up any qualifiers you want, but the truth is what it is.

0

Used-Comment-5003 t1_jdv0e2k wrote

How do you think humans will make money if AI takes all the jobs?

1

Assembly_R3quired t1_jdy6seb wrote

Wrong question. Do you think Uber would exist today if we relied on horses for transportation?

Jobs are created even when their isn't direct need of them, and assuming you can guess what those will be is what you're doing when you say humans won't be able to find employment.

1

Content_Date_318 t1_jdmvrr8 wrote

The goal of automation is to drive down the cost of labor. Historically speaking workers don't win when automation comes in, it drives down the cost of labor and makes them inherently less valuable which weakens their bargaining position when it comes to negotiating for wages.

​

If you'd like to study a really good example of this, read about the luddites. Plenty of other good historical examples out there too if that's too old for your tastes.

3

Villamanin24680 t1_jdn3c4c wrote

>What should we be watching out for? How might we prevent this from happening? Historically is there a similar situation?

Challenge accepted. We need to fundamentally restructure the way wealth is distributed in society, moving particularly in a more Nordic direction. Iceland is a good example of what that looks like. Strong welfare state and co-ownership of productive firms. Also within top 10 countries for average life expectancy. Now, will what I've just suggested actually happen? I'm not optimistic. If we want it to happen we basically have to start organizing political parties and civic groups with class consciousness foremost in mind.

3

nofluxcapacitor t1_jdo1tjk wrote

It's important to note that the nordic countries have roughly as much wealth inequality as the US, but they just have more taxes which reduces income inequality.

They probably would reduce wealth inequality if they could but the fact that much capital is mobile means the very wealthy can threaten to leave and basically control the government's choices about wealth inequality.

If one country was able to reduce wealth inequality significantly, the wealthy of other countries would likely pressure their governments to condemn and then impose economic sanctions on that country. Along with funding opposition politicians and media within the country.

So it would be a big task to actually reduce it without significant cooperation between governments (e.g. EU's minimum corporation tax would be a very small example).

2

ConfirmedCynic t1_jdpkcp4 wrote

It's what is already happening though, with corporations becoming increasingly monolithic and wealth becoming increasingly concentrated. Why would this trend change, seeing as the process feeds itself? More wealth means more power means more ability to tilt the table to one's own advantage means more wealth.

If companies were interested in being fair, they would have shared the fruits of increased productivity of their employees with their employees. Instead, they do everything they can to squeeze the employees and increase their own take. Why ever would they suddenly have such a fundamental change of heart and share the fruits of increased productivity achieved through AI, which doesn't even come from the employees?

It all seems pretty obvious.

1

3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_jdmo0v3 wrote

Aside from task automation and what that means for jobs, the first losers will be people who are just starting their careers. When you're starting out, you don't know shit. Even with a college degree or two, you don't know anything. There's a lot about a career that you can only learn by doing.

So what happens when the lowest level tasks are taken care of by AI, and all you really need is someone with experience to validate the outputs? Take copywriting. You can easily use prompts to churn out copy, but it won't be perfect. It will miss some key phrasing, might include points that don't need to be there, maybe there are additional marketing messages to weave in. But on the whole, the drafting part of the writing is automated.

Now, if I'm the business leader, I don't want some very junior person validating those outputs. They don't know what to look for. They probably could not even write it as well as the AI. If I'm a business, I don't need junior people, I just need 1 or 2 experts.

The consequence is that getting into a career and earning your place is going to get very difficult. If you're in high school or college right now, the way I started my career and the way you're going to start it are really different. I don't know yet how we will overcome this as a society. If you remove opportunities to learn, then humans will perpetually lose skills as they are automated. How do you become a copywriter if no one needs you and your newly minted bachelors in communications? How do you become an expert without experience? That's going to be a huge issue going forward, and I don't know of anyone with a real answer for it.

11

MpVpRb t1_jdmrkzx wrote

Winners - Adaptable and creative people who effectively use the new tools

Losers - Anybody who wants things to be the same as they were before

8

Content_Date_318 t1_jdmvcwv wrote

With every rise in automation under capitalism, the losers will be the workers and the winners will be the capital owners. It has always been like this in the industrial revolution going back to when the loom replaced the weaving guilds and drove down the cost of labor which is the goal of automation.

8

SatoriTWZ t1_jdmxu2y wrote

those who have power over the algorithms - governments and companies - will be the winners and basically everyone else will be losers to different degrees.

unless societies change and become much more democratic. and i mean direct democracy, not electing people who then govern everybody else.

plus democratization of economy and workplaces.

i see no other alternative.

6

rixtil41 t1_jdpg6le wrote

I might be downvoted, but a dictorship might not be bad if done right. To give an example in a group dictorship, each one takes care of different sectors of society. Consistency and efficiency could be a lot higher in society.

0

SatoriTWZ t1_jdrlaxd wrote

some things are more important than efficiency. e.g. egality and freedom.

2

rixtil41 t1_jds8pa3 wrote

Freedom relative to the majority. The majority dictate the minority.

1

SatoriTWZ t1_jdsgfxh wrote

so better let the minority dictate the majority?^^

1

rixtil41 t1_jdsgpvy wrote

yes, just not every time in every single thing. Because sometimes the majority does not always know what's best for themselves

0

rixtil41 t1_jdshyrc wrote

Would you rather have a bad but free life or a good but dictated life?

0

theonlyone38 t1_jdmmdbx wrote

Everyone wins and loses on some level. Sure its great to bee boop something everytime you need answer, but I worry now that an AI can give you the complete answer people won't even bother to use their brains.

4

Richpur t1_jdmpbjz wrote

Assuming that people need complete answers to not use their brains is surprisingly charitable even only considering the last decade.

4

theonlyone38 t1_jdmpjd9 wrote

I was saying that with this in the back of my brain, I understand that its already happening but AI will make it so much worse.

2

satans_toast t1_jdmnkys wrote

As with all recent developments in computing, the consumers will be the losers.

4

[deleted] t1_jdn21fw wrote

[deleted]

1

satans_toast t1_jdn5txi wrote

All of the computing shit that created social media, tracking cookies, privatized spying, algorithmic ideology pushes, deep fakes, tractors farmers can’t fix themselves, self-driving cars that run over people, toasters that must be on the internet or they fail, r/theinternetofshit, pattern searching resume reviewal bots, banking software that intentionally detects and and screws over people of color looking for mortgages, search engines that only return paid advertisements, Instagram influencers, Tik Tokkers, Logan Paul, and just a slew of wretchedness that comprises the modern Internet.

2

blitcap t1_jdmoecx wrote

I have no medical background so I have no idea if this could be true but my guess in the later stages of AI general practitioner/family doctors will be affected. AI Diagnosis at home would catch things early and offer solutions.

4

3SquirrelsinaCoat t1_jdmpoui wrote

Probably for some things, but currently, a family dr's schedule is insane, just rushing from one room to the next, talking to you for 10 minutes and they're out. If at home diagnostics become widespread (and I agree, I think they will and it's already happening), then the doctor has less to sort through. Little Jimmy with a cough doesn't need to come in because the at home diagnostics say, "it's just some allergies." That's one less patient for the doctor to see so they can spend more time dealing with higher level health problems.

There's a concept in medicine called "operating at the top of your license." That is, the MD should be spending most of their time dealing with the really tough cases and not wasting their deep knowledge on Little Jimmy's cough. It's one of the lines that gets trumpeted a bunch - AI liberates you to focus on more meaningful work. That's true. It's also code for lower level job replacement. Family doctors are going to need fewer nurses and physician assistants.

6

QuantumQualia t1_jdnuica wrote

I don’t know about that - the higher level work is just as easily automated. AI is much more capable of scanning literature and case outcomes to make a specialist recommendation than any human being. If anything my instinct is that nurses will be able to function as translators of complex automated medical diagnoses and high level diagnosticians will lose out.

3

[deleted] t1_jdq1xx1 wrote

[deleted]

1

QuantumQualia t1_jdrg9o4 wrote

We can hope! It will still become a much more difficult and uncertain place to live in the medium term though.

1

ConfirmedCynic t1_jdplur0 wrote

It would have to be certified before it would be allowed to, for example, issue prescriptions. I have a feeling that this would be very long in coming, seeing as it more or less would require doctors to voluntarily put themselves out of work.

3

-technocrates- t1_jdmot2l wrote

winners: corporations

losers: nations, institutions, unions, families, and people

4

gidutch t1_jdmpxv8 wrote

Humanity

  1. Because the rich and powerful will hoard in all the advantages AI has to offer
  2. creating a larger group of people in poverty
  3. setting the foundation for revolution which will
  4. divide the power over capital good evenly in society
4

canad1anbacon t1_jdmvch8 wrote

Teachers would be medium term winners I think. AI has a ton of potential to automate or ease some of the most annoying parts of the job (generating material, lesson plans, emails) allowing them to focus on the more rewarding parts of the job.

Eventually AI could start to replace teachers but I think it will be a long while before parents are comfortable with a robot watching over their kids

Losers: Data analysts, entry level programmers, accountants

4

griff_the_unholy t1_jdmo69l wrote

We will all get dumber, computers will all get smarter.

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmqsp8 wrote

I expect everyone (especially the poorest people in society) to be huge winners, except for the Marxists and Luddites who will have to deal with the painful realization that they were completely wrong about how the world works

2

Alive_Promotion824 t1_jdms64r wrote

And how will this benefit the poor exactly?

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmsomw wrote

An abundance of extremely cheap goods and services disproportionately helps the poorest people. Jeff Bezos can already have whatever he wants, do whatever he wants, whenever he wants. So it won't be a dramatic difference for people who are already extraordinarily wealthy. On the other hand, the lives of the poorest people will be improved by like 1000x.

1

NoDimension1757 t1_jdmxxrg wrote

Unless the poorest can afford the stuff because their jobs were automated to cut costs. Unless there is a universal income, full AI automation will cost more than just money, it's going to cost lives. We already let people starve imagine what will happen when we no longer have any leverage to bargain for better pay.

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdmylin wrote

Stuff will become dramatically more affordable. One person's job will be able to support an entire family. Later on, one person's job will be able to support multiple households. And so on and so forth. So, fewer and fewer jobs will be needed in the first place. Remember, we don't want jobs, we want goods and services.

Also, UBI is a horrible idea.

0

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdn9pc7 wrote

>One person's job will be able to support an entire family. Later on, one person's job will be able to support multiple households. And so on and so forth. So, fewer and fewer jobs will be needed in the first place.

This is not how it works. The more desperate people are for the few existing jobs, the less those jobs can get away with paying.

1

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdnmid0 wrote

You're not understanding my point. People will be a lot LESS desperate for jobs in this world.

−1

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdnnozq wrote

Why? Didn't your parents ever tell you money doesn't grow on trees? Where will these people live?

What makes you think savings from automation will be passed down to consumers? Especially on essential goods like housing.

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdnotfz wrote

Competition between the home builders will drive prices down. It doesn't matter if housing is essential. Food is essential, yet you aren't charged a million dollars for pizza.

0

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdnplgk wrote

If it worked like that, prices wouldn't be as high as they are now.

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdnptb9 wrote

You can thank the Federal Reserve and all other government interventions into the free market for that. If we had actual capitalism right now, poverty probably would've been eliminated already.

−1

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdnsgl3 wrote

Wow. I don't even know where to begin with that level of naive innocence.

Have you ever worked for a living? I'm not talking about a summer job, I mean worked to pay for your own housing, food, transportation, healthcare? You really sound like someone who read about some idealized version of capitalism in a book, but who has otherwise been completely sheltered from the real world.

Let me give you a clue, people are fucking awful. They steal, cheat, and exploit others because they can. The government's job is to protect people from unsafe products, dangerous work environments, and predatory business practices.

You seem like you could use a few lessons from the school of hard knocks, I'll just hope they aren't too difficult.

5

NoDimension1757 t1_jdo0m84 wrote

Well I was going to respond to that nonsense but I think you've just about got it covered.

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdnt7kb wrote

I know what the real world is like. It's not great, which is why I want us to move to a capitalist system. And by capitalist system I mean, ideally no government at all, but at a bare minimum, at least completely privatize healthcare, education, banking, housing, money, etc. We are so so so far from that currently.

The government does not protect people, as you presume. The government is basically a giant mafia gang that systematically violates private property rights. It's a parasite that leeches off society. We would be enourmously wealthier right now if not for the government. Food insecurity, homelessness, dying from preventable diseases, these problems could have been eliminated already but so much of our increasing productivity is being syphoned away by the government.

1

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdnuegy wrote

You claim you know what the real world is like. How? From what you read or saw on TV? What you've imagined? Or have you actually lived in it? If you haven't fully supported yourself in it, you have no idea.

Why would it make sense to treat sick people with fully privatized healthcare? Maybe if they have some super rich relative who can pay you, but otherwise why would you do it? You'd just trust them to pay once they were well enough to work, if they got well enough to work?

What possible capitalist incentive would there be to treat the sick who are too weak to contribute? Or is your idea of healthcare euthanizing everyone who can't contribute, that doesn't have family to care for them? Or you think people will care for the sick out of the goodness of their heart?

You want to know how a truly free market works? Look at the drug market. People often sell laced drugs that kill people. People kill each other over payment disputes.

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdo4hxg wrote

I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market. The reason I want us to move to a capitalist system is precisely BECAUSE I know the real world is bad right now. If I thought the real world was all rosy right now, I obviously wouldn't be a fan of capitalism because I would be fine with our current system of statism.

Regarding privatized healthcare: the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price. If you want our society to have an abundance of healthcare available to poor people, you should support completely privatizing it.

It's hilarious that as an example of a "truly free market" you talk about illegal drugs. That's like saying "if you want to see how true circles work, look at squares!" Your example shows the problems caused by GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION into the free market. By making some drugs illegal, the government prevents legitimate businesses from selling them. So if someone wants to buy an illegal drug, instead of buying it from a reputable company with brand-name recognition and good track records for safety, they have to buy it from some shady guy in a dark alley. If CVS tried to sell marijuana (in a state where that's illegal) they would be stopped by the government. How the hell is that a free market? Your comment makes literally no sense. Look at what happened during alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. The mob got involved in alcohol and violence increased. Then, once prohibition ended, the government was no longer implicitly protecting the mob from competition from reputable business. So the mob was pushed out of that sector by market forces. Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

0

canad1anbacon t1_jdp0sy4 wrote

> I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market.

But the US spends more as a percentage of per capita GDP on healthcare than countries with universal healthcare systems like Canada, France, the UK....more privatization in healthcare actually creates inefficiency and waste and leads to worse outcomes

3

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdp1je0 wrote

It's conceivable that a completely socialist healthcare system might be more efficient than our current quasi-socialist healthcare system. But both of those options are horrible compared to a completely privatized healthcare system. If we imagine a scale from 1 to 10, where a higher number means a greater abundance of affordable high-quality care, maybe our current healthcare system is a 1, a universal healthcare system is a 2, and a completely privatized healthcare system would be a 10.

0

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdrxzv5 wrote

What motive does a privatized healthcare system have to treat the dying, the disabled, or people too sick to work, who may never recover? Where's the money in that?

2

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdochvk wrote

>I don't understand why you keep asking me about the "real world". I know what the real world is like. I know that the healthcare system is insane, inflation is running rampant, people are being forced to work multiple jobs, etc. But all this bad stuff is happening because of government intervention into the free market.

If you knew about the real world by living in it, you'd see how your theory about the government being the problem is wrong. You would see corporations cutting every corner they can legally get away with because they want to make more money and how others are harmed by that is irrelevant.

If you worked in the real world, you'd know that before the government changed the rules mine owners valued the life of a donkey over a human worker, because they could just find another person to pay without losing much, but they'd have to buy a new donkey.

If you had lived in the real world, you'd be aware just how often regular people rely on government intervention to force others to play fair, or to help them during a crisis that isn't of their own making.

>the big picture is that free-market capitalism creates an abundance of high-quality goods/services at a low price.

Why do you believe that? Not even Adam Smith believed that. He thought government regulation was necessary to prevent monopolies. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

Based on how people abuse our current system, I think it's more likely most of us would effectively be slaves in a company town if capitalism was completely unregulated.

> Today it wouldn't make sense to go to some dark alley to buy alcohol, because you wouldn't be sure of its purity. So you go to a business that you trust, and you know that the product is pure. That's what would happen with drugs if the government stopped getting involved.

I can go to any legal business to buy alcohol, because they're regulated by the government. There are rules about the purity of alcohol they can sell. Somebody checks they aren't selling alcohol contaminated with methanol, so I don't have to. That somebody is the government.

The government makes sure the food I buy from a grocery store is safe to eat, and isn't contaminated with toxins or pathogens. They regulate restaurants to make sure they uphold food safety standards.

Regulations are written in blood. Most of the regulations you might think are dumb, or common sense, exist because somebody thought they could make a few extra bucks cutting corners, and killed or maimed people doing it.

There are certainly some regulations that are too strict, or unreasonable, but the vast majority of regulations are things closer to making sure there isn't menthol in drinking alcohol, or rat poison in food, than they are like setting the drink age to 21. You just don't think about those regulations because people aren't questioning them.

You think housing will get cheaper if all regulation is removed, and I agree we need to remove a lot of stupid zoning laws. However, I like being able to buy a house, or move into a building, without being a construction engineer, and know the house is safe and won't collapse on me.

2

Zealousideal_Ad3783 t1_jdp2gdn wrote

My response will be short because I don't have enough time to continue writing a bunch of paragraphs.

If you think that only the government can make sure that food is safe, or that buildings are up to code, you just haven't thought about this enough. Of course the private sector can handle those things. Just because the government is currently doing something, that doesn't mean that only the government can do it. I bet if the restaurant industry was controlled by the government, and I was advocating for the government to abolish the Department of Restaurants, you'd think we would never have restaurants again because we need the government for that.

I'll let you have the last word because I don't want to continue this back-and-forth indefinitely.

0

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdqhp02 wrote

Have you ever worked in the private sector? Because they can't handle those things. The belief they can is based on the false idea that people are basically good, honest, and put the public interest above their own greed. That's not how things actually work though.

The incentives are all wrong for the private sector to even attempt to handle those things. They prioritize short term gains and don't consider the long term costs. Government is required to ensure companies don't risk public safety for short term gain, when the incentives set by capitalism encourage them to do so.

Yes, I support the health department inspecting restaurants, if the private sector tried to do that the restaurant owners would pay them to pass even when they should fail. The government can do that effectively because they aren't trying to make money, so they don't have a motive to pass a restaurant that should fail.

There are many things society needs to function where the incentive for profit encourages people to the opposite of what needs to be done. That's where government comes in. In a property functioning capitalist system the government tries to align the interest of the private sector with the public good.

Profit motive and public good aren't aligned by magic as you seem to think. The government is required to keep those things aligned by setting the rules for the private sector and creating incentives to do the right thing. Where that isn't enough to align profit motive and public good, the government runs things themselves, as they run courts, the military, programs to care for the sick and elderly who can't care for themselves.

2

NoDimension1757 t1_jdo1aop wrote

How tf do you expect people to pay for those goods and services without jobs? If we eliminate all the jobs that automation with AI tech would stand to eliminate without coming up with a plan, people lose their jobs and have no money. No money means no food, shelter, or buying any products. Sure at some point the ones getting rich off of it will eventually have to figure out a way for us to be able to buy again, but how many will die first? Remember the people who push this stuff are only interested in making as much money as they can, as quick as they can, they rarely look at or even care about the big picture beyond the next fiscal year.

0

Orc_ t1_jdn51wo wrote

When an AI can plan an economy better than anything I think the marxist are gonna smear that in everybody's else face while completely missing the fact that it required a godly machine to make their system work.

Technocratic socialism was already tried in Chile and it did nothing no matter what the Allende stans claim.

0

CultureMoney2045 t1_jdpdluv wrote

I’m pretty sure human beings will be the losers and the first sentient AI will be the winner. Hopefully the will name it Skynet. That would be kind of cool.

2

BackwardBarkingDog t1_jdp6ik4 wrote

Winners: Leaders of the Butlerian Jihad and the Bene Gesserit.

1

Futurology-ModTeam t1_jdqkoes wrote

Hi, tshirtguy2000. Thanks for contributing. However, your submission was removed from /r/Futurology.

> > As an example, copy writers and data entry clerks will be the losers with project managers of AI systems being the winners.

> Rule 10 - We welcome text posts, but could you please ensure they meet our requirements for creating in-depth discussion. If yours is removed for failing to do so, consider reposting again, but with additional detail.

Avoid generalized invitations to discuss frequently discussed topics (Will AI take over the world? Is Chat-GPT good or bad, etc, etc). Instead, aim for discussion with specific topics (with supporting links if possible), and give detail to the ideas about their future implications that you would like to see discussed. If possible articulate multiple aspects of these future implications to encourage high quality discussion.

Submissions with [in-depth] in the title have stricter post length and quality guidelines.

Refer to the subreddit rules, the transparency wiki, or the domain blacklist for more information.

[Message the Mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=/r/Futurology&subject=Question regarding the removal of this submission by /u/tshirtguy2000&message=I have a question regarding the removal of this submission if you feel this was in error.

1

[deleted] t1_jdn2lem wrote

[deleted]

−1

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdn9fhb wrote

Because some of us have been paying attention over the last 30 years.

5

[deleted] t1_jdncpry wrote

[deleted]

0

SomeoneSomewhere1984 t1_jdngrhc wrote

We now have a plague, much more income inequality, less privacy, unstoppable global warming, and one of the two major US political parties has become openly fascist with the help of constant propaganda. Yes, we have more toys, but the quality of life for the majority has gone down.

2

andrew21w t1_jdns5b4 wrote

Man, some of you people are pessimistic without reason. Have some nuance.

AI is a double edged sword, like every piece of tech really.

It will sure as hell help the average Joe in more ways than one, especially in the medical field. However it will also enable bad actors.

What we need is get more of the good and less of the bad

Saying: "Billionaires bad, will fuck us all" is the easiest thing to say.

However, in all of history, technological advancements have helped even poorer people.

The greatest recent example:

The internet. We literally have all of human knowledge at the palm of our hands, we can connect with people who we wouldn't be able to in our lifetime, but at the same time, it's easier for companies to steal your data and spread misinformation.

See? It's double edged. A general rule of thumb is: If it doesn't have drawbacks it probably doesn't have much advantage to begin with.

Same with AI

−1