>If I propose to end slavery in 1800s you’re objection to “who would pick the cotton!?” is not a rebuttal.

Typical right-wing / conservative move of, "uhh actually we're totally the ones who are against slavery... Yeah... It was us..."

The scenarios are not analogous at all.

>New horizons will be created. What they will be I cannot even begin to guess.

You are fundamentally at odds with the premise of the sub, this seems to be the biggest thing you're not grasping.

If you believe we're on the cusp of developing a self improving entity that is more intelligent, more creative, and all around more capable than a human at any given task then there cannot be any new horizons that an AI wouldn't better be able to take advantage of.

That was very clearly not the only substance to my response. But I'd get more out of talking to a brick wall at this point. Waste of time. Peace.

I will ask you again what you're proposing as an alternative Mr. Big Brain McCapitalism.

If you believe in free market competition, and there comes a time when for any given job there is an AGI that can easily out-compete and given human applicant. What is the alternative? The bold words are supposed to help you piece this together. I'm not sure how I could be any more clear.

IF you think capitalism is the ideal economic model and it should be preserved for the foreseeable future.

You're either suggesting that for the foreseeable future, humans will be able to compete with an exponentially increasing artificial intelligence (that can already rival us in a lot of jobs).

OR you're suggesting that such an AI won't come to exist.

If you're not willing to concede that UBI is necessary in a post-AGI world, those are virtually the only logical conclusions you can be making. Are you going to elaborate or are you going to keep whining about how we all use the word "literally" or something else equally inane?

"UwU, I don't use the word "literally". I'm so smart UwU."

I'll say it again. Profit literally comes at somebody else's expense. There are ways to generate surplus value without necessarily taking from somewhere else, automation is a decent example of this. But for the most part, it's a zero-sum game.

Everything that followed was more or less a load of flowery irrelevant bullshit. Profit it's simply the difference between what it costs to produce a good or service and the amount of revenue you can generate selling it.

There are many ways to go about generating profit, but cutting expenses is the primary move for short-term profit-obsessed private corporations. Where do companies often first look to cut expenses? Wages.

What are you honestly proposing as an alternative to UBI?

UBI is pretty much the only way that capitalism can be maintained post-AGI job takeover. If there's no UBI, you have literal billions of hungry desperate people who will be happy to tear down the prevailing global economic system.

>That’s such a naive understanding of economics. Exchanges only happen with both parties profit. Otherwise why would you do the exchange if you were not valuing the good or service over what you’re exchanging?

Lol, you're really out here calling other people's interpretations of economics naive?

People obviously buy things because they need or want them. Food; so we don't starve. Housing; so we don't die from exposure. Etc.

It's beyond naive to think that these exchanges can't still be coercive or exploitative. They're almost coercive BY NATURE. If you control the supply of something people desperately need, literally so they don't die, you have undue power and can extort them for much more value than was truly put into producing those products.

> And I expect downvotes given this sub’s anti-capitalist stance. Shame.

You're getting downvotes because your opinions are naive and frankly - dumb.

>Profit is not at the expense of someone else.

Profit = Total Revenue - Total Expenses... It is literally at somebody else's expense i.e. the workers. If you want more profit and don't feel like actually investing those profits back into the business for the long-term goal of generating more revenue, you can always just slash your expenses - primarily with wage cuts or merely stagnant wages that don't match inflation.

I think people need to temper their expectations a bit. Things definitely are ramping up, but there's no saying when we'll reach broadly usable AGI.

For one, transistors have pretty much stopped getting smaller. We're butting up on fundamental physical limits there.

So, without some as of yet unknown computational paradigm shift, it's possible that true AGI may always need to run on building sized computers consuming megawatts/gigawatts of power.

People could still access this remotely via the cloud, presumably, but it would severely limit the scale and impact of AGI in regular life.

Nah, dismantling capitalism before it has a chance to control early AGI is pretty important.

It is, because capitalism will find a way to destroy all of us first. It's actually well on track to do just that.

Transistors have more or less stopped getting smaller so there may be some fundamental limits to what an AI can do without being the size of a building and consuming megawatts of power.

The psychopathic shareholders who control all the wealth and capital will just use AI to continue doing psychopathic things.

It's not looking good for us without some near immediate collective action.

"They must be doing something right."

Really drank the meritocracy coolaid, didn't ya?

It's called nepotism... Lol. That's what they're doing right.

It's a significantly better version of Siri.

GPT-4 can borderline pass the Turing Test and Siri can barely do... anything?

Screw off with the hyperloop. Just. Build. A. Damn. Train. Holy. Fuck.

They were trying to cure cancer not HIV.