That perspective would be more reassuring if this didn't coincide with a new president promising to roll back LGBT rights, and Bezos being a guest of honor at his inauguration.

Bezos is chairman, but not CEO. Does he still have that much influence within the company?

I would agree if this happened organically and not all in lockstep with an excutive order from the government demanding to shut down all federal diversity initiatives.

> Progress can't be stopped but there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era

There's a particularly evocative line this reminds me of in Mississippi, Goddamn.

> Don't tell me, I tell you

> Me and my people just about due

> I've been there so I know

> They keep on saying "Go slow"

We have heard this before - in Soviet Union. The progress and overcoming capitalism was inevitable. It ended up well

AI will end capitalism in its current form this century. Though what comes after is still an open question.

Sure, the same way printing press, electrification, education and what not did.

The printing press predates capitalism.

But its usage to “enlighten the masses” - does not.

I think you are misunderstanding my reasoning then. I'm not saying AI will enlighten the masses or anything.

The current system is based on capitalists employing workers. But with AI there will not be a need to employ workers. Goods and services can be provided without human labor. From the worker's perspective, currently they perform a job and get money they buy the things they need. The question is then, if the job disappears how will they aquire the things they need? Basic income? Charity? We shall see.

From the capitalists perspective if they forgo workers then there is no need for their goods and services.

It's odd to me that the current thought is that this idea is lost on them because they want nothing more than to get rid of workers? They want more productivity from their workers for the same or slightly less cost, which they are hoping AI can squeeze out of them. Eliminate too many workers and you have to pay the ones left more as they are now specialist, and productivity gains from AI only brings production back to when they had more workers without AI and paying less for them bringing it to about even. They gain by keeping around the same amount of workers (maybe a few less--that amount to a rounding error, but not the doom being predicted), at their current job title paying the same scraps and using AI to get more productivity out of them. And in which workers will now turn around and spend their check buying said goods at a higher cost than they were paid to make them.

Unless UBI becomes a thing, capitalists know they need workers who will buy their goods and services.

> then there is no need for their goods and services.

Would still need to produce goods for the shareholders.

Without the worker bees being able to participate in the buying of goods there's not enough profit for the shareholders to gain enough to buy the goods. The whole thing collapses. And capitalist know this and is against their best interest.

Capitalism is “capitalists employing workers” only in Marxist doctrine. Capitalism is free market. And that will not disappear because AI displaces workers.

Did the printing press eat all creative seed corn and completely ossify business? Because that is what AI is going to. No new creatives other than influencer creators. No new programmers other than hobby programmers who learn from influencers. No teachers just influencers. No people rising up through the different areas of a business with that kind of domain knowledge. Just CEOs, AI, and social media influencers.

>Though what comes after is still an open question

I'm seeing a lot of people yelling that what's coming after is a technologically advanced form of feudalism. It doesn't seem like that much of a question.

Progress wasn't made on interracial marriage and desegregation because black people waited patiently for the natural course of societal evolution to take place. Progress had to be forced upon society against its will, sometimes with guns. And even today there are plenty of people who would resegregate society and outlaw interracial marriage if it were legal. Racial realism and white supremacist ideology are becoming normalized in American politics. Even on HN you'll find people stating matter of factly that people black people have a higher genetic predisposition for criminality and lower IQs, and that slavery and colonization were the best thing to ever happen to them. This shit is not settled.

I disagree that "there is a ceiling on how much progress that can be made in one era" and I vehemently disagree with the implication that the government should determine how much progress is allowed.

"First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Council-er or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can't agree with your methods of direct action;" who paternalistically feels he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by the myth of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a "more convenient season."

from MLK Jr. of course, while he was locked up in a jail in Birmingham for protesting.

It is revisionist history to think that civil rights were brought about by the barrel of a gun, and that there are no limits on the methods of direct action.

MLK Jr. is not saying there are no reasonable limits on methods of direct action. He is not saying that every goal is justified by any means.

Desegregation literally required armed troops escorting black students into white schools.

And there are no limits on the methods of direct action, certainly none dictated by the oppressors. If you believe otherwise, I will remind you of the pride Americans take in the violent revolution that founded their nation, and why the Second Amendment exists.

You cannot found a nation on the premise that political violence is necessary for a free state and then claim that there are limits to what those seeking freedom can do to achieve it. These are the rules to America's game.

You are missing the forest for the trees. Armed troops were used a handful of times in the entire country. Those troops weren't forced to act by radical black militias. Brown v. Board of Education wasn't decided at gunpoint.

It is legitimate to apply scrutiny to what causes are just, and what is a legitimate use of violence.

This is the best country to be black. Better than even Africa itself. That's why they run here and not there. Flourishing open black racism is a norm. It's call 'justice', or 'civil rights', or 'progress'. Looks like majority begins to realize what it actually is.

speak of the devil...

The 21 day old nazi adjacent online account?

It's a "Roman 88" ... https://www.adl.org/resources/hate-symbol/88 .. honest!!