If we don't have something better to do we'll all be at home doing nothing. We all need jobs to afford living, and already today many have bullshit jobs. Are we going to a world where 99.9% of the people need a bullshit job just to survive?
>> We all need jobs to afford living
In many countries this is already not true. There is already enough wealth that there is enough for everyone.
Yes, the western mindset is kinda "you don't work, you don't get paid". The idea that people can "free load" on the system is offensive at a really deep emotional level. If I suggest that a third of the people can work, and the other 2 thirds do nothing, but get supported, most will get distressed [1]. The very essence of US society is that we are defined by our work.
And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing?
As jobs become ever more productive, perhaps just -considering- a world where worth is not linked to output is a useful thought exercise.
No country has figured this out perfectly yet. Norway is pretty close. Lots of Europe has endless unemployment benefits. Yes, there's still progress to be made there.
[1] of course, even in the US, already it's OK for only a 3rd to work. Children don't work. Neither do retirees. Both essentially live off the labor of those in-between. But imagine if we keep raising the start-working age, while reducing retirement benefits age....
And universally, if you have nothing, you lead a very poor life. You life in a minimal house (trailer park, slums, or housing without running water nor working sewage). You don't have a car, you can't travel, education opportunities are limited.
Most kids want to become independent, so they have control over their spending and power over their own lives. Poor retirees are unhappy, sometimes even have to keep working to afford living.
Norway is close because they have oil to sell, but if no one can afford to buy oil, and they can't afford to buy cars, nor products made with oil, Norway will soon run out of money.
You can wonder, why is Russia attacking Ukraine, russia has enough land, doesn't need more. But in the end there will always be people motivated by more power and money, which makes it impossible to create this communism 2.0 that you're describing.
I'm not suggesting equality or communism. I'm suggesting a bottom threshold where you get enough even if you don't work.
Actually Norway gets most of that from investments, not oil. They did sell oil, but invested that income into other things. The sovereign wealth fund now pays out to all citizens in a sustainable way.
Equally your understanding of dole living in Europe is incomplete. A person on the dole in the UK is perfectly able yo live in a house with running water etc. I know people who are.
Creating a base does not mean "no one works". Lots of people in Europe have a job despite unemployment money. And yes most-all jobs pay better than unemployment. And yes lifestyles are not equal. It's not really communism (as you understand it.)
This is not about equal power or equal wealth. It's about the idea that a job should not be linked to survival.
Why is 60 the retirement age? Why not 25? That sounds like a daft question, but understanding it can help understand how dome things that seem cast in stone, really aren't.
Living on welfare in the Netherlands is not a good life, and definitely not something we should accept for the majority of the people.
Being retired on only a state pension is a bad life, you need to save for retirement to have a good life. And saving takes time, that's why you can't retire at 25.
I'm saying that the blind acceptance of the status quo does not allow for that status to be questioned.
You see the welfare amounts, or retirement amounts as limited. Well then, what would it take to increase them? How could a society increase productivity such that more could be produced in less time?
Are some of our mindsets preventing us from seeing alternatives?
Given that society has reinvented itself many times through history, are more reinvention possible?
no, just corporate greed and political corruption. If we wanna change that, words won't do at this point.
>Given that society has reinvented itself many times through history, are more reinvention possible?
Yes, and through what catalyst has society reinvented itself? Reasonable discourse to a civil population appealing to emotion and reason? A sudden burst of altruism to try and cement a positive legacy?
It will reinvent itself eventually. Definitely in my lifetime. I don't know how many of us will survive to see the other side.
Sure, I'd be down for it. But I think that's less realistic and instead the government will make my country try to make for a rise of feudalism instead. Except most will starve. it will make the great depression seem quaint in comparison.
>And yet if 2% of the work force is in agriculture, and produce enough food for all, why is hunger a thing?
I'd love to know the answer too. I think we both know the true answer, though.
>I'm not suggesting equality or communism. I'm suggesting a bottom threshold where you get enough even if you don't work.
That's the issue. Even right now, we don't get enough even if you do work full time. Living is unsustainable. How is the problem going to get better, especially when those who would have to pay will instead lobby to not pay out to the people?
If you're a nationalist, your worry is obvious enough, but if you're a humanist, then it's wonderful that the more downtrodden are going to improve their station, while the better off wait for them.
I don't think the outsourcees are reaching their full potential being paid $2/hr to make American corporations billions. They are simply going to survive and up themselves to a liveable standard.
Firstly the "theft component" isn't exactly new. There have always been rich and poor.
Secondly everyone is standing on the shoulders of giants. The Beatles were influenced by the works of others. Paul and John learned to write by mimicking other writers.
That code you right is the pinicle of endless work dine by others. By Ada Lovelace, and Charles Babbage, and Alan Turing and Brian Kernigan and Denis Ritchie and Doug Englebart and thousands and thousands more.
By your logic the entire output of all industries for all foreseeable generations should be universally owned. [1]
But that's not the direction we have built society on. Rather society has evolved in the US to reward those who create value out of the common space. The oil in Texas doesn't belong to all Texans, it doesn't belong to the pump maker, it belongs to the company that pumps the oil.
Equally there's no such thing as 'your data'. It's your choice to publish or not. Information cannot be 'owned'. Works can be copyrighted, but frankly you have a bigger argument on that front going after Google (and Google Books, not to mention the Internet Archive) than AI. AI may train on data you produced, but it does not copy it.
[1] I'm actually for a basic income model, we don't need everyone working all day like it's 1900 anymore. That means more taxes on companies and the ultra wealthy. Apparently voters disagree as they continue to vote for people who prefer the opposite.
The two parties that end up viable tend to be financed quite heavily by said wealthy, including being proped by the media said wealthy control.
The more right wing side will promise tax cuts (also for the poor that don't seem to materialize) while the more left wing side will promise to tax the rich (but in an easily dodgeable way that only ends up affecting the middle class).
Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one. And I think the wealthy backers wanted it that way.
I would contest some of your points though.
Firstly, not every country votes, not all that vote have 2 viable parties, so that's a flaw in your argument.
Equally most elections produce a winner. That winner can, and does, get stuff done. The US is paralyzed because it takes 60% to win the senate, which hasn't happened for a while. So US elections are set up so "no one wins". Which of course leads to overreach etc that we're seeing currently.
There's a danger when living inside a system that you assume everywhere else is the same. There's a danger when you live in a system that heavily propagandizes its own superiority, that you start to feel like everywhere else is worse.
If we are the best, and this system is the best, and it's terrible, then clearly all hope is lost.
But what I maybe, just maybe, all those things you absolutely, positively, know to be true, are not true? Is that even worth thinking about?
But I know people whose preference would be something like Ron Paul > Bernie Sanders > Trump > Kamala, which might sound utterly bizarre until you realize that there are multiple factors at play and "we want tax cuts for the rich" is not one of them.
People are welcome to whatever preference they like. Democracy let's them choose. But US democracy is deliberately planned to prefer the "no one wins" scenario. That's not the democracy most of the world uses.
Not necessarily. That's a result of first past the post, not of voting in general. ranked choice voting solves a lot of this extremism 2 party system. The dominant parties need to at least pretend to appel enough to moderatism that a 3rd party isn't outvoting both of them.
>Many people understand this and it is barely part of the consideration in their vote. The last election in the US was a social battle, not really an economic one.
So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.
Yup, we really need to fix this problem in many countries. Ranked choice is a great idea that should be pushed for.
> So the right wingers never really cared about inflation, egg prices, and the job market. I wish I could pretend to be shocked at this point.
That was my perception of it at least. I'm not a US citizen. Job market might have been a big one but even that is partially social as a rejection of globalism.
The difference is that, for better or worse, our society chose to follow the model that artists own the rights to their work. That work was used for commercial purposes without the consent of the artists. Therefore it's theft.
I actually do believe all industries should be worker owned because the capitalists have proven they can't be trusted as moral and ethical stewards, but I'm specifically talking about GenAI here.
I think it's disingenuous to say that people have a choice to publish data or not in an economic system that requires them to publish or produce in order to survive. If an artist doesn't produce goods, then they aren't getting paid.
Also this is kind of a pedantic rebuttal but the GenAI software technically does first have to copy the data to then train on it :) But seriously, it can be prompted to reproduce copyrighted works and I don't think the rights holders particularly care how that happens, rather that it can and does happen at all.
This is 100% just the mechanization of a cultural refinement process that has been going on since the dawn of civilization.
I agree with you regarding how the bounty of GenAI is distributed. The value of these GenAI systems is derived far more from the culture they consume than the craft involved in building them. The problem isn't theft of data, but a capitalist culture that normalizes distribution of benefit in society towards those that are already well off. If the income of those billionaires and the profits of their corporations were more equitably taxed, it would solve a larger class of problems, of which this problem is an instance.
We have not achieved GAI yet, so comparing the human mind to what's ultimately a robotic database is one ultimately made on a flimsy premise. AI isn't generating a style anymore than a user bashing 3 templates together.
Even when we hit GAI, we have different issues. a brain can't perfectly recite a song they hear. It will not objectively interpret the same soundwaves from brain to brain. It will not react the same way from brain to brain due to different experiences and perspectives. What GAI develops into may or may not take all these into account.
>If the income of those billionaires and the profits of their corporations were more equitably taxed, it would solve a larger class of problems, of which this problem is an instance.
Sure. We can also make sure they pay the artists being copied frmo while we tax them more too. Let's not dismiss theft by casting off the theft as magic. This isn't Now you see me...
There's also the principle of the matter that we shouldn't have to pay for a share of something that was built using our collective unpaid labor/property without our consent.
In a more socialist context, UBI is an answer.
In a more communist context, taking over all labs for the people is an answer.
In a dictatorial context, banning AI is an answer.
What are you recommending?
More subtly, I'll modity the dictorial context to require payment to any sources an AI uses, and strong enforcement of infringements on AI. The core problem with capitalistic society is that money tends to bubble up to the top and then stay there. The goal of regulation should partly be to make sure that money is incentivized to be not stay up top in stocks.
Also, no. I would not invest in this hype bubble. We're definitely getting an AI crash within the next 5-7 yeras, a la the dotcom crash. I prefer safer stocks if I have the choice.
At any point of progress in history you can look backwards and forwards and the world is different.
Before tractors a man with an ox could plough x field in y time. After tractors he can plough much larger areas. The nature of farming changes. (Fewer people needed to farm more land. )
The car arrives, horses leave. Computers arrive, the typing pool goes away. Typing was a skill, now everyone does it and spell checkers hide imperfections.
So yeah LLMs make "drawing easier". Which means just that. Is that good or bad? Well I can't draw the old fashioned way so for me, good.
Cooking used to be hard. Today cooking is easy, and very accessible. More importantly good food (cooked at home or elsewhere) is accessible to a much higher % of the population. Preparing the evening meal no longer starts with "pluck 2 chickens" and grinding a kilo of dried corn.
So yeah, LLMs are here. And yes things will change. Some old jobs will become obsolete. Some new ones will appear. This is normal, it's been happening forever.