> Abundance and growing the pie for everyone is also an outcome if this is done right.

Do you genuinely believe there's any chance that's going to happen?

Looking at the last few hundred years of our civilization, absolutely!

Substantive.

Try this, I'm genuinely curious: if you were going to be born as a random human somewhere on earth, what year would you prefer that to happen?

1700s Okinawa

You don't get to choose where

If I can choose the US specifically, then sometime in the 1950s. I think Baby Boomers in the US will go down as the single luckiest generation on earth in terms of socioeconomic opportunity.

Yeah, I don't disagree, but if we're talking about how our species (which I took "civilization" to mean) as a whole has fared, I think you shouldn't get to pick the where, just the when. If we care about all humans everywhere, and whether fewer of them are starving or dying of preventable diseases or whatever, then I think you have to consider being born as just a random human, not just a random American.

oh god are we really doing this? just ignore the accelerated decline of virtually the entire world because we have medicine and Netflix?

So what's your answer?

I do, because the alternative is unthinkable.

I would argue that "abundance and growing the pie for everyone" is even more unfathomable given how things are structured currently. The wealth gap will continue to widen until something gives.

Can’t believe your comment is being downvoted.

Covid clearly showed how crisis can only benefit the rich and powerful.

AI being used to cut the headcount can somehow be, good? It will just fill the pockets of the powerful.

Why do you think that the fact that the alternative is unthinkable is a reason it won't happen?

Are you also sure that it is unthinkable to those running these companies? I wouldn't be surprised if these models end up being used for internal security-- that people would try to keep an extremely unequal society stable by surveillance and massive analysis capabilities. I think it's apparent that some use of this sort already occurs and that these companies are already participating.

Well then given that one side is "the situation remains neutral or very slightly improves" and the other side is "unthinkable atrocities", I think it's only rational to focus on the "unthinkable atrocities" part. Ideally, we should be focusing all our energy into making sure that doesn't happen.

Closing your eyes doesn't make the danger go away.

What? This makes no sense. You don't like the alternative so you choose to believe in the best outcome?

or, here me out, people are just sick of it? They don't care that their masters are sniffing eachothers ai powered farts to keep the economy afloat on the promise of their obsolescence. Sure, in theory it could be good for them, they can get more work done quickly, but why would they be kept alive if their owners no longer need to rely on them. The ideal business has no expenses, workers are one of those. Combine that with everything being shit nowadays, yeah, I can't blame whoever did this

I think the media and politicians are reflecting popular sentiment, not the other way around.

> Abundance and growing the pie for everyone is also an outcome if this is done right.

That’s like saying we don’t need minimum wage or unions because companies choosing to treat workers with respect is also a possible outcome. It’s technically true but once you go from “is this theoretically possible?” to “is this likely?” it becomes obvious that the answer is no. Most of the big AI backers are openly salivating at destroying millions of jobs, and they’re already evading taxes now so they’re not going to be funding UBI willingly — and if you have any doubt, look at where their political spending goes, consistently to the people who are doing their best to remove what small taxes they’re still paying and declaring war on the concept of regulated markets.

Was social media "done right"?