“We also won’t be first against the wall when the revolution comes (see this very blog for proof of innocence)”

This is going through some people’s minds the more pushback grows (see Altman molotov, Maine data center moratorium)

For decades we moved to a knowledge based economy, now we have perversely wealthy people saying they're coming for those jobs. The thought of 10s of millions of people with nothing to do but starve to death ought to scare those wealthy people.

Especially since many of them are some of the brightest minds around.

If (1) many bright and very online people are going to lose their jobs, and (2) the response has not been mass unionization, might I rethink [1] a more likely future of work or rethink [2] the psychology of the average/collective knowledge workforce, or...

"where union" in short.

Perhaps the concept is too foreign for white collars, or on average folks think they'll be OK and it's the juniors who'll go... maybe too focused on immediate needs... a belief unionization is the wrong response... (and I'm not advocating for anything in particular btw)

Unions doesn't give you power they just help you use what power you have. Unions don't help if you don't have any power, see Detroit factory workers, they were highly unionized but that didn't help them at all. And if you have power then you can start a union, so there isn't a reason to start a union early before you need it.

To extend on what Jensson wrote:

A union has the power to organise one thing, to withdraw labour. In the industrial era, the threat of all the workers not showing up was a threat to end a business.

If AI does what is promised, to replace labour, then a threat to withdraw labour is only threatening the owners with a good time.

Yeah, the swing riots ultimately did not lead to better working conditions

Riots are very different to trade unions in the same way that a civil war is different from an electoral democracy.

Well, if riots don’t help, I don’t think peaceful strikes work better.

Yes? I'm saying unions, whose power is strikes, cannot possibly work because the strikers have zero power in the circumstance "we have decided to make you all redundant".

And I’m providing further evidence for your claim.

...and in America there are more guns than humans, and more potentially unemployed white collar workers than the police, military, and national guard combined.

Nick Hanauer understood this fourteen years ago. Very few others did. And despite him spending his own time and money to explain it in simple English, nobody in his peer group wanted to hear it -- his TED talk on the subject ... took several years before it was published. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

FA (for a decade or so) FO, I guess?

https://www.ted.com/talks/nick_hanauer_beware_fellow_plutocr...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchfor...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2gO4DKVpa8ns than humans, and more potentially unemployed white collar workers than the police, military and national guard combined.

whoh dude's awesome

Comment of the week

They're experts at divide and conquer. They'll probably be able to convince us that we did this to each other.

Just like they convinced the younger generation that "boomers" stole their future.

> The thought of 10s of millions of people with nothing to do but starve to death ought to scare those wealthy people.

It doesn't, it won't, and it shouldn't. It's not explored in game theory and criminal justice tries to conceal this but the starving will kill and eat each other long before they organize and mob the wealthy.

It plays out in every prison riot, governmental collapse, and other condition of anarchy.

This idea that the poor will mob the rich is feel-good Hollywood idealism that has been wholly undermined by identity politics. The poor will sooner kill and eat you just because you're easier to reach.

> I translated this as, "I did a dumb thing, but now that I'm getting the attention I was after I need to look smart."

Strikes me as a repulsively mean-spirited take, ironically proving the artist’s point.

I think that depends on what the "extreme body modification of an unprintable and life-altering nature" was.

Let's just say the "artist" was never again going to be able to walk normally, wear normal pants, or sit without a doughnut pillow. It was a voluntary disability.

Freakanomics podcast had a recent episode regarding Cheating with PEDS, and interviewed the (former) head of the Enhanced Games. At one point, he discussed the benefit for society because athletes would be monitored for 5-years post performance.

To me, it seemed like a modern day tech-take of human cock-fighting.

In my opinion, the problem with PEDS isn't adults taking them if they would just admit to taking them.

The problem is with adolescents taking them. Adolescent boys see a really nice immediate payoff for taking PEDS (better musculature and better sports performance->more popular) while the downsides are in the future. It's really hard to fight that.

Even when I was in high school several decades ago, we had a handful of people on PEDS. And we were a tiny school with no significant sports programs. I can't imagine what it's like now with social media pushing everything.

> In my opinion, the problem with PEDS isn't adults taking them if they would just admit to taking them.

The incentive to cheat and hide was one of the points from the podcast. In Cycling, in order to win, you have to compete with other cyclists who are doping, and doing so in such a way that they are unlikely to get caught. In order to win, you have to dope and not get caught. Youre not forced to dope, but the option is there, and yours to take should you choose.

Honestly PEDS are stigmatized and under-researched for the performance enhancing aspect. They have undoubtable side effects - but how much, why, etc. is kind of meh from what I saw when I was looking into this, bro science is best you can get. Few studies here and there giving people modes test boosts and measuring athletic performance.

Not saying we should be promoting them, but if we can eventually get to the point where we eliminate the really bad side effects and get most of the benefits it's going to be a great thing for everyone, the next thing after GLP-1.

I do not have the background that allows me to make medical decisions based reading published medical articles, so I have to trust my doctors advice, and seek 2nd opinions if I'm not convinced.

My issue was the disingenuous use of a "5-year post compete" monitoring as justification for Enhanced Games.