22 pointsby xylon2 hours ago7 comments
  • koe123an hour ago
    I’m somewhat bearish, but if AI becomes as good as some think, there is no mechanism in place to redistribute the outcomes.

    For now, humans have leverage because our labour is necessary. Wealth is power, and currently attainment goes through interacting with the population: in the simplest case by selling shit. If AI turns out to be the anything machine, and the wealthy need not our labour, what honestly stops them from just taking our stuff by force?

    • taylorfinleyan hour ago
      There are many of us and just a few of them. Of course, if you had an army of humanoid robots in every home, a digital night of the long knives would be trivial to execute. So the "prison planet" window may be closing.
      • koe12343 minutes ago
        Yes and I love your framing: “the digital night if long knives”.

        I anticipate it to go a typical way: consolidate more and more industries and power, create a hierarchy that benefits from the system such that they keep it in place, and finally start “trimming fat” that “isnt earning their keep”.

        The night of long knives could be a final step, far beyond the point of halting the inevitable momentum.

    • rolph6 minutes ago
      [delayed]
  • k310an hour ago
    There is plenty for all to survive and thrive on this planet but for greed and the insane concentration of wealth.

    I'm not visualizing all those mega-yachts in heaven. Oops, wrong marina.

  • downrightmike3 minutes ago
    Absolutely hilarious, we already throw 25% of our food away and have renewable energy that we are post scarcity except for a few thousand people who really like seeing big numbers on a screen
  • matteorasoan hour ago
    I predict the opposite. With AI, labour costs will go down, creating an abundance of goods. Unemployment may be an issue, but the workforce is already declining because of the fertility crisis, so I think we'll manage having a certain percentage of jobs automated away.
    • gspr34 minutes ago
      You are either very confused about timescales, or very dismissive of "just" a generation of suffering while unemployment and birthrates somewhat maybe compensate for eachother.

      This feels a bit like saying "global warming is bad and particulate pollution is bad, but the latter will cancel out some warming effect, so no worries!" Please make an effort before spouting theories like this.

  • AnimalMuppetan hour ago
    "This time last year, it was still unclear if AI could develop their own free will or even have true fluid intelligence. Both of these questions are now clearly answered."

    Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.

    And: There's going to be a shortage of everything, because all the production of physical stuff is going to go into producing robots? Are we all going to buy these robots? How are we going to do so, if everything else is getting more expensive? Are we going to buy robots instead of everything else? Why? Are the robots going to do everything we want done, so that we don't need, for example, a dishwasher and a washing machine?

    Or are we still going to need the washing machine, but the robot will fold the clothes? That's nice (really!) but it's a luxury, not a need. Are they really going to sell enough of them to eat into the ability to manufacture car parts?

    • bigstrat20036 minutes ago
      > Hardly. The second question may be answered, but clearly not the first.

      Also, the second question is answered in the negative for anyone who actually looks at what models do rather than what their makers claim they do. Models are very stupid.

    • EA-316731 minutes ago
      By far the most common modern article format I see that has literally no merit is in the format: "What if we imagine how a trend might develop in the future if the growth of that trend is never modified by changing circumstances?"

      Yep, it's pretty compelling reading, what if we really do all just decide to become paperclip maximizers? What if the economy never breaks down along the way? What if what if what if... all presented as "THE FUTURE WILL BE BLEAK!" It's exhausting and thoughtless, completely devoid of value and the counterpoint is always, "You know that isn't how anything works right?"

  • I_dream_of_Genian hour ago
    "mass-production of humanoid robots is now inevitable in the next five years" My take? Probably not. It takes immense capital (which i guess, arguably, there is), and immense time and manpower to set up factories, research materials, Research and Development, manufacturing new machines to build the "new machines", and on and on. As Elon Musk found, "Making cars is hard". And my take is that high precision "humanoid robots" are decades away. Yes, yes, I hear the arguments flowing in: "But China!!" yeah, China is making humanoid robots that are "skilled" in running and jumping and dancing. In limited numbers, and certainly not useful in high precision manufacturing areas. Plus, they aren't washing machines. There has to be a market worldwide for these to be made "by the billions". Unless China gives them away, the 'average person' won't be able to afford them, and even then, I doubt they'll be capable of tending your garden and doing dishes. The amount of power they will consume is currently WAY PAST the usefulness criteria. They will have to be charged every few hours or sooner, depending upon the tasks. When battery technology comes around, then you'll see an uptick in practical uses. Until then? Billions of robots?, nope.
    • busymom035 minutes ago
      To be fair, what we have seen with the insane investments in AI so far, needing immense capital is no longer an issue.
      • grebc11 minutes ago
        The only insanity is the multiples applied to select people’s equity.

        Everyone is talking about contracted revenue like it’s money in the bank.

  • allearsan hour ago
    Dystopian and depressing, but I see his point -- I never thought Trump could be elected president either.
    • grim_ioan hour ago
      The re-election is the real surprise for me.

      G.W. Bush was wrong, you can be fooled twice.

      • k12sosse40 minutes ago
        But don't worry, now you can't get fooled again.
      • dismalaf13 minutes ago
        > re-election is the real surprise for me

        It's interesting that it's a surprise to you, that such information bubbles exist.

        A great sage named Bill Clinton once said, "It's the economy, stupid!".

        And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good. Crushes most of the OECD and certainly all of the large OECD countries.

        Plus of course Biden/Kamala ran a terrible second campaign, with the whole covering up the fact Biden is senile thing...

        • PorciiVorbesca minute ago
          >And economic performance of the US though Trump's first term was pretty good.

          Depends on your definition of "the economy".

          Trump admin defines the economy as only the performance of the stock market("forget the Epstein pedos, the DOW is >50k"), while most working class people, like me, define it as how much month they have left at the end of the paycheck after they paid for rent, bills and groceries, if they even have a job and haven't been part of a mass layoff.

        • watwut6 minutes ago
          But it is not the economy. Economy is an excuse, a cover. It is appeal of the feelings those ideas generate.
        • jghn7 minutes ago
          Given the GOP doesn't even bother covering up the Trump is senile thing, perhaps the Dems could have tried the same tactic.