|
|
|
|
|
|
by ForHackernews
811 days ago
|
|
|
> Once AI takes hold, we will no longer see such extremes of income inequality. That's a very optimistic view. From where I'm sitting, it seems like the rich people control all three of the important AI companies (OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic) and all one (Nvidia) of the important chipmakers, so they will likely get even richer and many comparatively poor people will lose their jobs. |
|
|
Under this "concept", we are actually being held back and robbed. The exact reason this is undesirable won't be the clearest. Also, the exact mechanism would be a bit mysterious. If I could explain and prove it, it wouldn't be a fringe theory.
It's a way of reasoning that looks only at behaviors through a cynical lens. Purely, just looking at how business has responded compared to eg. self driving cars, data security, ect.
Does it not feel like there's some extra care here that doesn't really make sense compared to how industry handled similar issues?
The bigger counterpoint would be if the money and effort that IS there. (there is, it's a huge flaw in this theory)
Getting to the hypothetical reasons it could go this way: 1. With more people out of work there will be more discussion and organizing about why some people get so much stuff, while others are destitute. People will no longer be too tired from work and instead either a) [good] living lives of leisure OR b) [bad] out of work, desperate, and pissed off.
In any case, with so many people of leisure, it will actually become clearer that we're all the same. Who cares who your daddy is? Why do we need gorgeous empty properties, while we cannot provide basic housing to the population. Look at the extreme and disgusting wastefulness from the "elite" in society.
With everyone working and fighting for limited resources, you can hide this. While we all may go down to the office and sit at the desk for similar time, some are able to inflate their contributions... sometimes correctly, but who cares? Usually it's not the most dedicated, impactful workers, but the various princes and kings fighting over the loot. However, it looks like some people so much more valuable. When no ones doing anything, it looks different.
2. Without labor being a factor for eg. ~40-80% of people out of work, there won't be money flowing to pay the capitalists. This could result in economic collapse, hurting us all. However, perhaps we could see changes in the economic system that only hurt the wealthiest.
3. Human resources are actually and extremely common technical moat. If you've worked on technical projects you've probably realized that while one person can get a shocking amount done, the work can also easily become impractical for a single person or a small team.
Now it will be harder for corporations to lean on their intellectual property. When the tech doesn't do what people want, they'll just create one that does. Today this can prove absurdly impractical, but it might be much easier in the future. Currently, many companies rely on the fact that customers are likely locked in; they don't have options because it's a multi-billion dollar investment to make the product, so they're forced to accept what the company wants.