[Weryj]

AI will change the balance of power removing a vital counter balance against the negatives of capitalism.

It will take the power away from the workers, such that there will be no power left for people to make demands.

We can hope it’ll be positive, but we aren’t even involved in its creation and the incentives are there to ensure it isn’t.

[steve1977]

I guess the good thing is that many workers are also consumers. If they don't have money to consume anymore, who will buy all the shiny things that AI will produce so efficiently?

[Weryj]

Most influence would be through B2B channels, I'd guess.

[joshmarlow]

I agree AI can change the balance of power but I think it's more nuanced.

When expertise is commoditized, it becomes cheap; that reduces payroll and operational costs - which reduces the value of VC investment and thus the power of pre-existing wealth.

If AI means I can compete with fewer resources, then that's an equalizing dynamic isn't it?

[fc417fc802]

That assumes you (the human element) are still required to a significant degree. Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor. If that need evaporates then why should they give you anything?

[joshmarlow]

> Right now those with assets are compelled to transfer them to those without because they have a need for the labor.

Yes - and those without are compelled to trade their labor for assets.

My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything - that makes the costs of production go down.

In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.

[dragonwriter]

> My point is that the assets themselves mean less when the average person can use AI to design anything

I’m not sure which assets you think that devalues; it certainly increases the value of the assets needed to run AI, and also of the assets needed to realize the things that people can design with AI.

> In a world where production is cheap, the money required to produce has relative less value.

In a world where your labor isn't required for production, the assets that are required for production have a much greater value relative to your labor than they do in one in which your labor is required to produce something.

“Cheap” is only a thing relative to some other thing.

[joshmarlow]

To clarify, I'm focusing on the costs of ramping up a startup.

Currently VC has a great deal of power because up-front investment is required to hire staff and other expenses until the startup can become cash-flow positive. When a lone individual can start a venture using AI then the payroll costs go down. The investment requirements go down.

Yes, automation means that people with assets don't have to pay other people for their labor.

But it also means that people starting new ventures have less need of significant up-front capital.

[fc417fc802]

I agree that lower up front expenses means less need for investment. I'll also note that it opens up the playing field to more people which increases competition. So it might or might not make your life easier.

However the technology that is expected to reduce labor requirements (and thus expenses) has an uncertain endpoint. It seems plausible that at some point a threshold could be crossed beyond which the human labor that you are able to add on top becomes essentially irrelevant. It is this second occurrence, or rather how society might react to it, that should be cause for at least some concern.

[Weryj]

oh, the real world changes will be nuanced.

but they'll start happening because of the new incentive.