[itsalotoffun]

> The future may reduce the economic prosperity and push humanity to switch to some different economic system (maybe a better system). Markets don’t want to accept that. [Emphasis added]

What a silly premise. Markets don't care. All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

Seeing a real uptick of socio-policital prognostication from extremely smart, soaked-in-AI, tech people (like you Salvatore!), casting heavy doom-laden gestures towards the future. You're not even wrong! But this "I see something you all clearly don't" narrative, wafer thin on real analysis, packed with "the feels", coated with what-ifs.. it's sloppy thinking and I hold you to a higher standard antirez.

[xpe]

>> Markets don’t want to accept that.

> What a silly premise. Markets don't care.

You read the top sentence way too literally. In context, it has a meaning — which can be explored (and maybe found) with charity and curiosity.

[drcode]

Markets require property rights, property rights require institutions that are dependent on property-rights holders, so that they have incentives to preserve those property rights. When we get to the point where institutions are more dependent on AIs instead of humans, property rights for humans will become inconvenient.

[xpe]

> All markets do is express the collective opinion; in the short term as a voting machine, in the long term as a weighing machine.

I prefer the concepts and rigor from political economy: markets are both preference aggregators and coordination mechanisms.

Does your framing (voting machines and weighing machines) offer more clarity and if so, how? I’m not seeing it.

[acivitillo]

His framing is that markets are collective consensus and if you claim to “know better”, you need to write a lot more than a generic post. It’s so simple, and it is a reminder that antirez’s reputation as a software developer does not automatically translate to economics expert.

[xpe]

I think you are mixed up here. I quoted from the comment above mine, which was harshly and uncharitably critical of antirez’s blog post.

I was pushing back against that comment’s snearing smugness by pointing to an established field that uses clear terminology about how and why markets are useful. Even so, I invited an explanation in case I was missing something.

Anyone curious about the terms I used can quickly find explanations online, etc.

[cropcirclbureau]

Yes but can the market not be wrong? Wrong in the sense that, failing to meet our expectations as a useful engine of society? As I understood, what was meant with this this article is that AI completely changes the equations across the board that current market direction appears dangerously irrational to OP. I'm not sure what was meant with your comment though besides haggling over semantics and attacking some in-expertise of the authors socio-politic philosophizing that you perceive.

[simgt]

Of course it can be wrong, and it is in many instances. It's a religion. The vast, vast majority of us would prefer to live in a stable climate with unpolluted water and some fish left in the oceans, yet "the market" is leading us elsewhere.

[rootusrootus]

I don't like the idea of likening the market to a religion, but I think it definitely has some glaring flaws. In my mind the biggest is that the market is very effective at showing the consensus of short-term priorities, but it has no ability to reflect long-term strategic consensus.

[sota_pop]

> “… as a voting… as a weighing…” I’m sure I remember that as a graham, munger, or buffet quote.

> “not even wrong” - nice, one of my favorites from Pauli.

[djeastm]

Definitely Benjamin Graham, though Buffett (two T's) brought it back

[naveen99]

Voting, weighing, … trading machine ? You can hear or touch or weigh colors.