[DarkNova6]

> The only future where the US maintains its relative success involves American leadership in AI and robotics, with humans supporting them

I never understood this take. It strikes me more as "faith in our lord and savior AI" without actual evidence to support this.

[CamperBob2]

Almost every advantage we have over every other country, we owe to technology. (Well, that and a couple of oceans, I suppose.) Historically, Americans have been better at taking every possible advantage of automation, computation, and tech in general than anyone else.

Do you expect that to change, and if so, how?

[bix6]

So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS.

[dctoedt]

> So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS.

The short answer: 1) Veto power vested in too many NIMBYs, in various flavors; and 2) Wall Street is rewarded on — and therefore chases — short-term results that goose the stock price.

[_DeadFred_]

Ah yes, rust belt towns, midwest towns with huge disgusting meat processing plants and countless shuttered plants they would love re-opened. Notorious NIMBYs.

[SR2Z]

We don't need new meatpacking plants, we need factories to do high tech manufacturing. Unfortunately small towns in the Midwest aren't nearly as attractive for that.

[JumpCrisscross]

> why don’t we build some damn factories then?

America remains a massive manufacturer. China is bigger. But they’re approaching the same demographic constraints we did.

[bigyabai]

> we owe to technology

That, and the American economy's pernicious habit for making money doing nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

When will that become problematic, you tell me...

[tim333]

Wall Street has been around since ~1700. It's always had intermittent problems and always continued.

> During the 18th century, the location served as a slave market and securities trading site... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wall_Street

kind of illustrates that.

[CamperBob2]

That doesn't sound responsive, actionable, or meaningful in general. Did you mean to reply to a different post?

[bigyabai]

Don't worry, it gets clearer when you're older.

How many years off is your pension, perchance? If you still think "technology" is going to bankroll your retirement, you've got more faith than I do.

[DarkNova6]

It's true that currently US technology is among the forefront, but having a single economic pillar is fragile and bound to break, the same is happening with the automotive industry in Germany right now.

But a primary problem is financial. There is too much financial wealth that is desperately looking to find lucrative opportunities which do not exist. So everybody follows the hype and creates the largest bubble we have seen in human history. And those who don't invest in AI, are largely bound in private equity or real estate, which extracts wealth from everybody without giving anything in return. This makes all other businesses less competitive.

It's a huge bottom-up scheme because the incentives are wrong, lacking transparency and unchecked financial power. This is simply not sustainable and nothing but a systemic change is needed.

In the lie for search of productivity, the west didn't become more efficient. We simply outsourced lower-margin industries to Asia and we are now faced with: Lost knowledge, lacking infrastructure, vulnerable supply chains and people without jobs.

AI cannot and will not change this.

Edit: Not sure why you got downvotes, I think it is a valid question.

[tim333]

Couple of issues - "a single economic pillar is fragile". I don't think anyone is suggesting shutting the US economy and just doing AI.

"largest bubble we have seen in human history" - the sums involved are not the largest - the railway bubble was larger as percent of GDP. Also it's not even clear it is that much of a bubble - the AI may come through and produce more value than the sums invested. If you can double the workforce by matching humans with AI/robots how much is that worth?