[danesparza]

Hmmm ... there is definitely historical precedence for the article's assertions.

There is also precedence for what happens when such a big wealth imbalance is present (spoiler: it's a revolution).

This article is methodical in its points.

Your retort reads like an easily dismissed hot take.

[hluska]

And your retort (and this report) are doom and gloom. Humans are remarkably good at adapting and have adapted through far worse conditions than economic systems. The negative net is easy and very popular today but positivity is just as possible. It’s all about how you read data and there’s a lot of room for interpretation. If you’ve fallen for the doom that’s on you but calling something with so much historical precedence as hope for humanity ‘an easily dismissed hot take’ doesn’t make you look very bright.

[pixl97]

>And your retort (and this report) are doom and gloom. Dinosaurs are remarkably good at adapting and have adapted through far worse conditions than _______, hell, they were around 99 million years longer than humans.

Species go extinct all the time, most species go though all kinds of things before then, so there is nearly zero correlation between surviving something bad in the past and surviving something else bad in the future.

Modern humanity is not anti-fragile any longer like we were in the past.

[disgruntledphd2]

The articles argument is fine, but it takes as an axiom that AI is better right now at much cognitive work. I haven't found that to be true in the tasks I've looked at.

It's certainly cheaper and faster, so there's potential for it to unlock more demand but I'm sceptical that current models will replace a large fraction of knowledge work.