[simianwords]

This author fundamentally doesn't understand the mental model of the people they are describing and makes huge sweeping claims in what they think is a in a savvy manner but they are completely wrong.

Here's the RIGHT mental model of the people the author is talking about.

1. If AI is good enough that it can boost productivity by 20% then it is good for society in general because the gains will be redistributed (as it has always been). So even if it is ME who is getting laid off, I will still say it is still good for society because that's how progress happens - by breaking eggs to make omelettes

2. If AI is so good that it can replace full professions altogether like Mathematics, it is a profound joyful moment for humanity. What better thing can happen to the curious ones amongst us to get an oracle that can answer every question? Why does the author seem to scoff at this?

3. If AI is so good that it is a complete superset of humans itself, it is much much more profound moment when civilisation will be changed in ways that English doesn't even have the vocabulary to describe. It can't be stopped nor is it clear that it should.

The author is in curious and has a bad mental model of the people they are describing. They say it is a "class" issue and bring old outdated Marxist terminology to prop up their weak argument.

[0x5FC3]

> good for society in general because the gains will be redistributed

How exactly? Is this a version of trickle down economics I am unfamiliar with?

> What better thing can happen to the curious ones amongst us to get an oracle that can answer every question

How are the curious going to eat or have a roof over their heads? Or how are the curious going to pay for the tokens?

> civilisation will be changed in ways that English doesn't even have the vocabulary to describe

Maybe, we ought to think real hard and slow about it?

[agnosticmantis]

> If AI is good enough that it can boost productivity by 20% then it is good for society in general because the gains will be redistributed (as it has always been)

This redistribution has never been as automatic and inevitable as you seem to assume.

> What better thing can happen to the curious ones amongst us to get an oracle that can answer every question?

Getting paid to answer said questions would be nice. The alternative is you'll have to work 14-hour shifts in a warehouse to be able to pay for ChatGPT 10.0 subscription with ads, but sure, it can answer your math problems and satiate your mathematical curiosity.

[wcfrobert]

On point 1: I generally agree with you about the benefits of technological progress on a long enough time horizon. But what about the short term? What mechanism of redistribution are you assuming for the displaced workers? A scary number of Americans live pay check to pay check. How many will be forced to default on their mortgage or withdraw from their retirement savings? How many can afford to go back to school to retrain to be a plumber or nurse?

Breaking eggs to make omelette sounds good unless you're the egg. There's an excellent quote from Thomas Friedman: "when you get laid off, the unemployment rate is not 3.4%, it's a 100%". It's great to fantasize about future utopian abundance, but most people live in the present and most will be presently ground to powder. All technologies have a barbelling effect. Redistribution of surplus does not happen by default. The tumult and disruption may last a decade or more. And the fruits, if we make it to the other side, will not be for this generation to enjoy. The textile workers did not cheer for the loom, because they were not the ones that enjoyed the joy of cheap Uniqlo or H&M t-shirts.

On point 2: Many people derive meaning and identity from their work. Acquiring expertise, feeling useful, contributing to society, honing your craft are all things that leads to a good life. It could be that after AI we will all write poetry in the morning, go fishing in the afternoon, and paint in the evenings, but I don't think most people are like this, it's certainly not the way I am wired.

On point 3: "utopian AI is so good that words can't describe it so it can't and shouldn't be stopped". I do not think utopian abundance is guaranteed just by copy-pasting data centers across the globe. There is a non-negligible chance that things go really badly.

Lastly, I think the usage of the word "class" shouldn't automatically be linked to "Marxist ideology". This is cheap rhetoric: "class" --> associated with Marx --> communist loonies of the 20th century --> therefore disregard all argument presented.