[great_wubwub]

This reminds me of Ted Chiang's point that fear of technology is really fear of capitalism. https://kottke.org/21/04/ted-chiang-fears-of-technology-are-...

"Most of the things that we worry about under the mode of capitalism that the U.S practices, that is going to put people out of work, that is going to make people’s lives harder, because corporations will see it as a way to increase their profits and reduce their costs."

[mschuster91]

> It’s not that technology fundamentally is about putting people out of work.

The problem is, it has always been that way - and not just in the US. The introduction of any kind of new technology or other way of disproportionately improving corporate bottom lines has always led to job losses, the key thing is what governments do in response to it.

The Industrial Revolution for example led to widespread devastation, the shift from agriculture being the dominant employer to industry and service sectors did not (as the ag workers were absorbed by the rapidly growing other sectors), the globalization / offshoring wave of neoliberalism once again led to widespread devastation, and AI will probably again lead to devastation.

And if Sam Altman isn't arrested for his blatant RAM market manipulation... I'm pretty sure there will be either people with pitchforks at the end or he will have ushered in, in retrospective, a new era of "stuff that uber rich people can get away with".

[matchbok3]

All of those things also resulted in the massive increase in the quality of life for everyone. Nobody will suggest we ban cars and go back to horse and buggies so cowboys can have jobs.

[mschuster91]

> All of those things also resulted in the massive increase in the quality of life for everyone.

Yes, everyone has a modern smartphone now. Cool, thanks. But last time I checked, can't pay my rent with a smartphone when I'm out of a job.

> Nobody will suggest we ban cars and go back to horse and buggies so cowboys can have jobs.

Maybe not that, but have you looked at sustainable farming movements? In farming, there is a growing movement believing that the way we do farming - basically, ever larger and larger central operations running farms with tens if not hundreds of thousands of animals or acres upon acres of monoculture crops - is no longer sustainable, as the externalities get too serious to be able to ignore:

Biodiversity loss, land erosion (when everything is just the same crop from horizon to horizon and no bushes, wind and rain has an easy time carrying away soil after harvest), an increasing vulnerability to all kinds of pests...

But in order to get smaller, you need people again, because a tractor costing half a million dollars won't ever make the money back on a small farm.

[matchbok3]

Everything you say is correct but it comes with a massive decrease in quality of life for the average person. Food will be 5x the cost, with less variety. Nobody wants to till the land anymore. Just like people 100 years ago didn't want to be hunters.

Are you willing to part with your smartphone and computer? I would bet not.

[Dylan16807]

Why would I have to part with some of the cheapest things I own on a dollars-per-day basis? That's why GP mocked the comparison to smartphones.

That said, sustainable farming doesn't require very small farms, and it doesn't require more than 1% of the population to work on farms.

[erikerikson]

> Nobody wants to till the land anymore.

Yes, no-till farming has demonstrated excellent results

Also, a reference to population trends might be interesting. Nobody is wrong (I've spent my spring preparing fields) but could be close but actual data would be good. Meanwhile farms have been failing at increased rates.

[mschuster91]

> Food will be 5x the cost, with less variety.

Highly disagree. If anything we'll see more variety because mass produced food has settled on a very limited set of breeds (both for plants and animals) to keep timing and yield consistent.

[matchbok3]

You think you will be able to buy 10 pounds of some rare "heritage" apple as cheaply as you can today?

I want what you are smoking.

[hnzix]

Yeah but the transition is rough. For example when we have autonomous vehicles what are all those drivers going to do. You might saw "tough luck" but we are a society not just an economy.

[paulhebert]

Honestly if we went back to horses but had good public transportation as well (buses, trains, airports) it could be pretty sweet

I know most people don’t agree with that but it seems nice to me

[lorecore]

I agree for the most part, but fear of technological weapons is sort of the opposite of capitalism. So much of our technology stack was built by the government for warfare (including the internet) and in that sense is a form of socialism.

I fear being targeted by an AI drone and mass surveillance. Neither of which are driven by capitalism (although being targeted by either of those by some billionaire because I refuse to RTO is related).

[chipsrafferty]

How are neither of them being driven by capitalism?

U.S. becomes more authoritarian -> you are more afraid of being targeted by an AI drone and mass surveillance -> companies that make those weapons of war for the government (prime contractors) make billions -> they use their money to influence politics and public opinion -> U.S. becomes more authoritarian -> etc.

[lorecore]

Capitalism is certainly one lever, but were we a communist country, I would still be afraid of the same thing. Centralization of power and ideology driving technological progress is in essence what I think we should all worry about.

[andersonpico]

We liked to pretend that our current technology wave wasn't driven by any ideology at all, so much so that it became a dirty word. But look at these billionaires talking amongst themselves, look at Thiel, look at Musk: their ideology is so compelling and they're so willing to go to bat for it that it materialized in the current state of affairs; and now only ideologies that are different from theirs are in fact dirty words.