[jbreckmckye]

That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability

I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions

[user43928]

Concretely:

If AI replaces all labor in two years, unemployment insurance and savings can comfortably carry me over the transitional period to universal income or obsolescence of money.

Should AI stagnate at the point where 70% of software engineering jobs are gone, I am going to have a problem.

Concretely, I imagine that I would need to learn other knowledge work. If AI can also perform it, I would have to go into blue collar work.

[Marha01]

> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt

Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room.

If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.

[jbreckmckye]

Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs

Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help

Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us

Just like they didn't in 1985...

In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums

[Marha01]

> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs

Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs.

> Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help

There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results.

> In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment!

If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.

[mosura]

Once AI is achieved it will not be a question of “adaptation” but “acceptance”.

You are in denial. If you don’t like this the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time.

[jbreckmckye]

> the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time.

The Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) killed 3 people and injured 23 others across 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995

It's absolutely incredible to see this talked about as a "reasonable" position on AI taking jobs.

edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric

[mosura]

I am not advocating that, since I am an accelerationist, but basic reading comprehension is obviously a problem for you both here and in your other trolling efforts. (He has since edited his comment to remove the direct claim I was personally advocating terrorism).

You cannot stop the advancement of technology towards AI without the threat of violence towards those that pursue technology. The Unabomber was at least honest about that.

> edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric

You are the HN manifestation of that woman’s face when interviewing Sydney Sweeney.