I don't think how "easy" a solution is should be the metric by which we argue for it. Also I don't think smashing a robot with a rock will solve anything.
one robot with one rock, no. many robots and many rocks, eh. who knows? better than your solution of “ackshually the torment nexus is a good thing if you pretend we’re not in the system that we’re in and that it will magically change despite the total power and control the very people building the torment nexus wield over governments and markets”
ai bad. maybe it would be good under a different system, under this one it will lead to the deaths of billions. you understand the goal of ai is to replace humanity, correct? that’s not a conspiracy theory or crazy take, they literally say that shit out loud.
No, I don't think you are right that the goal of AI is to replace humanity. I can understand why you're so hyperbolic if you think that. But you don't have a basis to think that other than your own imagination.
I don't think we should pretend to know things that we don't. And I think you're pretending to know something.
the entire point of all of this is to automate away the need for human labor. that is the only reason corporations want ai, so they don’t have to pay a human being to do work and get more money in their own pockets. the job losses have already started and they’ll just grow more and more as time goes on. entry level positions are growing less and less available as time goes on, what effect do you think that has exactly, people not being able to even get their foot in the door of their chosen fields?
genuinely you are living with your eyes closed if you think that ai isn’t meant to replace us. open those eyes buddy, get your head out of the sand, you’re not an ostrich.
You are afraid for legitimate reasons, but then you make an unjustified leap of inference. Clever wit doesn't make an argument valid. Short term pathological incentives are causing harm. I don't argue that. I think you need to be careful of your extrapolation.
I didn't see a path where "Replace all humans" happens. The system breaks far before that point.I don't think anyone has that as their long term goal. You're romanticizing it. They think: how do I cut costs now. Rail against short term thinking, and didn't erroneously extrapolate imagined motivations.
why do you keep saying short term as if this isn’t their plan the whole time? they’re not gonna suddenly go “oh we raked in all these profits and money getting rid of people and automating their jobs, oh well, better stop now for no reason and make less money.” it’s a direct logical next step. there’s no unjustified inference, it’s a direct chain of events that lead into each other.
when the system breaks, who has the power? the techno-fuedal overlords with the armies of robots do. what do you think the private islands and bunkers and guards are for exactly? they know what’s coming and they’re prepared for it because that is their plan to make that happen.
I understand that you can't see the gap in your reasoning. But you are attributing cause based on one hypothesis, and you can't imagine the alternative. Where are they getting the power when the system breaks? Because they have it now? I'm any case you're treating your speculation as fact, and there is also a hostile attribution bias.
fwiw guards and private islands isn't predictive. bunkers are likely less common than you think, and also aren't unsurprising given wealth inequality. replace all humans doesn't (have to) follow.
edit: I should clarify. it's not that you are 100% certainly wrong. its just that you shouldn't act like you are 100% sure.
did you miss the “army of robots” bit? that’s not power to you? control over the media and what information is accessed and has priority isn’t power? control of our social media platforms, out politicians, literally everything, but you don’t see how they have the power? and i’m the blind one. why do you love and trust corpos so much? answer my question from before, why exactly would they ever stop automating and getting rid of human labor when there is NO incentive for that?
you just saying “no” isn’t very convincing at all i’m afraid.
I'm not saying "no". I'm saying the way you are thinking about it is fanciful, over certain, and binarized. you've just attributed to me several opinions that I don't have.
do you know what I want? I want to get things done. I want to discover new things. I want to understand the way the world works. I want to build automations and systems that reduce the amount of labor necessary. I'm not the only one who wants these things.
You are ascribing a villainous master plan to some "other" entity, instead of understanding how short term incentives lead to unsustainable systems.
I have a great deal of fear and uncertainty about the future. but I'm honest with myself about where the uncertainty is, and my predictions for the future aren't just snapping to the closest science fiction story I've heard. I also clarify that their predictions, and I don't pretend to possess some omniscience.
Here's what I think will happen. I think there's a possibility that we don't reduce the amount of energy AI systems take, and thus once the subsidies dry up they no longer are economical to use. I hope that doesn't happen. The other case is that we figure out how to make them more power efficient, and that does mean that they can replace a lot of labor humans currently have to do. note they're replacing the labor, not necessarily the humans. it becomes cheaper for people to do more with less. for creatives and those who want to do and build things, that is a boon. for those that just want a nine to five paycheck, and then to check out, that's where there will be some issues. The popular solution is UBI. Clearly there is a ??? step between us and that. but I do that is the more likely ending to a world where there are cheap services, but consumers have no income.
Now I also think that there's a possibility of something similar to what you're saying. The world is no stranger to dictatorial totalitarianism. The idea that it can't happen here is wrong. But again, my point is that there are other possibilities, it's not guaranteed to happen, and you are pretending that it is.
you quite literally are just saying “no” to what i’m saying. you have no good reason for that while my argument is just “they’re gonna keep doing what they’re already doing.” you do trust and love corpos, that’s obviously displayed in how much trust and love and support you have in them.
yeah you’re part of the problem, you want us replaced as well and you’re so blind you think it makes you progressive. this is also twice now you have refused to answer why the corpos would have any reason to change what they’re doing. it’s pretty clear even you know there is no incentive for them to do that.
i don’t need science fiction for this, again, my argument is literally that they will keep doing what they’re doing. that’s not science fiction. just a complete straw man of what i’m saying.
no it’s not a fucking BOON to be starving and have no job. there is literally no interest in politicians for a ubi and you know that, that scenario is significantly less likely than humans being replaced. you even admit this because you have no way to bridge the “????” gap while my scenario is just a fucking straight line where the corpos just keep doing what they’re already doing.
it is guaranteed, you have literally no solution to the incoming jobs crisis, no reason or incentive for corpos to stop, they’re ALREADY doing what i’m claiming, and there’s no sign of any of this slowing down.
i am a low skill service worker. when a robot can do what i do, i am finished, i am on the street, i am dead. oh but you get to generate stupid little shitty slop images, never mind, that’s much more important than the plebes surviving, huh?
I think you are unable to see a world outside of your experience. And again you seem to be inclined to shove everything into a binary, instead of doing the hard work of grappling with the nuance of reality. So I'm not telling you "no". I'm telling you your thinking is flawed, and if that makes you upset instead of introspective, then perhaps you are part of the problem, or at least a problem?
But you'll just discount me because that's the easy thing to do. Perhaps I'm part of a problem by being upset by that, rather than working to be more patient and searching for a better way of showing you why your thinking is flawed rather than just telling you that it is. But I'm at a loss. You seem to be unopen to the idea that there is a problem with your reasoning, and I don't know how to surmount that.
let me leave you with this: all humans are wrong sometimes. all humans have mistakes in reasoning. there is a tendency to feel shame when someone calls you out on a mistake, there is a tendency to want to hide from it or maybe lash out at it. classic flight or flight. I claim that an important and valuable skill that you can foster in yourself is turning that counterproductive urge into introspection. sometimes the person that is claiming you are wrong is full of shit. but if they are, critical introspection can help you identify why, and grow beyond our base animalistic instincts.
and let me again say where you're wrong: because you're putting me into a binary box. that's the clearest wrong step you have made. I'm not 100% buying the story that you're telling, and thus you're making me a villain instead of doing the hard work to imagine others complexly.
you have pointed out no nuance, you’ve just said that i’m wrong because i’m wrong or because magically ubi will happen despite there being no good reason for the governments of the world who are controlled by the corpos to do that. you’re the one refusing to listen to me and even consider i might be right. point out the actual flaws instead of just saying they’re there, respond to the fact that i’m literally just saying that they’ll continue what they’re already doing. you won’t, because you can’t. all you can do is call me crazy and insist i’ve watched too much science fiction.
“maybe just saying someone’s thinking is flawed without actually explaining why is a bad approach that won’t convince them… nahhhhh that’s actually the best way to convince people, just say their brain is broken with no explanation.” i have no idea why you wouldn’t just explain rather than type this really silly second paragraph. if you can explain, please, go ahead. i’d love to live in a star trek esque post scarcity utopia instead of the warlord fuedalism that we seem to be careening towards.
but i already know you’re full of shit. you have no practical solution for any of the problems we are and will be facing as a result of automation and ai and are instead cheering it on as if it’s a good thing for us to be replaced, that artists will be grand with no job no money no home no food, what a fantastic boon these corpos are giving artists! capitalism is about efficiency and if humans aren’t as efficient, then there’s no reason for them to exist in a capitalist world. you’re offering me nothing and acting as if that should make me rethink my positions, that’s nonsense.
because you are my enemy. you want the robot takeover. this is a fucking life or death situation for humanity right here and you’ve chosen the “death for humanity” side. there’s no complexity here, it is a simple binary choice. as i said in my last comment, if a robot replaces me, i’m fucking dead. none of your “nuance” changes that fact.
4
u/hyperhurricanrana 25d ago
i can smash a robot with a rock, i can’t smash capitalism with a rock.