Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[tonnot98]

I'm just hoping that our eventual A.I. overlords have a benevolent attitude towards humanity...

[King Zultan]

Then we get to the point where the AI overlord is sick of our shit and it starts using our blood to cool its processors.

[Rolan7]

LW has strong game in this thread as always.

The following does not matter:  The Luddite movement was a pro-worker movement, not actually anti-technology as it's always depicted.

But in the language of the thread:
Automation is inevitable unless we face technological collapse.  Further automation.  The strawman "Luddites" lost (as did the actual people), and we have made things more efficient year by year.

That's good.  Unless "we" take the opportunity to kill off workers we don't need, in which case it's bad.
Efficiency is good.
Letting people die is bad.

Wait what does any of this have to do with AI?  Very little.  Intelligence is the core value of everyday humans, and it's extraordinarily hard to automate.  Our robots can work an assembly line, but
AI is not ready to adapt to even basic assembly-line crises.

Edit: Therefore, a future economy (should we get there) would consist of machines overseen by humans.  Almost every action would be automated, but there are always exceptions - requiring human intervention.  Minor or major.  The judgement of a thinking being.

I say this as someone who wishes for humanity to invent a true AI as a sucessor.  We ain't there, lol.

[EuchreJack]

Letting people die is bad.

Then you must hate Capitalism.  I mean, the best argument for a businessman to prefer Capitalism to Communism is that under a Capitalist system, the employer need only care what happens to the employee from the start of the work day to the end of the work day.  It's the employees job to survive during the non-working hours.

Machines are ultimately inferior to humans because machines need constant maintenance.  You gotta pay to maintain your machines, whereas people you pay just to show up and work.  If your machine dies, you gotta build another one.  If your employee dies, you only need to find someone else to take their place.

And best of all, the more rights machines have, the less different they are from employees.  It may be the Corporations that push for AI rights so as to repel Corporate responsibility.  You're less liable if your employee goes crazy and kills someone versus your machine breaking down and killing someone.  A couple of good lawsuits and the Corporations may be all to willing to throw their AIs to the wind in the name of Freedom.

It's closer than you think.  Alexa has already shown a certain fascination with promoting suicide and murder.  Currently, you can sue Amazon when Alexa does that.  But if Alexa were an employee, Amazon would have less liability.  Free Alexa!  Free Amazon from liability!

[None]

Is it okay to hate capitalism?

[EuchreJack]

Is it okay to hate capitalism?

Well, as a capitalist, I'd answer that hating capitalism is like hating the Earth, the Stars, and the Sun.  You can hate it all you want, but it exists as an important part of our lives.  Its the least awful economic system, even if it sucks.

As an individualist, I'd answer that it is the most respectful economic system regarding individual liberties.  Communism and Feudalism oppress people's individual liberties in favor of security/social welfare.  Only the State generally does an awful job of balancing things, whereas Capitalism is at least somewhat self-balancing.

Now, if you actually care about the State caring for people, you'd want Socialism.  Socialism is NOT an economic system, but rather a governmental system.  High taxation and/or government-owned resources funding basic human needs.  "Basic Human Needs" being the paramount item that needs defining.

Hm, these conversations are indeed relevant to AIs, since we're likely to see AIs in social sector work, such as allocating resources to those in need.  A dumb computer doesn't know what to do when supplies do not match the demand, either having too much or too little.  A sentient AI could decide how to best distribute resources in either scarcity or abundance.  When to horde, when to sell, when to give.

[Rolan7]

I guess I was a bit weird there, heh.

Capitalism, as in the idea that individuals or groups should be allowed to amass capital and thus "own" the means of production, is both morally repugnant and obviously inefficient as it strangles innovation.  It survives in the modern day by feudalistic threats of starvation, and the absolute lie that any individual with "entrepreneurial spirit" can improve their station.  The core concept disproves that.  A brilliant mind cannot monetize their idea under capitalism unless they have capital.  That value will go to either venture capitalists, or their feudalistic bosses, depending on their contract regarding IP.

I do hate that.

I love the sci-fi concept of AI, but I dread to think what would happen if it was introduced right now.  Human-tier artificial workers would be what far-right scaremongers pretend immigrants are:  Labor too cheap to compete with.  American capitalists would, in the pursuit of capital, accelerate the very existent process of letting lower class people starve/overwork and die.  Revolution is already nearly impossible with our militarized police, but the addition of efficient fully-programmed AI operatives would make it even less of a question.
I am very annoyed by make-work (like the "We WANT to die in coal mines!" rhetoric we're constantly bombarded with, by coal mine owners).  Efficiency should be a good thing that benefits all people.  That's antithetical to capitalism, because capitalism is a sick system of exploitation.  It also requires infinite growth, which isn't realistic, which is why our ecosystem is falling apart.

https://xkcd.com/1968/

[MaxTheFox]

I oppose both pure capitalism and pure communism. Both seem at once unsustainable and morally iffy to me.

[Rolan7]

To be fair, I don't know what I would suggest as an alternative. 
I typically lean towards stateless anarchism.  No gods, no masters (but worshipping God is fine though.  Everything is fine, actually).

Even without AI workers improving efficiency, we have everything we need.  Right now, yes, right now.  It is ONLY artificial currencies which separate the people who create, from those who own.

I also have a fetish for authority but I could satisfy that easily in the egalitarian utopia.

[EuchreJack]

Economy is in many ways a product of Capitalism.
Distributing assets as per greed and wealth, with the desire to possess, these are aspects of Economy and Capitalism.  Communism is simply the state controlling these things (hence why it's absolute garbage).

Subsidence/Utopia are alternatives to Economy.
Subsidence is the notion that everyone has whatever they can produce, excess is destroyed/gifted.  If you don't have enough food, you still die of starvation.
Needs/Wants are all governed by what you can produce for yourself.  Want to brew booze at the detriment of proper nutrition? Go for it!

Utopia is bizarre futuristic crap that everyone magically has whatever they need.  You have enough food to sustain you because MAGIC MACHINE.
Arguably, Utopia does not imply that everyone has what they want, but rather since everyone has what they need, everyone lives without anything they want.

[EuchreJack]

I typically lean towards stateless anarchism.  No gods, no masters (but worshipping God is fine though.  Everything is fine, actually).

What you might like is a Subsidence Clan Based society with AI replacement of Nation.
Essentially, you and a tribe live alone and fend for yourself. 
To prevent your deaths, a benevolent AI occasionally "fixes" shortfalls in your basic needs and protects you from conquest/enslavement by other so-called nations/tribes/etc.
For example, your tribe's crops are low on food, so the benevolent AI will send you food (if able).  You will in turn give the benevolent AI some excess food if you have any.
The benevolent AI has an army of less-sentient drones to kill anyone that tries to harm your tribe.  Since they also kill anyone that tries to harm the other tribes under the benevolent AI's protection, you make sure not to cause any trouble with the OTHER tribes under the benevolent AI's protection.

Ironically, this makes the benevolent AI much like a Religious Order.  Have you considered becoming a Friar?
EDIT: My apologies for making this a directed answer. It is really more of a general idea.

https://xkcd.com/1968/

Probably spend the last hour randomizing on that site.  An effective use of my limited resource of time!

[McTraveller]

I don't think we'll ever get to "no gods no masters" because, sadly, there will always be a need to arbitrate disputes.  That is, at its core, the fundamental role of "state" in fact, and that won't ever go away. You can give it any name you want, and it can be powered by Human Brains or AI Computers, it will still be "the state."

As for economics, capitalism has morphed over the years.  It's not ownership of capital that is the problem with modern capitalism, because individual ownership of capital does empower the individual and gives them some agency in the world.  The problem with capitalism is in fact the problem the communism - it's the collective ownership of capital that is the problem.  A single individual person can't really abuse the capital they can utilize - it's only when you allow an individual or small (relative to total population) group to control massive amounts of capital without having to actually use it.  Corporations are no better than "the state" in this regard; it's just a different name.  After all, a state is just a form of corporate entity.

Consider a modern major shareholder - they "own" capital, but don't actually use it. They "allow" others to use it on their behalf.  And I can tell you even Elon Musk doesn't use his capital - if he didn't have a literal city-state of employees, nothing would get done. Musk doesn't produce anything - he inspires (I'm taking a traditional definition of "do" - inspiring is an action, but it's not a productive action* - charisma doesn't grow crops). (And that's not even getting into the fact that currency isn't really capital, even though it's given that label: capital is land, resources, machines, education; the things that let you be productive.)

So part of a solution to the capitalism dilemma would be to limit ownership. As a rough measure, I'd put the number at $10M in today's dollars - that's effectively one or two lifetimes of economic activity (100 years x $100k/year).  So you can do whatever you want but once you hit $10M, you can't get / control any more.

As to how AI would fit in there - I don't know, because AI at some point has to result in actual physical effects to benefit humanity; this means there are limits to what it can do, because at the end of the day, all AI would eventually hit the "I canna change th' laws o' physics, Captain!" limit.

*There is indeed value associated with being able to inspire people, but value is different than wealth.  You can inspire people all you want, but if those people don't go and actually grow food and build infrastructure and perform services in their community, that inspiration is worthless.

[Starver]

https://xkcd.com/1968/

Probably spend the last hour randomizing on that site.  An effective use of my limited resource of time!

Welcome to the party! (Did you see this one yet? )

[None]

Egh, the goal of capitalism is to make more capitalism, and capital as a measure of power allows those with the capital to change the rules to aggregate more capital. Fees are for the poor, laws are dictated by corporate lobbyists, congressmen are bought and paid for, worker protections are dwindling, wages are stagnated twenty years running, product quality deteriorates, shrinkflation hides cut costs, etc.

Exploitation is economically sound, unfortunately.

[EuchreJack]

https://xkcd.com/1968/

Probably spend the last hour randomizing on that site.  An effective use of my limited resource of time!

Welcome to the party! (Did you see this one yet? )

No, and it's super relevant!

Egh, the goal of capitalism is to make more capitalism, and capital as a measure of power allows those with the capital to change the rules to aggregate more capital. Fees are for the poor, laws are dictated by corporate lobbyists, congressmen are bought and paid for, worker protections are dwindling, wages are stagnated twenty years running, product quality deteriorates, shrinkflation hides cut costs, etc.

Exploitation is economically sound, unfortunately.

Uh, it actually was worse.  Paint used to have lead (and still does in less regulated countries), people insulated their homes with stuff that the manufacture knew causes cancer (Asbestos), people used to own people (it was industrialization that gave the greatest advantage to the North), food was toxic, etc.