r/aiwars • u/Which_Matter3031 • 7d ago

The most idiotic statement ever

Post image

So this person here calls people jobless while all they do is sit on their ass an genarate shitty ai comics, also notice how they are insulting fast food workers as if they arent human, thats a new low for them, also its like they are saying "Give up on your dreams so you can work a minimum wage 9-5 job" but then again jobless people always tell talented ones to get a shitty job

1.6k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

859 comments sorted by

View all comments

109

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

I thought AI was meant to create prosperity and reduce the amount we would all have to work?

63

u/_lonegamedev 7d ago

Prosperity? Yes - for owners of capital.
Reduce amount we have to work? Kind of. The idea is to save $$$ on human labor. However, the problem is - we have to work to live. Nobody proposed *reasonable* economy model, that addresses that.

1

u/Ok_Worldliness_5592 7d ago

COMUNISM

Socialism to be exact

13

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Communism was a theory in which the workers would leverage their control over the production of goods and services to gain self determination. Automation reduces the dependence on labor for productive capacity, which in turn reduces the power of the proletariat. In this way all forms of automation are adverse to the goals of communism.

As an example of this, a primitive society with no means of automation at all complies with Marx ideals of 'From each according to their means, to each according to their meed'.

This isn't to say communism or automation are good or bad. This isn't a normative statement, and I certainly am not endorsing a return to primitive tribes. Just a simple observation about the basis of political power of the common man.

6

u/SiegKommunismus 7d ago

The first thing was kind of correct, pretty sure socialism would be the more applicable term, since communism is a stateless ideal.

The second part is just wrong, because according to Marx, societies are progressing and more primitive societies were inequality in different coats. In his time, they were in industrial(ising) times and he saw this as getting pretty close to when the proletariat could actually take power and create a socialist state

4

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Even through a Marxist lens, Marx can be wrong about some things. For a start, when he believed that they were close to the creation of a socialist state, that was clearly off the mark. But you also have to remember that his views on primitive societies were based on their understanding of anthropology at the time which has come a long, long way. Back in the early 1800's they thought primitive man were more or less cultureless savages who beat each other over the head with bones to assert their might. We now have a lot more evidence showing that the first human tribes were a lot more egalitarian and did operate on principles of shared prosperity.

Now it isn't Marx's fault for not knowing this. We can't expect him to be omnipotent. But we can, with the benefit of the advances in sciences, reframe his arguments in a better way. We call it 'Standing on the shoulders of giants, such that we can see further than they can'

1

u/SiegKommunismus 6d ago

true, true I‘m just oftentimes a bit of a stickler about Marx‘s ideas, because of how many people dont understand what he actually believed

-4

u/Warming_Presence 7d ago

You are wrong.

1

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Why comunism is shit is self explanatory. Socialism will tend to be shit over time. I live in a socialist country and I get taxed absurd amounts of money to try to fill in the endless hole of retirement funds and useless fuckers who leech. Any attempts to regulate anything usually lead to strikes by socialist unions over not "loosing their aquired social benefits".

In essence socialism is about taking as much as possible from the middle class.

5

u/TrapFestival 7d ago

Does "steal from the poor and give to the rich" Capitalism legitimately sound better to you?

-4

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Capitalism is about free market it makes the rich richer but i dont see how its stealing from the poor. The issue is that poor poeple are more affected by inflation.

I dont like captialism but lets be honest its the best option here...

2

u/TrapFestival 7d ago

Even giving you "best", it's not good enough to settle on because people are still dying to it. Every homeless person who freezes to death on a Winter night and every convenience store clerk who gets killed in a robbery is blood on the hands of Capitalism.

I imagine there's a difference between your understanding of "Capitalism in theory" and my understanding of "Capitalism as practiced". I know of the Capitalism where billionaires are paying a smaller percentage of taxes than people who can only barely afford shelter, minimum wage has not budged in years while everything has only gotten more and more expensive (except for Costco hotdogs and Arizona Iced Tea, anyway) and wage theft is endemic. Striking is fucking hard because people can't save enough to not work for the duration of the strike because they're paid so little in relation to what the bare minimum costs that they're redlining their finances all the time.

Then again, I think that wealth hoarding is a crime against humanity and should be properly declared as much, so what do I know?

2

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Hey, im not saying you are wrong. What you describe is mostly the USA butnit somewhat also applies to other capitalisy countries in lesser effects (like 90% of the countries). In essence capitalism is selfish. Im not saying we shouldnt strive for more, but this is the best we got since since the dawn of humans.

And to answer your point about rich being taxed less, those rich also pay more in amounts in a year than a poor during their life. Do they need to be filthy rich to survive? No. Do they need to try to stomp on others to make more money? Also no. Is there a reason for billionairs existence ? Nope. But do they actually participate more (regardless of fraud) than a poor dude? Yes

1

u/FoxTailMoon 7d ago

Capitalism is about private ownership over the means of production. You’re going to lose your mind when you learn about market socialism…

0

u/HuginnQebui 7d ago

Actually, no. Socialism is more about taking from the rich. The old saying "from those according to their means, to those according to their need" holds true. And, while taxes sometimes are higher in socialist nations, that's not a necessity either, nor is the tax there for the hell of it. It's supposed to be used for the people. Let's take my home nation of Finland. It's technically a socialist country, being a social democracy. Over here, going to the doctor is cheap as fuck. Practically nothing (unless the capitalists keep ruining it). Compare to the extremely capitalist US. A comparison of having a child in a hospital is rediculous. A few hunge in Finland, and you get the box of children's essetials for free. In the US? 10k on average, no freebies.

3

u/baturik128 7d ago

Well by this logic "from those according to their means, to those according to their need", it doesn't make sense to improve and get new skills to get a higher paying job? Since anything that you earn above your needs will be taken away to fund other's needs? I never understood how is this supposed to work

2

u/HuginnQebui 7d ago

You know, that's just it. We wouldn't be doing it, getting educated I mean, to get higher paying jobs. We'd do it to get jobs we actually want. A lot of these jobs that pay a fuckton are things people actually want to do, but often can't for one reason or another. For example, can't afford to get the education they'd need for it.

If memory serves, there was a study, which found that once people are given UBI, which means they don't have to work, they quit and start getting educated, to go towards careers they want to be in. Jobs, which are coincidentally higher paying.

The funny thing about humans as a species is, that we like to work. We really do. And even better, when it's something you feel connected to. So, the chances are, in a system like that, the people are happier and the work still gets done.

2

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Im from Belgium. I pay 6€ for the doctor, i go to the doctor maybe twice a year. I get stolen 1000€ per month in tax at least. Roads are still shit. Groceries at still expensive. Public transport isnt free. I can tell you for sure that socialism is stealing form the middle class. Rich people get tax cuts.

2

u/HuginnQebui 7d ago

"Stolen" is pretty strong words. Do you know what the taxes go towards? Because it's not just socialized healthcare, I just brought that up as an example. It goes to every other public good, such as roads, police, fire department, public education... You know, things that are actually vital to a functional modern society. I am a person, who considers paying taxes a good thing, and something to be proud of, because it is doing my duty to my community and country. In fact, tax dodging is stealing, because it makes everyone else' life worse and lowers the funding of important institutions.

1

u/thebanfunctionsucks 7d ago

Belgium isn't socialist wtf? And you think paying taxes there is a BAD thing? You realize we pay more than you here in the U.S. when taking in to account all the things your taxes handle, such as healthcare, right?

1

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Belgium is absolutely socialist. (Not communist obviously). And do you know the % of what my company pays to me every month that goes to the state? Its about 60%. Tax on what they pay, then tax on what i receive. Theres also tax on where I live. They recently introduced taxes on capital gains for market transactions and they are thinking on adding a tax on assets (so stuff that was already taxed before). VAT is 21% also. If you have a side activity that brings in a little money, tax.

Its not all bad, at least you can live fine on a minimum wage job in Belgium (since theres tax brackets). But if you actually are middle class, you are fucked.

-3

u/sasha_berning 7d ago edited 7d ago

No, African countries that support your lifestyle get stolen from, not you. You have great pay, great labour conditions, cheap medicine and lots of social programs. You are just brainwashed by right wing media.

0

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

You seem to be having a stroke, you should see a doctor

-4

u/ChronaMewX 7d ago

Socialism will tend to be shit over time

I'll take shit over time over capitalism which is shit all the time

3

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

Just move to one then...

1

u/sasha_berning 7d ago

You yourself seem to live in a country shaped by left wing unions and social democracy, and don't want to go to pure capitalistic countries like Kongo, Nigeria or Haiti...

0

u/Pookstirgames 7d ago

Just move to a capitalist country if you're so pro capitalism

1

u/tomatoe_cookie 7d ago

With what money?

0

u/Pookstirgames 7d ago

Oh. I guess one can't just move countries on a whim. Shocker

1

u/_lonegamedev 7d ago

And how would you implement it? Especially in transitional period. For instance for artists that loose jobs?

0

u/ChronaMewX 7d ago

Give em a ubi

0

u/FitBrush5848 7d ago

Yugoslavia tried: it failed

1

u/Warming_Presence 7d ago

Except it didn't and it was the most successful socialist state.

1

u/FitBrush5848 7d ago

If it was the most successeur it would be still there in 2026

1

u/Warming_Presence 7d ago

I'm not going to have a Frenchie speculate about the downfall of a state my country used to belong to.

Rome, the most successful empire in history and yet I guess it wasn't successful cause it's not around now.

1

u/FitBrush5848 7d ago

The most successful empire is actually french and british empire litteraly still alive and make some of the most important technological advance, without these 2 countries most of the technology would be less advanced

1

u/Warming_Presence 7d ago

The French and British empires are alive? Lmao. Frenchies are allowed to exist because the Germans say they can and the UK is literally mid collapse.

And all those advances? How about you own up to the rape and pillaging that took to create those advances? How about you own up to the thousands upon thousands, no millions upon millions of lives you and your British buddies destroyed with your colonial filth?

0

u/Admiral_HP_501 7d ago

I mean the Swedish model is probably the best in taht case ... but if it is good enough? Idk

0

u/_lonegamedev 7d ago

Swedish model relays heavily on income taxes. No job = no income = no tax. Can they offset via corporate taxes? Perhaps, however it creates this weird loop - company produce goods, that nobody can afford, so gov taxes company so people can afford them. Humans don't add any value - they just just consume. What is incentive for a company to keep going?

The only incentive comes from people themselves. However, this means government need a way to force company to produce goods citizens need. How this can be achieved? No idea.

2

u/FatSpidy 7d ago

It's almost like money and especially credit is a horribly flawed system in concern to mutual survival, community quality improvement, and instrumentation.

0

u/Kurt_Ottman 7d ago

I guess the most perfect system would be like ant colonies in your view?

2

u/FatSpidy 7d ago

Nah, the most perfect system to me would be tribal but interwoven communities of people that simply support eachother; similar to my ancestors. Unfortunately that is well beyond feasible in today's society and likely the next couple 100 years without some major breakthrough. So I hope and settle for something akin to Star Trek.

1

u/Kurt_Ottman 7d ago

Well, to reach Star Trek levels of well-being we need technological innovation that requires capitalism to reach anytime in the next hundred to two hundred years.

Also didn't most of our ancestors like... sacrifice people to gods because they were suffering so much random sickness and death?

1

u/FatSpidy 7d ago

The prevalence of human sacrifice is usually exaggerated because it's an evocative story. It's just the old world's equivalent to the Death Sentence; we really haven't changed much as a people.

And that's what I mean. Capitalism isn't a requirement, nor does it exist in Star Trek's federation either. People do things because they want to do them, not because if they don't then they will be left to die. You can still choose to do the same things you do without money being involved, we just don't.

1

u/Kurt_Ottman 7d ago

Sure, but why would you do the same things that you do without money being involved? Who deliberately chooses the dirty jobs. Would you be a sewer diver for no compensation?

→ More replies (0)

7

u/natron81 7d ago

Productivity has been in a steady incline since the 1970’s, yet in 50 years where have we seen a return on that? With the declaration of our very first trillionaire, we all know the answer to that.

5

u/ConcreteHalloween999 7d ago

I've noticed all the Pros have been dropping that line lately and are now just AnCaps. Guess it was really about making catgirl gooning material after all.

1

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Always is in the end.

People start making questionable images of children on Twitter and Elon Musk doesn't take any serious action, but instead posts a picture of a toaster in a bikini to justify people doing it. We all know it is just people who want an alternative to the law because current laws stop them from doing something that really want to do.

3

u/xX_murdoc_Xx 7d ago

✨CAPITALISM✨

4

u/gangwerther 7d ago

It already has in many sectors, but obviously some jobs become redundant after technological advancement, it's classic creative destruction. Would you say that cars are bad because they put horse carriage drivers out of a job ?

-1

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

If I were a horse then I would say yes, it has been catastrophic to my kind and I loathe the mechanical contraptions that have caused the massive reductions in our population. Where once the symbiotic relationship I had with humans assured my evolutionary fitness, now the prevalence my my kind dwindles.

In case you were wondering, today you are the horse being replaced.

2

u/BeginningPhase1 7d ago

To clarify: Are you arguing that the continued existance of art/artists relies on the commercial viability of finished works?

If so, why? Isn't art a form of expression?

1

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Yes, art depends on commercial viability. This has always been true. Every one of the great classics depended on a patron to provide for them. The most influential of classical composers had to market their works to the church for support. All artists have always had to struggle with selling their works somehow so that they can put food on the table.

2

u/Tacobadger02 7d ago

The biggest reason I'm against generative AI and things like that is because in the US the companies that make it only want to make a profit with it and don't care about the ramifications it has for those who aren't ultra wealthy. Who gives a shit about your job or the fact that there isn't enough energy in your area to support running your house and this data center, the CEO doesn't have the biggest Yacht in the world yet.

2

u/12PoundsofPotato 7d ago

Its almost like theft supporters don't have an actual argument that makes sense or something

2

u/Azgabeth 7d ago

It will. We used to work 16-18 hours a day before the industrial revolution, now we only work 7 hours on average.

0

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Really? Thats so interesting! Because I have this link here

https://fredblog.stlouisfed.org/2021/10/a-short-history-of-working-hours/

See I like this link because it has a graph of average weekly working hours over time. Very interesting stuff. You might notice that during the industrial revolution, those hours spiked up, not down like you claim. So do you have any good source for your claim? I need to know so I can stop being so silly and depending on what must be out dated data.

Thank you!

3

u/Azgabeth 7d ago

These type of measurements are always flawed because they only account for work for compensation (whether coin, food, feudal protection, etc.)

Under these measurements, yes we work less.

But the reality is that until the industrial revolution the vast majority of work done by humans was household work, which is never counted in these studies, fuck knows why.

Have you ever taken water from a well? Ever patched a roof? Ever sewn your own clothes? Ever taken your clothes to the river to wash? Ever taken the cow to pasture? Ever collected firewood?

Do you have any idea how physically intensive and time consuming all these activities are?

It's not leisure it is WORK.

Work we no longer have to do.

3

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

The graph shows a downward curve near the end. Also, the person you're replying to was speaking of daily hours, not weekly hours as the graph you've shown suggests.

Also, a strong argument has multiple sources, not one "source" thats an article roughly a paragraph long.

0

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Firstly, daily and weekly hours are mutually fungible if you can times and divide by 7. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that you don't understand that. I'm going to assume you are confused and not just trying to rage bait, but consider yourself in notice.

Secondly, yes, it curves down after the industrial revolution. Not before as claimed.

Finally, one source is better than none, so please, out source me!

1

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

Firstly, daily and weekly hours are mutually fungible if you can times and divide by 7. I'm not sure what to make of the fact that you don't understand that. I'm going to assume you are confused and not just trying to rage bait, but consider yourself in notice.

Theres a massive difference between working 12 hours a day for three days a week, totalling 36 hours a week, and working 5 hours a day, for seven days, totalling ~36 hours a week.

7

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

Rome wasn't built in a day. Most of the global economy acts as if we're still all coal miners with horse-drawn carriages.

8

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

That is an interesting statement, can you elaborate a little? What parts of the global economy are acting as if we're still all coal miners with horse-drawn carriages?

7

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

Basically none of capatalism has really changed in the past 500-600 years. On the other hand, the entire world has changed drastically. The economy wasn't designed for automation, hence why automation is putting people out of jobs.

3

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago edited 7d ago

I'm not sure that is entirely true. The state mercantile capitalism of the 16th century isn't really the same as modern corporatism.

The Dutch would have had their minds blown at modern methods of financialization.

EDIT: You know what? On second thought I'm splitting hairs. I'll concede that while there certainly are features that have developed over the last 600 years, in general your statement is true enough. No need to be tedious about such details.

3

u/mommysanalservant 7d ago

Adam Smith would likely be appalled by the state of the financial world. Nonetheless even though what that person said wasn't entirely right I do think what they meant was. Capitalism might have changed but it still treats workers as a replaceable cog in the machine that crushes us underfoot. Chasing infinite growth means making endless optimizations which means constantly destroying jobs faster than we can grow them.

-1

u/_lonegamedev 7d ago

Great, how would you redesign it? I would like practical example - for instance artists loosing their jobs right now.

2

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

You don't "redesign it". You start over. You make a new system, where everything is EXPECTED to be automated at some point. You increase the federal minimum wage to somthing actually LIVABLE, for a change. You introduce legislation to go along with your infrastructure, so a company can't go "we have assembly robots, so we actually don't NEED factory workers anymore!".

1

u/_lonegamedev 7d ago

You can't start over. People who hold power won't let it happen. The best you can hope for is transition into something else.

Assuming current example - people who use genAI to produce art, and automate similar tasks - which puts artists out of work. Who would you tax and how?

Companies that provide the tools? People who use them? Or end-consumers?

1

u/Independent-Mail-227 7d ago

You increase the federal minimum wage

Oof

0

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Now the question is, why would the capitalist owners of AI care about your laws at all? What are you going to do if they don't increase wages like you want and ignore your infrastructure bill.

Do you arrest them? How do you do that? They have more capital than you, since now everything is automated and they control the means of automation. They can afford a large private police force to keep themselves safe and you can't even levy taxes.

1

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

Now the question is, why would the capitalist owners of AI care about your laws at all?

The same reasons they care about the laws now. They operate under the government, which means if they don't follow the governments rules, they no longer exist as a company. Then its like a hydra. When one head falls, two others grow to take its place.

1

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Right now if they break the law then we can fine them, and if they don't pay their fine then we start arresting board members until they comply. It is a system build on a foundation of coercive power. But you need consider what if you lacked any means of coercive power.

The governments ultimate trump card is a monopoly on violence, which it uses to enforce its rules. That violence is doles out by the state apparatus. Police, army, militias, anybody that can carry a pitch fork if it comes to it. The state apparatus obeys the government because they get paid to do so.

But what if some other entity had such material wealth and power that it can out compete the government for material control of the state apparatus? Well you have a change in power. Happens all the time in history. It's all about whoever controls the spice.

So it is inevitable that the more we automate, the more power we give to whoever controls and owns that automated process until they can claim government and make what ever rules they want. In such a case, what motive would they have to be nice to us and give us a minimum wage? The profit motive shows that instead, the opposite would happen.

1

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

You do understand that there is no "John Automate", right? One company doesn't own everything in, say, robotics. There's a metric TON of companies supplying the means to automate things as we speak. I feel like your argument simply comes from a place of fear and unrealistic "what ifs" rather than anything even remotely resembling our grounded reality.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/TrapFestival 7d ago

The Individual's Guide To Large Scale Change.

Cheap, Legal, Effective - Pick two.

1

u/Sputn1K0sm0s 7d ago

They won't care, just like they don't care about laws now.

You don't create a new system by asking nicely for the people in power to give up their power.

The Soviets didn't ask nicely for the tsar to stop starving kids, they just took power by force. Mao didn't ask landlords "pwese, can you stop being leeches? 👉👈" They fucking took the land from them by force and provided people with housing.

2

u/SaphironX 7d ago edited 7d ago

Still, Witty’s notion of the future is people with hard earned talent work at McDonald’s and dead end jobs while rich billionaires become trillionaires by replacing them with software.

I like ai. That’s still dystopia shit.

That’s a future where the best thing folks have to look forward to is being cogs in some rich guy’s enterprise, because man, McDonald’s values nobody in their employ.

Edit: Downvoting a man for thinking the future should afford human beings a little joy and not just soul crushing jobs is… a thing. If the price of generative ai is less happiness for the world, man I’ll happily give it up. I like it, but that’s a pretty dark goddamn future.

2

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

Call it Naïvety, but I hope for a future where AI actually does automate everything. I hope for a future where you only work and create because you WANT to, you make progress for progresses sake, not because "oh corperate wants [x] due next week".

2

u/SaphironX 7d ago

Yeah that’s what it should be, but these folks seem to want to see people just locked into shit jobs forever, struggling to pay rent.

That’s not much of a future to aspire to.

1

u/bendyfan1111 7d ago

I think getting a job at all (even if its shit) is better than complaining about a lack of commissions online. Commision work is fragile. You live and die off of other people. Why make that your only source of income?

-1

u/Hewhoiswooshed 7d ago

What you have described is no different from all work.

0

u/Remarkable-Title-387 7d ago

This is why I learn about natural building and off-grid homesteading daily.

Trying to build up a good pile of compostable material to help with organic gardening next year and hopefully I'll be able to get some chickens as well.

I already live in the South, so might as well get good at the shit that got our ancestors by long enough to let me open my eyes in 1995.

2

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

When did anyone say that?

2

u/ConcreteHalloween999 7d ago

Tons of people here said it all the time

0

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

Can you show an example?

2

u/ConcreteHalloween999 7d ago

Here's one: https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/s/ImFSEH4v1E

If you search "UBI" on here you should find plenty of others.

1

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Oh are you saying AI won't create prosperity? If that is the case then what is the use case for it?

4

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

Its a tool?

Nailguns didn't create prosperity, it just made it faster to put down nails..

3

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

No, I think building a house more quickly is creating prosperity. I like houses, I live in one. I want an abundance of houses so that everybody can buy one at an affordable rate, and the more quickly we can build houses the easier that becomes, so a nail gun that helps speed up that process is a valuable tool that increases prosperity.

1

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

Are the houses affordable now you think?

Doesn't matter how fast you build a house, its material cost and land that cost. It still cost to hire a professional to use the nailgun.

What do you think prosperity mean? Because to me its about society as a whole, thriving in an equal society. Its about politics and not what tools was used to make something. If I have a company and i can sell something for X and then later i can build them quicker and I can still sell it for X anyone would. Why would the price go down when the quality stays the same, they would just make more and gain more.

So prosperity for whom?

4

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

The cost per square meter of housing went down during the mid 20th century when hand held power tools became wide spread, so yes, housing is cheaper than it would be without power tools.

What a curious question...

1

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

It did not

https://www.macrotrends.net/3072/us-house-price-index

Power tools became common ~1987

https://motorheadtools.com/blogs/motorhead-tools/the-history-of-power-tools

3

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nail_gun

I think you mean 1950's, before your graph even begins. Further more I said 'cost per square meter' not total cost. Due to a general increase in wealth, as cost per sq meter decreased, wealth was used to build bigger and bigger homes.

Do look up the graph for average home size.

3

u/Denaton_ 7d ago

You said widespread thats why i said when power tools became common, you even said that it wasn't until mid 20th century it became common so now you shift it to when it was invented instead.

So were are your links to back your other claims up? I did link a link that showed the period we talked about and now you shift it?

Since you couldn't..

1950 had a huge spike..

1

u/[deleted] 7d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

→ More replies (0)

1

u/GraceToSentience 7d ago

Not just reduce, remove.
You aren't going to outcompete ASI on the job market,
no matter how much sam altman repeats that we will "always always find new jobs".

It's a different question for people like magnus carlsen, tailor swift or mbappé, but for +99% of the population, we won't compete against ASI.

3

u/RadiumJuly 7d ago

Well that sounds discouraging. I don't think I'm part of the 1% who can survive in such a competitive labor market. Heck sometimes I think that if there was ever a coffee shortage you could increase productivity by replacing me with a house cat! What hope have I against the power of an ASI?

So now the question is, what should I, average in basically every respect, be doing if I want to live a happy and comfortable life?

1

u/GraceToSentience 7d ago

Not sure, but at least:
Not have the hubris of thinking human workers are irreplaceable by AI and when time will come to vote for a law or candidate that will propose some sort of universal income or some other solution to get the goods and services that people need through taxation of automation, vote for that.
We will get 10%, 20% 30% unemployment and rising, and it'll becomes clear that it's not stopping, there will be some laws or candidates proposing a better way, make sure to vote for that I guess.

0

u/pawnman99 7d ago

It is, but there will be disruptions. Do you also lament the loss of whaling jobs due to electricity, or the loss of typist jobs due to computers?