Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Good-Advantage-9687 t1_jdqk2h2 wrote

Reply to comment by Mercurionio in Taxes in A.I dominated labour market by Newhereeeeee

And when there are no jobs to be had ? Then what? Tesla bot has not begun production yet but it already has over half a dozen potential competitors lining up to take as many labor positions as possible. Unless of course you want the government to force businesses into highering people instead buying new equipment. What next a band on further technological progress?

1

Mercurionio t1_jdqke6k wrote

Well, Yes. Government need to force corporations to create jobs for humans, restrict full automation and so on. That what unions exist for.

Alternative is a war for survival.

0

Surur t1_jdqllg6 wrote

If the government forces extreme inefficiency, then that country will be outcompeted by other countries, including getting militarily weaker.

3

acutelychronicpanic t1_jdqumo9 wrote

This is the wrong approach. A job is just a reason to give people money. We're better off with abundance + raising the floor with UBI. But it should be negotiated and implemented before normal people lose their bargaining power for sure.

3

Mercurionio t1_jdqvy34 wrote

While I can agree with you on the first part, second part is the problem. The goverment is a reactive thing. They will take actions only AFTER people will lose their job in masses. Not before that.

2

acutelychronicpanic t1_jdrbdpy wrote

Which do you think is more likely?

  1. A solution which allows the powerful entities that exist today to continue growing, but which also ensures the wellbeing of the masses.

  2. Or a solution requiring that all the most powerful people of today to cap their own power?

Best we can do is make the case for option 1 and work out ways that allow everyone to win imo. I don't mean to suggest those are the only two options. Feel free to point me in the direction of any others.

If option 2 backfires, we see a much higher likelihood of catastrophe for most people.

1

Mercurionio t1_jdrecm5 wrote

While 1st option is better, it, most likely, won't happen. Because rich people and power hungry maniacs/dictators won't give up wellbeing for peasants. Poor people are easier to manipulate, so most likely it will end up at "just survive" level. And AI will be used to brainwash them.

Classic dystopia.

1

acutelychronicpanic t1_jdribmr wrote

Idk. Ego and esteem will become far more valuable as resource scarcity decreases. You can't be the coolest kid on the block if there are no other kids.

Plus, while some (many?) wealthy people are primarily self-interested, they are not truly evil. Even being selfish, they would desire praise and the appreciation of people. Plenty actively desire to better humanity. They aren't cartoon villains.

The game isn't lost, we just need to be creative and think about what inventive structures genuinely make everyone better off. Its not too different from the alignment problem.

If you were unimaginably wealthy, and mostly selfish, wouldn't you prefer to be on top of a star trek style society rather than a blade runner dystopia? If the cost wasn't really that high?

1

Mercurionio t1_jdruep2 wrote

If you are filthy rich, you would rather prefer to maintain your position and not to worry about others.

That's because you became filthy rich.

1

acutelychronicpanic t1_jdrv7lt wrote

The key word there is position. Anyone who's ever enabled cheats in a single player video game knows how hollow and boring raw "success" without a broader context is. You need a society to have a position. And the admiration of the desperate is far less satisfying (even to the selfish) than the admiration of the capable, educated, and well off.

1

Mercurionio t1_jdrwden wrote

I would agree with you unless I haven't seen the tyrants, showing their power over peasants.

Smart and brave are dangerous for you, they are not your friends.

1