4 ms·

The argument sounds like he believes AI (+ robotics) will take jobs, and breaking up OpenAI could slow it down Historically the most productive countries are t

by ford 11mo ago

The argument sounds like he believes AI (+ robotics) will take jobs, and breaking up OpenAI could slow it down Historically the most productive countries are the most prosperous - I think there is a big landscape of local maxima/minima in how healthy & happy a country/economy is, but shunning new technology has never been the path to Quality of Life. The only future where the US maintains its relative success involves American leadership in AI and robotics, with humans supporting them

BrenBarn 11mo ago
That doesn't mean that technology has to be shoveled out to the public by the truckload. A country can have a productive pharmaceutical industry without being full of drug addicts. Also, there can be technological advances without having them concentrated in a small number of companies.
idiotsecant 11mo ago
The most productive countries are the most prosperous for the owner class. Ask a random citizen from West Virginia how much they've benefited from the market share of Nvidia increasing
DarkNova6 11mo ago
> The only future where the US maintains its relative success involves American leadership in AI and robotics, with humans supporting them I never understood this take. It strikes me more as "faith in our lord and savior AI" without actual evidence to support this.
- CamperBob2 11mo ago
  Almost every advantage we have over every other country, we owe to technology. (Well, that and a couple of oceans, I suppose.) Historically, Americans have been better at taking every possible advantage of automation, computation, and tech in general than anyone else. Do you expect that to change, and if so, how?
  - bix6 11mo ago
    So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS.
    - dctoedt 11mo ago
      > So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS. The short answer: 1) Veto power vested in too many NIMBYs, in various flavors; and 2) Wall Street is rewarded on — and therefore chases — short-term results that goose the stock price.
      - _DeadFred_ 11mo ago
        Ah yes, rust belt towns, midwest towns with huge disgusting meat processing plants and countless shuttered plants they would love re-opened. Notorious NIMBYs.
        SR2Z 10mo ago
        We don't need new meatpacking plants, we need factories to do high tech manufacturing. Unfortunately small towns in the Midwest aren't nearly as attractive for that.
    - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
      > why don’t we build some damn factories then? America remains a massive manufacturer. China is bigger. But they’re approaching the same demographic constraints we did.
  - bigyabai 11mo ago
    > we owe to technology That, and the American economy's pernicious habit for making money doing nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization When will that become problematic, you tell me...
_DeadFred_ 11mo ago
Ah yes, the magic job fairy. Because there were jobs in the past, there will be jobs in the future. There were also skid rows after industrialization in the US. Lots of people didn't make it out of them to the post ww2 jobs everyone thinks about when they say 'industrialization brought good jobs'. There were also flop houses post industrialization, where you could rent yourself your own section of rope to lean on for the night. But yep, after WW2 there were lots of jobs in the US. When did industrialization happen though? Why do we ignore all those that didn't make it out of skid row/flop houses and jump to an implied 1940s+ jobs market?
- meowface 11mo ago
  I don't think the person you were replying to was necessarily strongly implying that many or perhaps most Americans wouldn't become permanently unemployed or unemployable. Hamstringing productivity and technology because of possible job loss - even loss of nearly all jobs, yes - just is not a sensible move. Moves certainly need to be made, but the best action is definitely not deindustrialization and degrowth and luddism. The dock worker unions demanding a ban on port automation is a microcosm of how we will slowly decay as a country. Even the smart communists understand this. The goal should be wellbeing and prosperity and lack of scarcity for all. The end goal is not "ensure everyone can do these painstaking jobs which non-humans can do exponentially better and faster and cheaper". This is an artificial goal because of vague worries about "purpose". Yes, people need purpose, but placing objects onto locations or pressing buttons on a screen is not the pinnacle of what it means to be a sentient entity.
maplethorpe 11mo ago
Not all technology is adopted equally, though. Traditionally we pick and choose which technologies to adopt based on their usefulness and efficiency, rather than adopting absolutely everything because it falls under the banner of "technology".
flashgordon 11mo ago
I am a +1 for productivity. Personal productivity. Countries with the highest productivity equating to highest prosperity is fine but it overlooks the acceleration income disparity. I struggle to reconcile with that.

by ford 11mo ago

BrenBarn 11mo ago

That doesn't mean that technology has to be shoveled out to the public by the truckload. A country can have a productive pharmaceutical industry without being full of drug addicts. Also, there can be technological advances without having them concentrated in a small number of companies.

idiotsecant 11mo ago

The most productive countries are the most prosperous for the owner class. Ask a random citizen from West Virginia how much they've benefited from the market share of Nvidia increasing

DarkNova6 11mo ago

> The only future where the US maintains its relative success involves American leadership in AI and robotics, with humans supporting them I never understood this take. It strikes me more as "faith in our lord and savior AI" without actual evidence to support this.

CamperBob2 11mo ago
Almost every advantage we have over every other country, we owe to technology. (Well, that and a couple of oceans, I suppose.) Historically, Americans have been better at taking every possible advantage of automation, computation, and tech in general than anyone else. Do you expect that to change, and if so, how?
- bix6 11mo ago
  So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS.
  - dctoedt 11mo ago
    > So why don’t we build some damn factories then? Our infrastructure stack is woefully outdated and yet all we seem to be funding is AI and other SaaS. The short answer: 1) Veto power vested in too many NIMBYs, in various flavors; and 2) Wall Street is rewarded on — and therefore chases — short-term results that goose the stock price.
    - _DeadFred_ 11mo ago
      Ah yes, rust belt towns, midwest towns with huge disgusting meat processing plants and countless shuttered plants they would love re-opened. Notorious NIMBYs.
      - SR2Z 10mo ago
        We don't need new meatpacking plants, we need factories to do high tech manufacturing. Unfortunately small towns in the Midwest aren't nearly as attractive for that.
  - JumpCrisscross 11mo ago
    > why don’t we build some damn factories then? America remains a massive manufacturer. China is bigger. But they’re approaching the same demographic constraints we did.
- bigyabai 11mo ago
  > we owe to technology That, and the American economy's pernicious habit for making money doing nothing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization When will that become problematic, you tell me...

_DeadFred_ 11mo ago

Ah yes, the magic job fairy. Because there were jobs in the past, there will be jobs in the future. There were also skid rows after industrialization in the US. Lots of people didn't make it out of them to the post ww2 jobs everyone thinks about when they say 'industrialization brought good jobs'. There were also flop houses post industrialization, where you could rent yourself your own section of rope to lean on for the night. But yep, after WW2 there were lots of jobs in the US. When did industrialization happen though? Why do we ignore all those that didn't make it out of skid row/flop houses and jump to an implied 1940s+ jobs market?

meowface 11mo ago
I don't think the person you were replying to was necessarily strongly implying that many or perhaps most Americans wouldn't become permanently unemployed or unemployable. Hamstringing productivity and technology because of possible job loss - even loss of nearly all jobs, yes - just is not a sensible move. Moves certainly need to be made, but the best action is definitely not deindustrialization and degrowth and luddism. The dock worker unions demanding a ban on port automation is a microcosm of how we will slowly decay as a country. Even the smart communists understand this. The goal should be wellbeing and prosperity and lack of scarcity for all. The end goal is not "ensure everyone can do these painstaking jobs which non-humans can do exponentially better and faster and cheaper". This is an artificial goal because of vague worries about "purpose". Yes, people need purpose, but placing objects onto locations or pressing buttons on a screen is not the pinnacle of what it means to be a sentient entity.

maplethorpe 11mo ago

Not all technology is adopted equally, though. Traditionally we pick and choose which technologies to adopt based on their usefulness and efficiency, rather than adopting absolutely everything because it falls under the banner of "technology".

flashgordon 11mo ago

I am a +1 for productivity. Personal productivity. Countries with the highest productivity equating to highest prosperity is fine but it overlooks the acceleration income disparity. I struggle to reconcile with that.