7 ms·

but we haven't even proven that AI will destroy vast amounts of jobs. Some, sure, junior software engineers are in trouble. but other then that, do we really

but we haven't even proven that AI will destroy vast amounts of jobs. Some, sure, junior software engineers are in trouble. but other then that, do we really have any quantified evidence as to how many jobs have been displaced by AI? i've been looking for numbers on this but it all seems murky and wishy washy. i'm open to be convinced, if anyone's got numbers. also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money.

happytoexplain 5mo ago
>[if] most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money. This is even more hideous than expressions of approval for individual violence. This is a dystopian acquiescence.
- leaves83829 5mo ago
  examples include: Great depression, third world countries like ghana, south africa, etc (and countries that have collapsed like syria), also the hazda tribe and other native tribes untouched by technology, as well as other similar to human mammalian species that share our planet like monkeys, apes, chenobos, all are able to survive without money albeit with more favorable climate/physiology.
  - tavavex 5mo ago
    Because the parent accused you of acquiescence and you just replied with a list of examples to follow, I don't think you understood what they meant. In the worst-case world, there is still more than enough wealth and work done to provide the bare minimum quality of life to everyone. The automation of most occupations would lower the bar of creating the simplest food supplies and homes even more. But, in that horrific world, the elite class would say "lol no" and use that wealth to live in paradise, away from everyone else, while the rest are left with almost nothing. The parent is saying that your immediate reaction is depressing, because instead of anger or even disapproval, your instinct is to put your head down and reason that you and all the future generations should just live like a monkey, forever.
  - happytoexplain 5mo ago
    I might not really understand this response - are you trying to justify a dystopia by describing how it can be literally survived? I.e. imminent physical death is your bar for where revolting is "allowed"? I'm reeling trying to understand how this can be what you're doing.
achierius 5mo ago
Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them? Evidence takes years to mount; present events are moving far faster than that. Your argument is the exact same as that of COVID denialists in 2019 -- that we don't know how bad it'll be yet, that there's so little evidence, that we shouldn't jump to hasty action before getting results in. Empiricism can only go so far. If I knew someone was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building a big laser pointed at my house, I would not wait for "quantified evidence" of its effect to take some sort of action. The only real debate is what kind of action. > also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money. If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all? Do not be upset that other people are operating on a slightly larger time horizon than you are, and are interested in their livelihood not just today, but three or five years from now.
- leaves83829 5mo ago
  >> Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them? Well, I tried to warn my family and friends and they're looking at me like I'm crazy. So yes, I think most people will just treat all their layoffs like it's just a regular recession. Until, at least half your friends are laid off, most people won't be any more alarmed than if in a recession. >> If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all? You'll need whatever you have left. The barter economy won't take the place of the primary economy, rather it will supplement it with transactions between members who have no currency. but, there will always be some things that you want to get from the primary economy, if you can.

happytoexplain 5mo ago

>[if] most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money. This is even more hideous than expressions of approval for individual violence. This is a dystopian acquiescence.

leaves83829 5mo ago
examples include: Great depression, third world countries like ghana, south africa, etc (and countries that have collapsed like syria), also the hazda tribe and other native tribes untouched by technology, as well as other similar to human mammalian species that share our planet like monkeys, apes, chenobos, all are able to survive without money albeit with more favorable climate/physiology.
- tavavex 5mo ago
  Because the parent accused you of acquiescence and you just replied with a list of examples to follow, I don't think you understood what they meant. In the worst-case world, there is still more than enough wealth and work done to provide the bare minimum quality of life to everyone. The automation of most occupations would lower the bar of creating the simplest food supplies and homes even more. But, in that horrific world, the elite class would say "lol no" and use that wealth to live in paradise, away from everyone else, while the rest are left with almost nothing. The parent is saying that your immediate reaction is depressing, because instead of anger or even disapproval, your instinct is to put your head down and reason that you and all the future generations should just live like a monkey, forever.
- happytoexplain 5mo ago
  I might not really understand this response - are you trying to justify a dystopia by describing how it can be literally survived? I.e. imminent physical death is your bar for where revolting is "allowed"? I'm reeling trying to understand how this can be what you're doing.

achierius 5mo ago

Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them? Evidence takes years to mount; present events are moving far faster than that. Your argument is the exact same as that of COVID denialists in 2019 -- that we don't know how bad it'll be yet, that there's so little evidence, that we shouldn't jump to hasty action before getting results in. Empiricism can only go so far. If I knew someone was spending hundreds of thousands of dollars building a big laser pointed at my house, I would not wait for "quantified evidence" of its effect to take some sort of action. The only real debate is what kind of action. > also, if the worst case scenario does happen and most of the population finds itself without money. there are other ways to live with very little money. If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all? Do not be upset that other people are operating on a slightly larger time horizon than you are, and are interested in their livelihood not just today, but three or five years from now.

leaves83829 5mo ago
>> Do you expect people to wait by while billionaires pour trillions of dollars into replacing them? Well, I tried to warn my family and friends and they're looking at me like I'm crazy. So yes, I think most people will just treat all their layoffs like it's just a regular recession. Until, at least half your friends are laid off, most people won't be any more alarmed than if in a recession. >> If you have so little attachment to your money, why hold on to it at all? You'll need whatever you have left. The barter economy won't take the place of the primary economy, rather it will supplement it with transactions between members who have no currency. but, there will always be some things that you want to get from the primary economy, if you can.