9 ms·

That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, bu

That is an absurd position to take. Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt to changes in their employability I am not calling you out personally here, but this comment bears many hallmarks of the "accelerationist disease": thinking in abstract models rather than in concrete terms; optimising for the fangs of capital rather than human beings, imaginary infinite bets that lead participants to nonsensical conclusions

Marha01 2mo ago
> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room. If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.
- zero_shift 2mo ago
  Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us Just like they didn't in 1985... In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums
  - Marha01 2mo ago
    > Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results. > In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.
    - watwut 2mo ago
      > 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
      - andrekandre 2mo ago
        its basically the end of capitalism... for better or worse...
        watwut 2mo ago
        To compare, great depression had 25.6 unemployment rate. It helped the WWII to happen. It wont be the end of capitalism. But, it would mean major outbursts of violence and major civil war or revolution. Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.
        Marha01 2mo ago
        > Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massive increases in efficiency and production, at least one of the companies will decide to mitigate any risks in this way.
        watwut 2mo ago
        You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference. To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners. And they will be hated, because they stripped people of future and bought in violent hellscape for literally everyone.
        Marha01 2mo ago
user43928 2mo ago
Concretely: If AI replaces all labor in two years, unemployment insurance and savings can comfortably carry me over the transitional period to universal income or obsolescence of money. Should AI stagnate at the point where 70% of software engineering jobs are gone, I am going to have a problem. Concretely, I imagine that I would need to learn other knowledge work. If AI can also perform it, I would have to go into blue collar work.
mosura 2mo ago
Once AI is achieved it will not be a question of “adaptation” but “acceptance”. You are in denial. If you don’t like this the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time.
- zero_shift 2mo ago
  > the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time. The Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) killed 3 people and injured 23 others across 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995 It's absolutely incredible to see this talked about as a "reasonable" position on AI taking jobs. edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric
  - mosura 2mo ago
    I am not advocating that, since I am an accelerationist, but basic reading comprehension is obviously a problem for you both here and in your other trolling efforts. (He has since edited his comment to remove the direct claim I was personally advocating terrorism). You cannot stop the advancement of technology towards AI without the threat of violence towards those that pursue technology. The Unabomber was at least honest about that. > edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric You are the HN manifestation of that woman’s face when interviewing Sydney Sweeney.
  - orbital-decay 2mo ago
    Late 19th early 20th century job replacement by engine-powered machinery led to the rise of ideologies, two world wars, and reshaping of the entire world. If AI replacement would actually reach even 10% of its promised potential, you'll see far more violence than you are ready to see. That's simply unavoidable in this case.

Marha01 2mo ago

> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room. If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.

zero_shift 2mo ago
Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us Just like they didn't in 1985... In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums
- Marha01 2mo ago
  > Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs. > Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results. > In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.
  - watwut 2mo ago
    > 80-100% unemployed This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.
    - andrekandre 2mo ago
      its basically the end of capitalism... for better or worse...
      - watwut 2mo ago
        To compare, great depression had 25.6 unemployment rate. It helped the WWII to happen. It wont be the end of capitalism. But, it would mean major outbursts of violence and major civil war or revolution. Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.
        Marha01 2mo ago
        > Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets. That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massive increases in efficiency and production, at least one of the companies will decide to mitigate any risks in this way.
        watwut 2mo ago
        You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference. To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners. And they will be hated, because they stripped people of future and bought in violent hellscape for literally everyone.
        Marha01 2mo ago

user43928 2mo ago

Concretely: If AI replaces all labor in two years, unemployment insurance and savings can comfortably carry me over the transitional period to universal income or obsolescence of money. Should AI stagnate at the point where 70% of software engineering jobs are gone, I am going to have a problem. Concretely, I imagine that I would need to learn other knowledge work. If AI can also perform it, I would have to go into blue collar work.

mosura 2mo ago

Once AI is achieved it will not be a question of “adaptation” but “acceptance”. You are in denial. If you don’t like this the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time.

zero_shift 2mo ago
> the answer was what the Unabomber proposed the whole time. The Unabomber (Theodore Kaczynski) killed 3 people and injured 23 others across 16 bombings between 1978 and 1995 It's absolutely incredible to see this talked about as a "reasonable" position on AI taking jobs. edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric
- mosura 2mo ago
  I am not advocating that, since I am an accelerationist, but basic reading comprehension is obviously a problem for you both here and in your other trolling efforts. (He has since edited his comment to remove the direct claim I was personally advocating terrorism). You cannot stop the advancement of technology towards AI without the threat of violence towards those that pursue technology. The Unabomber was at least honest about that. > edit: updated as it is not clear if Mosura is being serious or exaggerating for rhetoric You are the HN manifestation of that woman’s face when interviewing Sydney Sweeney.
- orbital-decay 2mo ago
  Late 19th early 20th century job replacement by engine-powered machinery led to the rise of ideologies, two world wars, and reshaping of the entire world. If AI replacement would actually reach even 10% of its promised potential, you'll see far more violence than you are ready to see. That's simply unavoidable in this case.