7 ms·

"In terms of equity, AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice. The challenge is monumental. Even under the best

by beloch 21d ago

"In terms of equity, AI will either be the greatest equalizer ever invented, or the worst source of injustice. The challenge is monumental. Even under the best circumstances, the transition to this new AI era will be one of the most turbulent times in human history. How will we use this technology to make the world a fairer place and keep it from widening the divide between rich and poor? " ---------------- One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. The initial roll-out will, by very deliberate design, put dynamite in the divide and set it off. This has happened before. The industrial revolution was very similar. Initially, workers suffered. Conditions were unsafe. Pay was poor. Worker rights were non-existent. Things got worse for the majority before social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. We should be under no illusion that this time will be any different. The rich and powerful are no less selfish than they were a quarter millennium ago. It is possible to get ahead of the problem, but the people running AI companies won't be the ones to do it. Governments are inclined to do what the people paying for their election campaigns want, but should be aware that standing up for inequality will only make things worse for them when the tides of social change start rolling in on them. History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes.

gyomu 21d ago
> social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. That’s a very nice way to say “the workers put the fear of God in the heart of capital owners, and lots of people died” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934 etc.
- bko 21d ago
  I think it's more competition for labor. Why is anyone paid above minimum wage? It's not through charity or "fear" that employees will revolt. It's that there's competition for that labor. Suppose a worker is worth $20 per hour to a capitalist. How much should they pay? As little as possible, sure, but anything up to $20 per hour is worth it. You'll hire up to that point to maximize profit. Suppose you hand somewhere at $15 per hour, another capitalist will look to lure your employees away by paying them more. Of course pay isn't the only consideration when working. Workers consider things like paid time off, benefits and how much they like their boss and coworkers. These are all part of the bargain. It wasn't "society". It was competition. Consider the Ford $5 day, where Ford doubled wages because he realized turnover and poor morale cost him money: > Ford workers disliked the new assembly line methods so much that by late 1913, labor turnover was 380 percent. The company's announcement to pay five dollars for an eight-hour day compared to the previous rate of $2.34 for a nine-hour day made many workers willing to submit to the relentless discipline of the line in return for such high wages. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/sets/detail/henry-ford-5-day?AssetId=THF94858 https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/sets/detail...
  - marcus_holmes 21d ago
    This breaks down if there is less competition for labour, and we enter a new Depression era. Under your logic, capitalists will pay nearly nothing for labour because there is so much of it. Then "society" has to step in and not-so-gently point out that these are people we're talking about, and they need things like dignity, time off, good health, good working conditions, as well as money. We have to remember that people are the point of the economy: the economy exists to provide for all the people, people don't exist to be economic assets. There is a tendency for capitalists to forget this, and then we have to prod them with pitchforks to remind them.
- gigel82 21d ago
  Nothing says "social change" like building a Flock of predictive-surveillance cameras capable of spotting the revolt before the flock even knows it’s a flock.
  - metek 21d ago
    The fascist leader needs to catch every single revolutionary group every single time. But a single revolutionary with a pistol only needs to catch the leader ONCE.
    - DiscourseFan 21d ago
      This is not a superhero movie. Fascism is a symptom, killing one individual will not do away with it. Also its relatively easy to divide revolutionary groups because they are very paranoid, whereas fascist leaders are often highly insulated by the state apparatus. But fascism is also not a very good form of governance and tends to collapse on its own after only a few decades at most. Its really more like, every so often, a bunch of people are needlessly executed to preserve the capitalist system, and then after that things kinda go back to "normal" for a while. Revolutionary movements operate somewhat irrespective of fascist regimes, although yes its more difficult to do so under an oppressive state.
    - oblio 21d ago
      You should probably read the history of anarchism in Imperial Russia. There were tons of assassination attempts against the tsars in the 1800s, and they even killed a tsar. Yet the empire fell due to an external war, roughly 100 years later. Aristocracy became useless around 1600-1700, when gunpowder meant that peasant armies took over instead of knights, yet it took between 200 and 400 years for full legal equality to be introduced everywhere and some places still have nobility with special status, to this day, even in developed countries.
      - tome 21d ago
        > Aristocracy became useless around 1600-1700, when gunpowder meant that peasant armies took over instead of knights Does this view rest on the claim that the only use of the aristocracy is warfare?
- petra 21d ago
  What put the fear of god in governments, was the great depression(which is an indirect a result of the industrial revolution), terrible leaders rising because of it, and WWII as the result. We already have terrible leaders in many places, war(mostly economic, some physical), and that's even without the huge unemployment wave that is coming.
- Gooblebrai 21d ago
  Which I'm not sure it happens that often anymore because it's easier to just complain on social media
  - hypfer 21d ago
    Only as long as you still have enough cash to order uber eats.
bryan0 21d ago
> One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the question Gates is asking here. He’s not asking “how this going to play out?”, he’s asking “how can we impact how this will play out?” He makes specific proposals like AI token and robot taxes. I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. I think AI taxes potentially make sense. His idea of Human Reserved is fascinating. It might not be his idea but I’ve never heard it described like that before
- beloch 21d ago
  Is it cynical, or simply realistic, to recognize that AI CEO's won't ask for this kind of policy, and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? That, in my view, is a much bigger problem. We know what's coming but we won't do anything about it until after a lot of suffering occurs. Why can't we be more proactive?
  - marcus_holmes 21d ago
    This is Gates' point, isn't it? We need to be more proactive, and he has suggestions for what to do now, before the bad times.
    - selfhoster1312 21d ago
      The solutions Gates proposes aren't even close to being adequate, they are detrimental to actual solutions. Gates claims AI regulation will make sure AI solves the climate crisis for all. AI is in fact a major contributor to the climate crisis, and AI industries are now the biggest fossil fuel lobbyists across the world. (not suggesting that CO2 is the biggest environmental problem we face) So the man who profited off the Microsoft monster now is proposing anti-solutions to a real problem he helped develop, and we're supposed to actually give him credit? Listen to the real specialists with credible analysis: people like James Mickens on the AI side, and people like Aurore Stéphant on the tech sustainability side.
  - bryan0 21d ago
CuriouslyC 21d ago
This time will be different, because the oligarchs think that when the people finally come for them with pitchforks, they'll have an army of terminators to hide behind. That's why they're going YOLO full mask off.
- gigel82 21d ago
  <s>Get the Flock out of here with those ideas, that's conspiracy thinking; those poor CEOs only want what's best for us</s>
- red75prime 21d ago
  Ah, this faceless blob of oligarchs that has no human qualities whatsoever. Marxism-pilled much?
  - CuriouslyC 20d ago
    Look at the way they've fought to avoid taxes, regulation and anything in the interest of the regular person in their question for record shareholder profits. Even the people we thought were "good billionaires" like Gates are monsters, and just imagine the dirt Zuck and the Ellisons are hiding. The only thing I'll say for Elon is that he seems less concerned about hiding what a piece of human garbage he is, and what we've seen is still probably only the tip of the iceberg.
    - red75prime 20d ago
      Sorry, buddy, if you think Bill Gates is a monster, you are completely detached from reality. And when people who are detached from reality try to do good things it results in a godawful mess.
      - CuriouslyC 20d ago
        At a minimum BillyG was involved in human trafficking, and secretly drugging his wife. If you don't put that in monster territory, that says something about you.
palmotea 21d ago
> The industrial revolution was very similar. Initially, workers suffered. Conditions were unsafe. Pay was poor. Worker rights were non-existent. Things got worse for the majority before social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. > We should be under no illusion that this time will be any different. The rich and powerful are no less selfish than they were a quarter millennium ago. Yeah, it could be worse. During the industrial revolution, the rich and powerful absolutely needed workers (and lots of them) to run the machines, and that gave the workers power. The whole point of the AI revolution is to no need workers anymore, or far fewer of them. > It is possible to get ahead of the problem, but the people running AI companies won't be the ones to do it. It's possible, but dumbass software engineers missed their best chance, because they were too busy misunderstanding themselves as capitalists and embracing their bosses' libertarianism thinking, when they should have been unionizing to consolidate their former economic power.
steve1977 21d ago
So, dust off those guillotines?

by beloch 21d ago

gyomu 21d ago

> social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. That’s a very nice way to say “the workers put the fear of God in the heart of capital owners, and lots of people died” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Railroad_Strike_of_1877 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canut_revolts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asturian_Revolution_of_1934 etc.

bko 21d ago
I think it's more competition for labor. Why is anyone paid above minimum wage? It's not through charity or "fear" that employees will revolt. It's that there's competition for that labor. Suppose a worker is worth $20 per hour to a capitalist. How much should they pay? As little as possible, sure, but anything up to $20 per hour is worth it. You'll hire up to that point to maximize profit. Suppose you hand somewhere at $15 per hour, another capitalist will look to lure your employees away by paying them more. Of course pay isn't the only consideration when working. Workers consider things like paid time off, benefits and how much they like their boss and coworkers. These are all part of the bargain. It wasn't "society". It was competition. Consider the Ford $5 day, where Ford doubled wages because he realized turnover and poor morale cost him money: > Ford workers disliked the new assembly line methods so much that by late 1913, labor turnover was 380 percent. The company's announcement to pay five dollars for an eight-hour day compared to the previous rate of $2.34 for a nine-hour day made many workers willing to submit to the relentless discipline of the line in return for such high wages. https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/sets/detail/henry-ford-5-day?AssetId=THF94858 https://www.thehenryford.org/collections/explore/sets/detail...
- marcus_holmes 21d ago
  This breaks down if there is less competition for labour, and we enter a new Depression era. Under your logic, capitalists will pay nearly nothing for labour because there is so much of it. Then "society" has to step in and not-so-gently point out that these are people we're talking about, and they need things like dignity, time off, good health, good working conditions, as well as money. We have to remember that people are the point of the economy: the economy exists to provide for all the people, people don't exist to be economic assets. There is a tendency for capitalists to forget this, and then we have to prod them with pitchforks to remind them.
gigel82 21d ago
Nothing says "social change" like building a Flock of predictive-surveillance cameras capable of spotting the revolt before the flock even knows it’s a flock.
- metek 21d ago
  The fascist leader needs to catch every single revolutionary group every single time. But a single revolutionary with a pistol only needs to catch the leader ONCE.
  - DiscourseFan 21d ago
    This is not a superhero movie. Fascism is a symptom, killing one individual will not do away with it. Also its relatively easy to divide revolutionary groups because they are very paranoid, whereas fascist leaders are often highly insulated by the state apparatus. But fascism is also not a very good form of governance and tends to collapse on its own after only a few decades at most. Its really more like, every so often, a bunch of people are needlessly executed to preserve the capitalist system, and then after that things kinda go back to "normal" for a while. Revolutionary movements operate somewhat irrespective of fascist regimes, although yes its more difficult to do so under an oppressive state.
  - oblio 21d ago
    You should probably read the history of anarchism in Imperial Russia. There were tons of assassination attempts against the tsars in the 1800s, and they even killed a tsar. Yet the empire fell due to an external war, roughly 100 years later. Aristocracy became useless around 1600-1700, when gunpowder meant that peasant armies took over instead of knights, yet it took between 200 and 400 years for full legal equality to be introduced everywhere and some places still have nobility with special status, to this day, even in developed countries.
    - tome 21d ago
      > Aristocracy became useless around 1600-1700, when gunpowder meant that peasant armies took over instead of knights Does this view rest on the claim that the only use of the aristocracy is warfare?
petra 21d ago
What put the fear of god in governments, was the great depression(which is an indirect a result of the industrial revolution), terrible leaders rising because of it, and WWII as the result. We already have terrible leaders in many places, war(mostly economic, some physical), and that's even without the huge unemployment wave that is coming.
Gooblebrai 21d ago
Which I'm not sure it happens that often anymore because it's easier to just complain on social media
- hypfer 21d ago
  Only as long as you still have enough cash to order uber eats.

bryan0 21d ago

> One look at who is in the driver's seat should give you the answer to this question. I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding the question Gates is asking here. He’s not asking “how this going to play out?”, he’s asking “how can we impact how this will play out?” He makes specific proposals like AI token and robot taxes. I just wish people being cynical would at least comment on possible solutions. I think AI taxes potentially make sense. His idea of Human Reserved is fascinating. It might not be his idea but I’ve never heard it described like that before

beloch 21d ago
Is it cynical, or simply realistic, to recognize that AI CEO's won't ask for this kind of policy, and governments won't force anything upon the AI sector until things get very bad? That, in my view, is a much bigger problem. We know what's coming but we won't do anything about it until after a lot of suffering occurs. Why can't we be more proactive?
- marcus_holmes 21d ago
  This is Gates' point, isn't it? We need to be more proactive, and he has suggestions for what to do now, before the bad times.
  - selfhoster1312 21d ago
    The solutions Gates proposes aren't even close to being adequate, they are detrimental to actual solutions. Gates claims AI regulation will make sure AI solves the climate crisis for all. AI is in fact a major contributor to the climate crisis, and AI industries are now the biggest fossil fuel lobbyists across the world. (not suggesting that CO2 is the biggest environmental problem we face) So the man who profited off the Microsoft monster now is proposing anti-solutions to a real problem he helped develop, and we're supposed to actually give him credit? Listen to the real specialists with credible analysis: people like James Mickens on the AI side, and people like Aurore Stéphant on the tech sustainability side.
- bryan0 21d ago

CuriouslyC 21d ago

This time will be different, because the oligarchs think that when the people finally come for them with pitchforks, they'll have an army of terminators to hide behind. That's why they're going YOLO full mask off.

gigel82 21d ago
<s>Get the Flock out of here with those ideas, that's conspiracy thinking; those poor CEOs only want what's best for us</s>
red75prime 21d ago
Ah, this faceless blob of oligarchs that has no human qualities whatsoever. Marxism-pilled much?
- CuriouslyC 20d ago
  Look at the way they've fought to avoid taxes, regulation and anything in the interest of the regular person in their question for record shareholder profits. Even the people we thought were "good billionaires" like Gates are monsters, and just imagine the dirt Zuck and the Ellisons are hiding. The only thing I'll say for Elon is that he seems less concerned about hiding what a piece of human garbage he is, and what we've seen is still probably only the tip of the iceberg.
  - red75prime 20d ago
    Sorry, buddy, if you think Bill Gates is a monster, you are completely detached from reality. And when people who are detached from reality try to do good things it results in a godawful mess.
    - CuriouslyC 20d ago
      At a minimum BillyG was involved in human trafficking, and secretly drugging his wife. If you don't put that in monster territory, that says something about you.

palmotea 21d ago

> The industrial revolution was very similar. Initially, workers suffered. Conditions were unsafe. Pay was poor. Worker rights were non-existent. Things got worse for the majority before social change caught up and imposed a more equitable distribution of the dividends. > We should be under no illusion that this time will be any different. The rich and powerful are no less selfish than they were a quarter millennium ago. Yeah, it could be worse. During the industrial revolution, the rich and powerful absolutely needed workers (and lots of them) to run the machines, and that gave the workers power. The whole point of the AI revolution is to no need workers anymore, or far fewer of them. > It is possible to get ahead of the problem, but the people running AI companies won't be the ones to do it. It's possible, but dumbass software engineers missed their best chance, because they were too busy misunderstanding themselves as capitalists and embracing their bosses' libertarianism thinking, when they should have been unionizing to consolidate their former economic power.

steve1977 21d ago

So, dust off those guillotines?