Remix clone Hacker News

> The market potential here is absurdly large: workers in the US are paid around $18 trillion per year in aggregate. For the entire world, the number is over three times greater, around $60 trillion per year.

This is an appeal to greed - let's stop paying wages and make a ton of money in the process. But, if you automatize all work, how will you distribute all this abundance ? How will people without wages afford to buy your goods ? How will you prevent the formation of a society split into masters and slaves ?

Some people have a God complex, they imagine that they know better and everyone should follow their ideas.

▲

tracerbulletx a day ago | parent | next [-]

Yeah capitalism would become irrelevant and/or they are tempting the largest genocide the world has ever known. Yet this goofball is using phrases like market potential as if saying "all labor is a big market" is some kind of insightful thing to say.

	▲	bradgranath a day ago \| parent [-]
		The point is to promise something trendy, not absolutely impossible (but astronomically expensive), a McGuffin, that you can use as an excuse to raise infinite capital.

▲

trod1234 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

This is an inducement to destruction, not greed.

Unfortunately, this is just a sign of the bigger problem which is what happens when people as a society choose to protect evil instead of killing it.

Anyone who understands economics understands what AI means to organization systems based in a distribution of labor when time value of labor is forced to 0. It stalls and fails.

Evil acts are any act that doesn't result in long-term beneficial growth of self and others (i.e. destructive acts).

Evil people are people who have willfully blinded themselves to the consequences of their evil acts repeating them without thought unless they are stopped.

As society collapses, they will find that the protection they relied upon wanes. They don't realize they are evil people, but that is only because they were induced to blind themselves to it and were weak people. This changes nothing in that they are fully accountable for their actions and choices.

Negligence and Destruction(loss) are sufficient for intent, forming malice.

Socio-economic collapse may very well happen since no market can survive the environment that is being created. Natural law will reassert following known principles discussed in Social Contract Theory going back hundreds of years. It will be violent.

Some people are just evil, and when you have a society whose environment induces all within it, to varying degrees, to participate in evil acts, of course the people at the top will be quite a bit more evil than those at the bottom who may have to commit evil acts, but are not blind and try to correct it when possible.

▲

xyproto a day ago | parent [-]

People with ADHD does not constantly do "evil" actions just because their actions does not "result in long-term beneficial growth of self and others".

I would argue that a better description of evil is: being entitled, being a coward and/or having a "cold heart".

	▲	trod1234 a day ago \| parent [-]
		Every single person alive does evil actions at some point to survive, its what people do after to prevent those circumstances repeating in the future that determines whether they are evil people or not. Evil people are blind people. They may become blind in a number of ways, but generally they had to make a choice to blind themselves, a willful choice they may have been induced to through education/torture but a choice nonetheless. That choice involved repeated acts of self-violation, which doesn't hurt at all. False justification and flawed reasoning is one example of such an act. It doesn't hurt, but you become less each time, resistance shrinking, until there is no resistance at which point you no longer perceive an issue and do so any time until someone forcefully stops you. Lack of resistance to evil acts is acceptance of evil into your heart. Your definition lacks a property of metaphysical objectivity. Just because your feelings are hurt doesn't make someone evil. If you punish someone for murdering someone else also doesn't make you evil. In either case your definition would consider those people evil, but they wouldn't be, and that would expand endlessly to absurdity. Your description is far too ambiguous. You may value greatly from reading some of Ilyin's works on the subject matter, and how it refutes many aspects of Tolstoy's War and Peace.