> The human is reduced to the ultimate consumption machine.

Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population? (the owners of AI hardware and software)

▲

impossiblefork 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

If that happens it won't be the AI people who benefit. The wealth will be concentrated among the present capital owners. Even many top AI experts who contributed critical research won't become rich.

You'll see the wealth concentration you talk of, but it'll be completely different people who get this wealth, maybe even people who own businesses where wages are a large outlay.

▲

overfeed 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

This is why they are looking at government coffers with a hunger in their eyes. They don't care for the long term societal stability; the richest of them fantasize riding it out in their island bunkers.

▲

ddalex 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I keep seeing this worry about "who will consume?!!?" This is entirely unfounded - the AI will develop its own marketplace and AI will consume.

The question is, will be there anything left for humans to consume ? will we survive ?

▲

Thorrez 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

Currently AI isn't allowed to own assets AFAIK.

▲

ddalex 5 days ago | parent [-]

Of course they are allowed, they're called "corporations" because they have a "body" and legal rights.

The datacenter is held by a corporation, and the corporation does what the resident AI wants it to do.

	▲	Thorrez 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Who owns the corporation though? It has to be humans. And corporations need to have a board of directors composed of humans.

▲

vbezhenar 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Buy acre of land, plant potatoes, raise chicken, pay your tithe to your landlord. People will survive, for sure. Not all of them, but enough.

	▲	jeremyjh 5 days ago \| parent [-]
		There won’t be any such leases if machines can make more productive use of the land than a potato farmer.

▲

simianwords 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The answer is already in your question. The original Industrial Revolution concentrated wealth and yet increased the baseline wealth for everyone else.

There is no reason to believe otherwise in this revolution.

▲

rogerrogerr 5 days ago | parent [-]

Though for those of us above the current baseline (e.g. basically everyone reading this), it’s not guaranteed that the new baseline will be above our current lifestyle.

▲

simianwords 4 days ago | parent [-]

Why? Industrial Revolution increased everyone’s baseline

▲

rogerrogerr 4 days ago | parent [-]

If you’re a software bro making $300k today, and lose your job to AI, it’s very unlikely that the new baseline for everyone is going to be that of a $300k income. At least not anytime soon.

▲

simianwords 4 days ago | parent [-]

sure but whatever mechanism allowed for jobs to exist a few years/decades after industrial revolution will apply here as well. with some jobs lost and chaos in the middle that is un-avoidable.

	▲	rogerrogerr 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		I dunno… what differentiates human labor in a few decades? You don’t see ~anyone being paid because they are stronger than the next guy; hydraulics are stronger than all of us. What happens when you don’t get paid for being smarter than the next guy, because AI is smarter than all of us? And then next up is being paid for being more dexterous than the robots - basically all trade work. I think there’s a longer runway for those jobs, but it’s coming.

▲

reaperducer 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Question is, if the AI bros are right about a "new industrial revolution", will there be consumers to consume if all the wealth is concentrated in the top 1-2% of the population?

Who cares? That's two quarters away. What matters is that I got my Lambo and my speedboat today. Let the poors worry about the future.