I love how they say with a straight face that when AI takes over they will finally share all the fruits of capital with us.

▲

BosunoB 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Y'all gotta stop looking at politics this way.

You know why they don't share the fruits of capital with us now? Because Americans hate getting taxed to pay for welfare, and so they've been voting against taxes for 50 years. This whole political landscape changes when people lose their jobs to AI, a thing that everyone thinks should be taxed. In fact, the entire ideological underpinning behind extreme wealth accumulation is gone when AI runs everything.

▲

scrollop 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Saw a video summarising this on gamersnexus today and it is nauseating - especially Jensen.

▲

rozap 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The French had a tool for this problem.

▲

sQL_inject 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

And look how it has worked out for them.

▲

organsnyder 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Not sure what you're implying, but I'd say their society is doing fairly well.

▲

webdoodle 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Only because the U.S. and U.K. conspired against them. The French did everything they could to keep the fire burning, by hosting people from various countries to teach them about revolution. Organizing globally against the rich parasites was hard and expensive back then. Now the only hold back, is that the rich parasites own most of the internet.

But WE BUILT IT, and can take back the internet when we finally realize it's not dems vs reps, but rich vs poor. It's always been a class war, they just are much better at keeping us distracted.

	▲	sarchertech 2 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		I think we need reforms and I’m very much against the accumulation of power that we’ve allowed the billionaire class. But the French Revolution is nothing to emulate. If you’ve read the history of the French Revolution you know that it quickly moved on from rich parasites to murdering and imprisoning people over minor philosophical differences and real or lack of perceived lack of enthusiasm for continued murder. And it eventually led to global war and attempted global conquest.
	▲	gulfofamerica an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		[dead]

▲

ericmay 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Yes, guns, clubs, fire, and steel weapons. And afterward they had the Reign of Terror, and the rise of the French Emperor Napoleon. It seems like it mostly worked out in the long run, though subsequent World Wars left the French Empire as a weakened shell of itself. In the short term, up until Napoleon was finally taken down by the combined British and Prussian forces at Waterloo, it seemed to have led to all sorts of calamities. How many died? How many did Robespierre manage to get sentenced to death before he met the same fate? Would Napoleon have risen and caused the death of so many?

One thing would-be revolutionaries don't appreciate is that, well, similar to Mr. Putin's experience today, revolutions (and wars) are much easier to start than to control. One day you're chopping off the leader's head, the next day you are pressed into military service and your Constitution is gone. I personally would rather be patient and work on reforming institutions, even if it takes a much longer time. Often times when we get rid of them, it's not that something better fills the void, as anarchists (communists or libertarians alike) like to claim, but instead it's nothing and that capability is gone until some calamity restores the need.

	▲	sarchertech 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Exactly this. Violent revolutions are very rarely successful in increasing the average welfare and freedom of the populace.

▲

reducesuffering 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Good luck using guillotines on an army of militarized drones outnumbering you 10 to 1.