This kind of sentiment, on its own, is hollow. Just more "violence bad", until the next round.

There is growing anger and discontentment in a large part of the population, driven by inequality of wealth and power. Hopelessness and a lack of control over the future.

Are the nodes of power willing to spread wealth and control more widely to stabilize the country? What are they willing to do to consolidate their power? The vast majority of violence is perpetrated by those nodes, to either consolidate power, or gain more of it.

Other people in this thread have already suggested more actionable responses: organize, unionize, understand class dynamics, and vote accordingly.

▲

DiscourseFan 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If you talk to the average individual outside of California or NYC about AI, or even Waymos, they will get increasingly irate and start spouting off about “water usage” and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree. I hate to say it but you cannot trust “the masses,” Marx never said mob rule, he said rule by the proletarian, the class which knows, on account of their labor, the best integration of the human organism into mechanical production. No, there is no concern for the “masses” living in pre-industrialized agrarian communities or those who have been mystified by reactionary ideas (like this so-called majority), he was referring to those whose existence was an exception, that which was free and not predictable, contingent in the operation of the economy. It is by their exceptional circumstance that radical social change is even possible, not because of any moral need to raise humanity out of its savage condition. The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances.

	▲	chownie 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The masses seem kind of right to be in that mindset, if you consider it from thier point of view for even one second? So, yes RLHF is available right now, for people with specific backgrounds. That RLHF work is temporary and it's going to make hundreds of thousands of people redundant. The RLHF work is actually job-negative, it is work which will later deprive others of a way to make a living. Once that training work dries up, what happens to the people who were doing the job which AI now does? How do they pay rent? How do they feed and clothe themselves? What answers do any AI proponant actually have for this, or is the intention that every person shuts the critical thinking part of their brain off and trusts the computer will come up with something?
	▲	palmotea 36 minutes ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> and everyone’s jobs getting taken away—as if RLHF contract work is not available to basically anyone with a college degree. Huh? The jobs aren't going away because a few people can get temp work as traitors to automate away the jobs of their fellows? I suppose that's technically correct (e.g. the there-exists counterexample to a for-all statement), but it totally misses the point. > The masses, without the right understanding, will just become a lynch mob and start burning everything in sight, as they tend to in most circumstances. BTW, totally fine. If you like nice things and have political or economic power, it's totally on you to prevent things from getting bad enough that people want to do that. That's something libertarians would do well to remember. Propaganda only gets you so far.
	▲	senordevnyc 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		This isn’t my experience at all when talking to non-techies all over the country.

▲

CaptWorld 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09797-z

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/10/ar...

	▲	nsingh2 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-025-09797-z That title reeks of the paper equivalent of clickbait. The paper is about subjective well-being and mental health in the psychological sense. Broader well-being includes material conditions like income, housing, health care, safety, and social connections. So a null result on subjective well-being is not necessarily a null result on material welfare, and the problems that leads to. The paper’s own abstract also talks about context effects rather than a simple universal null. > https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2022/10/ar... Unions are not perfect, but they have been an important check on exploitation. Organized labor helped win the 40-hour workweek. If you demand perfect solutions, you end up doing nothing. And given that you're up against people with nearly unlimited resources, you can't afford to be picky.