| ▲ | geremiiah 7 hours ago |
| > This tech is 100% aligned with the goals of the 0.001% that own and control it If AI is smart enough to replace the 99.999% it's also smart enough to replace the 0.001%. |
|
| ▲ | layer8 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That fact doesn’t prevent the 0.001% from continuing to control it. |
| |
| ▲ | geremiiah 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Point is, if an AGI becomes powerful and capable enough of replacing 99.999% of humanity, the likes of Sam Altman and Elon Musk won't be able to control it. | | |
| ▲ | nradov 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | An electrician with access to a circuit breaker will be able to control it. | | |
| ▲ | geremiiah 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | The AI would have redundancy, both in terms of its power source and also because it can literally replicate itself and have multiple instances running all over the world.
Also, an army of drones that you'd have to dodge just to go anywhere near any critical infrastructure. | |
| ▲ | defterGoose 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | It's only a little bit comforting that computers still live in meatspace when you consider something like an AI-controlled Metal Gear roaming around though. | |
| ▲ | pomian an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | 2001 Space Odyssey presents a different scenario | | |
| ▲ | layer8 an hour ago | parent [-] | | It does exactly present that scenario, as Dave Bowman gains access to the circuit breaker (well, to the memory banks). |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | acdha 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, but that isn’t the question as long as those wealthy people control most of the system: companies aren’t going to lose executives, they’ll shed the jobs which they don’t respect. Someone wealthy does not need to accept a bad deal to avoid sleeping on thr street. It’s everyone who isn’t insulated who has to actually compete for work. |
| |
| ▲ | geremiiah 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Besides the argument above, that an AGI powerful enough to replace 99.999% of humanity won't be controllable, there's also the economic argument: corporations, executives, all that means nothing if 99.999% are unemployed. Our economy is based on consumerism which will obviously cease to happen in a scenario where 99.999% of humanity is unemployed. The economic system would be so upended that ownership and such notions would become immaterial. | | |
| ▲ | acdha an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | I would worry that it won’t go quickly to 99.999% but instead would grind down different groups of people slowly enough that they’d be able to entrench their power: being a cop will be a growth job, people would be given state-sanctioned automation-resistant work like picking crops as a condition of receiving social benefits, the Republicans would more seriously dust off the previously-fringe proposals to restrict voting to property owners again, etc. Setting people against each other is a time honored way for a small elite to control a large population. | |
| ▲ | caconym_ an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | If we meet in the post-apocalyptic wasteland, but I have an android slave with a gun and you have nothing but a rusty spoon, it's going to be pretty clear who the android belongs to, and who it serves. The android also makes it likely that I will have a bunch of other nice stuff that you don't. Food and water, for instance. This scenario is not meant to be taken literally. |
|
|
|
| ▲ | yubblegum 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I have given this serious thought over the years. I even have an unfinished novel exactly around that topic. Energy. The key is controlling their access to energy. |
|
| ▲ | archagon 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The 0.001% has a controlling stake in AI, so they're in the clear. The 99.999% needs to assert their controlling stake in the technology. I don't know what this looks like. Maybe ubiquitous unionizing, coupled with a fully public and openly-trained LLM. |
| |
|
| ▲ | worace 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| IMO this is a common trap. Certainly there's no boundary of cognitive capability that separates capitalist elites from those below them in terms of an AI's ability to outperform them. But that doesn't really matter when we talk about "replacement" because these people don't "do" they simply "own". They're not concerned about being outpaced at some skill they perform in exchange for money...they just need the productive output of their capital invested in servers/models/etc to go up. |
| |
| ▲ | the_af 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | It's not about capability. It's about who "holds the key". And sure, many currently with deep pockets and pushing for AI will miscalculate and get pushed by the wayside. I think many people who are not in the 0.001% are miscalculating right now in HN. What's important is that ultimately some small subset owns this, and it doesn't matter how smart they are, only that they own the thing and that it cannot be employed against them (because they hold the key). |
|
|
| ▲ | bauerd 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| No because the technology will be used against you. |
