Remix.run Logo
▲ drcode 6 hours ago

Agree 100%

The value of money, and the ability for average people to have influence on future events, ultimately is tied to the fact that the labor of an average person has inherent value.

Once that is no longer true, all bets are off: All promises of compensation become meaningless, and it's easy for those in power to rationalize to themselves why they no longer are beholden to their earlier promises. They will say to themselves "The situation ended up more nuanced than we expected"

(Which is exactly what Google said in February 2025 when they reneged on their pledge not to use their AI for military applications)

▲cortesoft 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> The value of money, and the ability for average people to have influence on future events, ultimately is tied to the fact that the labor of an average person has inherent value.

We also have the power of the vote, at least for now. I understand that that is limited, but it isn't nothing.

There is also just the power of having a lot of people. We don't yet have the technology where one person with a lot of machines can dominate a society. It still takes people.

▲squidbeak 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This presupposes a state strong enough to apply the decisions of those votes, which can't be guaranteed. The problem is that we need government power and authority to exceed that of the AI developers. But this is the age when large government is generally seen as undesirable or a threat to the individual.

▲GeorgeWBasic 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

That's not the problem, the problem is electing politicians who immediately renege on their promises as soon as they're elected and don't represent the interests of the people who voted for them.

▲59percentmore 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>But this is the age when large government is generally seen as undesirable or a threat to the individual.

By who? Lula just got reelected and a blue tsunami is coming on the heels of the Mamdani Mandate.

▲orangecat 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

But this is the age when large government is generally seen as undesirable or a threat to the individual

Donald Trump would agree that the government should have a large amount of power.

▲nowittyusername 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The voting power of any person will be meaningless once ai systems get the right to vote. I know it sounds far fetched but it will happen as it benefits the people with power for that to happen. And at that point a human voice has no say in anything...

▲mattm 2 hours ago | parent [-]

The more frightening reality is people turning to AI to do research on who to vote for and the AI is silently told to influence them towards a party it candidate. Since it has past chat history it can utilize that to highlight topics you are interested in and personalize the arguments.

▲CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent [-]

Let's see... AI versus the people who thought Donald Trump should be re-elected as President.

Hmm. Let's give the clanker a try.

▲mns 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But you can't vote out billionaires and their power.

▲viklove 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Must just spent over $500M influencing midterms in the US.

They don't want us to have any power left a few years from now, and they're winning.

▲cortesoft 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Who is 'they'?

▲viklove 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sociopathic billionaires like Musk, Thiel, Ellison, Zuckerberg, and their cohort.

▲small_model 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Yes because left wing billionaires don't spend money trying to influence politics, only those bad right wing nazis!!!

▲poncho_romero 3 hours ago | parent [-]

This is such a strawman. No one on the left likes left wing billionaires either (to the extend that such a thing exists). People like Musk, Thiel, and Zuckerberg get more attention because they are more visible.

▲reliabilityguy 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I think the comment wasn’t about likability but about the fact that both sides of political spectrum have very rich people donating to influence politics.

Your feelings towards those individuals doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things, what matters is that everyone’s opinions are shaped/influenced by the few with money.

▲inertiatic 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Left wing billionaire is such an American take lmao

▲kaffekaka 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Spot on!

▲CamperBob2 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

Meanwhile, on this planet, more billionaires supported Harris in the 2024 election than supported Trump.

▲oersted 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Then we regress back to relying on the fact that the ability of an average person (not) to be violent has inherent value. This has been the dominant factor in many moments in history.

Although if you have killer robots, then all bets are truly off, and we go the way of the dodo, literally.

(I don’t actually believe in this LessWrong-esque rhetoric, reality is more complicated, but it’s fun to muse about.)

EDIT: If oligarchs with magic AGI really don’t need our labor, nor are they concerned by our violence, then perhaps we become more like ants rather than dodos: we organize to help each other, creating a somewhat traditional economy around the scraps that don’t matter to the oligarchs, relying on obscurity and harmlessness to avoid getting toyed with a magnifying glass. I suppose that’s slightly better.

▲233mhz 6 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Farmers attacking king's armies weren't so different from an army of average joe with a hunting rifle attacking killer robots imho.

Even like 1-2% of the adult population going in the streets with makeshift weapons is enough to take over any country on this planet.

Data centers are extremely easy to disable too, take down power, data or both

▲oersted 6 hours ago | parent [-]

Kings didn’t have robots that gather resources and make more robots, that make killer robots, exponentially.

Although actually: that’s kind of what humans are… Hmm.

I suppose humans can’t make better and better humans, that’s the difference.

Although actually: that’s what technological progress is… Hmm.

▲233mhz 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Kings didn’t have robots that gather resources and make more robots, that make killer robots, exponentially.

We still live in a finite, constrained, physical world that has to obey the laws of physics. We have a looong time before we get fully autonomous self replicating decentralised robot armies.

I think people conflate the real world, sci fi and their wet dreams a bit too much.

We're at the "this thing is kinda useful sometimes but still mostly annoying" part, not at the "skynet in 48hrs" part

▲surfaceofthesun an hour ago | parent | next [-]

Reiterating this sentiment from a recent episode of the Normal Guys Podcast: Even if you imagine that driverless trucks become a solved problem, just pumping fuel from those trucks into tanks for backup generators at the data centers is a long way off.

▲meindnoch an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>We have a looong time before we get fully autonomous self replicating decentralised robot armies.

We do have them actually. It's called: an engineered virus.

▲10111001 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> We're at the "this thing is kinda useful sometimes but still mostly annoying" part, not at the "skynet in 48hrs" part

Without some really fundamental social and economic reform, I'm anticipating a squeeze as automation increases, that ends with something like robot armies finally reducing the working class to barbarism, by blocking access to all the valuable resources.

And it will be some oligarch(s) commanding it, not some rogue autonomous AI.

So not "skynet in 48hrs," but capitalism taken to its logical extreme.

▲233mhz 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Half of Europe is having protests and riot right now because they understand their future is fucked, if it keeps going that way I have no doubt it'll get worse, people who have nothing to lose won't be stopped by robots

▲10111001 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> Half of Europe is having protests and riot right now because they understand their future is fucked, if it keeps going that way I have no doubt it'll get worse, people who have nothing to lose won't be stopped by robots

I'm not so sure. The front line in Ukraine seems to be pretty good at stopping people with access to military technology. I don't think an untrained and uncoordinated mass of civilians could do a better job, especially against future tech that's more sophisticated and available in larger quantities.

As military tech gets more and more inhuman, the power of masses of bodies is likely to decrease, and there will be even fewer opportunities for moral qualms to give civilians a chance.

▲233mhz 4 hours ago | parent [-]

You can do a lot of damage without much gear. Train tracks, power infra, data infra, most factories, are basically free kills, they're safe because we're in peaceful societies in a peaceful era, things can move quickly if the social contract is broken.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Metcalf_sniper_attack

Some dude in France just carried an attack with a ww2 sten gun, there are hundreds if not thousands of AK47s, grenades, etc. available on the black market. You can buy drone ready fiber optics cans on aliexpress, thermal/night vision cameras, etc.

Military tech is good but you still need people to follow orders, I very much doubt they'd side with the sociopath tech execs, nor their governments.

▲martin-t 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Train tracks are actually very hard to sabotage, the US did a lot of research on that during WW2. You can take out a huge chunk of track before anything derails. Sabotaging the safety equipment is easier but with today's tech you can switch to GPS trackers on every train.

Data centers might be easier but

a) Will have a lot of security. It's much easier for somebody with money and connections (and now even intelligence+knowledge) to assembly a defense force than it's for a ordinary people to learn how to make proper molotovs, let alone learn how to shoot. And they will know when it's coming because even today's LLMs are good enough to surveil the entire internet.

b) I don't think they burn that well. When Ukraine strikes oil depots or warehouses, you can easily find images of them burning. I haven't looked particularly hard but images of droned data centers burning are quite a bit rarer. (I haven't seen a single one before actively searching, they do burn, but that's with military grade explosives.)

▲10111001 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Some dude in France just carried an attack with a ww2 sten gun, there are hundreds if not thousands of AK47s, grenades, etc. available on the black market. You can buy drone ready fiber optics cans on aliexpress, thermal/night vision cameras, etc.

"Hundreds if not thousands"? That may be enough for "rando attention-grabbing but ineffectual terrorist attack," but we're talking about violent resistance to a fully-automated tech bro.

> Military tech is good but you still need people to follow orders, I very much doubt they'd side with the sociopath tech execs, nor their governments.

I already addressed that, and that may not be true in the future:

>> As military tech gets more and more inhuman, the power of masses of bodies is likely to decrease, and there will be even fewer opportunities for moral qualms to give civilians a chance.

Say you have some area you want to exclude a desperate mass of civilians from. Technically you could do that today: just stick a guy in a pill box with a machine gun, and slaughter them like it's World War I. But said guy might have a problem with that, and refuse to pull the trigger (or stop after gunning down a few hundred).

An automated AI machine gun in the same pill box will have no such qualms, and will mercilessly gun down civilians to the last bullet. And that gets more and more true the more and more you automate combat. Maybe a technician wouldn't setup the machine gun in that place or reload it after what happened, but that goes away if setup and resupply is automated, etc.

▲ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]
[deleted]
▲ashkankiani 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

If you haven't learned anything about the state of asymmetric warfare, an autonomous robot is going to be very expensive and timely to build and will be disabled by a $30 drone with C4 attached to it with sufficiently good skills at dodging. I'm assuming that we're in your supposed fantasy world where robotics has progressed to that point, meaning that the people opposing the robots also have access to much better drone software too, to keep things fair.

▲meindnoch 3 hours ago | parent [-]

How do you do asymmetric warfare against autonomous self-replicating killer nanobots? In other words: AI-engineered bioweapons (with AI-engineered antidotes for the rich).

▲ashkankiani 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I'm not sure, why don't you finish your scifi novel and tell us. I'm assuming this is part of the plot?

▲kaffekaka 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I could not find this in the S-1?

▲meindnoch 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Learn to read between the lines then.

▲LinXitoW 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

There's this documentary about how badly that can go. Called Horizon Zero Dawn.

On the other hand, that way we'll finally get to "reconnect" with nature...forcefully.

▲geraneum 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Neither do we have those now. Also in the future, we’ll have opposing nations having their own robot army. It’s not as simplistic as some make it out to be.

▲jpadkins 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

3% is the target. 3% of colonists fought in the US revolutionary war. You need a majority to support you, and 3% to fight.

▲elzbardico 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The raw resources you need to build robots are constrained and have a very very long and complicated supply chain.

In the second world war, Germany had impressive science and technology, but, as Stalin said, quantity is a quality in itself, and The Third Reich found out that it was an impossible task to get the metals and fuels for their advanced jet engines, rockets and U2 boats, when between then and those resources there were masses of tens of millions of under-equipped and malnourished soviet soldiers fighting what was an existencial war for them.

▲deepwoods 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I suspect any intelligence powerful enough to pull this off would quickly realize that it had no use for the oligarchs, perhaps even more quickly than the oligarchs realize they have no use for us.

▲oersted 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Well sure, who says that the oligarchs are human.

▲59percentmore 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

>Although if you have killer robots, then all bets are truly off, and we go the way of the dodo, literally.

Bombs. You mean bombs. Throwing killer robots at a "problem" is like throwing knives or spears: you just gave the enemy your weapon. Unless they explode. But then you just wasted a lot of money on a really smart grenade.

▲intrasight 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The oligarchs should not be concerned about the masses. It's the president of the United States, with a wave of his hand, that will wipe out all the data centers when that becomes necessary. I'm predicting that will become necessary and will happen within five years. I'm predicting anthropic stock price goes to zero.

▲TheArcane 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Although if you have killer robots,

we already do..

▲tsunamifury 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

So far anthropic can't 1) grow food 2) build things 3) do anything physical. Software engineers often fatally misunderstand that their code does nothing, it just coordinates.

You might lose your value, others might gain.

▲w2sdss 2 hours ago | parent [-]

Nice to see you back here fella - one of the few sane heads.

▲martin-t 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Agreed, except it's not labor, it's violence.

All real world power, including ownership (both physical and intellectual), is based on the ability to use violence.

As long as the majority - normal working people - have the potential to do more violence than those who want to control us, we have negotiating power. Minimum wage, 8 hour day, etc - those were all negotiated with the alternative being that those who wanted to pay us less and work more got killed.

▲deadbabe 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What people aren’t realizing is that at some point, it just becomes cheaper and easier to be fully benevolent than to keep cooking up nefarious schemes to make people’s lives miserable.

I know it seems laughable, but we’re in an era right now of extreme competition where you cannot afford to just be nice to people.

But eventually there comes a point where companies have enough power that they don’t need to keep people in line by force: just give people their bread and circus, watch your little AI videos and talk to your AI friends and enjoy your standard housing and provisions. Do some work if you want, no one cares if you do or don’t, it’s largely performative. This basically kills all motivation for resistance or lashing out. Why go out and risk your life fighting for vague reasons when you can be perfectly comfy at home instead and have all your needs met?

If you can control the masses without their complaints, you can solidify power for a long time.