| ▲ | nradov 21 hours ago |
| I agree that all people have value, but what does that mean in practice? Everyone needs a certain amount of resources just to survive. Should other people give you those resources because you have a soul? A lot of people enjoy making art as a hobby; very few of them have combination of talent, discipline, and luck necessary to achieve commercial success. When I walk through a local art festival, most of what I see is so bad that the artists would have to pay me to take it. While taste in art is highly subjective, those artists don't seem to get much attention from other customers either. Going forward there will probably be even fewer people able to make a living in the arts. I'm not sure what that means for society? |
|
| ▲ | satvikpendem 19 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Everyone seems to wrap up their criticisms on AI and labor saving technology in general as though it's a personal affront when in reality, as it's always been, it's an economic problem. Once we have UBI or something similar, you will see most people's opinions on AI doing math and art, for example, start to change to one of cooperation, not adversarial. |
| |
| ▲ | za_creature 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | You can flip this backwards: Everyone seems to wrap up their praise of AI by claiming that it will bring an era of abundance with UBI. Once we don't have UBI because why the fuck would we, you'll see most people's opinions of AI start to change from one of cooperation to adversarial. The steam engine produced raw power but that still needed to be controlled and directed for a multitude of purposes, which required putting dirt farmers through education to turn them into factory workers. If machines now do both the thinking and the hard lifting, why exactly would their owners need us for? From where they're standing, they're now looking at a pragmatic solution to global warming: just reduce the "energy requirements" of the population. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 12 hours ago | parent [-] | | We will have UBI, one way or another, by force if necessary. The people today talking about AI would've been leading revolutions as they did in the 20th century once their lives were automated away. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 11 hours ago | parent [-] | | The 20th century did not even have machine guns at first and the nobles still had a need of a capable workforce back then. Between those, biological, chemical and nuclear weapons, missiles and drones and the fact that using them against the civilian population has no impact on the economy, I think you may need to rethink your use of force. Or do you actually think that they're building humanoid robots to automate blue collar work? More like automate the boys in blue, with unwavering loyalty. | | |
| ▲ | satvikpendem 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | There is no other choice but force, however. That's how all revolutions go. | | |
| ▲ | za_creature 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | That's also how all genocides go. And right now there is a choice, we're not there _yet_. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | birdsink 17 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| >Should other people give you those resources because you have a soul? For what it's worth, yes, I believe this, I think people should give each other the resources needed to survive because we have souls. |
| |
| ▲ | CrimsonRain 15 hours ago | parent [-] | | Not when others are busy producing useful things for society while you are busy doing nothing or doing shitty art while calling it modern. | | |
|
