The real threat to humanity from AI is not a Skynet or a Matrix like intelligence. The threat is that Artificial Intelligence WILL make labor irrelevant. When human capital has no value, we will disappear.
Don't kid yourself into thinking that those who owns the means of production will stop to help. If they were interested in that, they'd be doing it now. There's enough money and food to feed everyone on the planet. People still starve.
Or do we wait until they actually create an army of armed drones? Of course, by then it'd be too late.
Or do we choose a time frame that's in-between, trusting that the politicians and the courts and the police departments will pass and enforce laws to protect us before the plutos can amass power via fully automated factories -- laws that will never actually come to pass, since plutocrat-interests-and-their-minions already own the current system?
Nah. We frogs will boil LONG before revolution is a viable option.
Fun science fiction but this idea that the rich could develop an entire self sustaining infrastructure to protect themselves from any leverage from the working class is completely infeasible.
Let's day a full automatic drone factory was built. Factories don't make their own tools and general parts, they don't mold their own screws and bolts, no, they source those. Even if they could, they'd need raw materials. So they'd need completely automated mines. Those mines would be on land that they'd own, but they'd have to physically defend it. So the scenario you're proposing is: fully automated mining, with fully automated defense measures, delivering raw materials to some fully automated smelter (all travel routes automatically defended against sabotage), this all to feed a factory that would churn out defense robots. It's completely circular and silly.
So in the next 20 years, which do you think will happen first: dictatorship by plutocrats elected to office, or by plutocrats who overthrow elections after they lose?
growing economic power is supposed to help "all of us" in proportion to our input value.
All this to say, i agree, but it means we need to augment capitalism - not speak to help and morality?
How can you call a system that disincentivizes collective care of one another "amoral"?
> but it means we need to augment capitalism
What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior?
And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
By regulating it so that it serves the needs of the people living in it, and embedding those regulations in a system resilient against regulatory capture and nepotism.
As all economic systems, it’s ultimately only a means (efficient resource allocation) to an end (prosperity and growth for somebody).
Who that is, i.e. how the results of that growth are ultimately redistributed is not a question of economics but politics.
It doesn't disincentivize collective care. It incentivizes resource allocation most optimally, whatever optimality is within applied bounds. Which leads to my next point:
> What a pithy phrase! You said yourself that capitalism doesn't incentivize those with to help those without. How do you augment capitalism to incentivize such behavior?
By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds. It's not like any of this exists in a vacuum and can't be, again, augmented to fit our needs better.
> And to be clear, I'm not saying that the bourgeoisie should be helping. I'm just saying they don't. I think we should burn capitalism to the ground and build something better.
That's cute. What's your proposition for replacing Capitalism? What guarantees your new system is better? And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have? Since I assume from your post you basically haven't known anything other then peace and stability and historically speaking great times, you're basically a larper.
Ideas like this always strike me as incredibly naive. Why not work to improve a system that has shown promise instead of the repeating the long trail of critical failures from other systems.
Exactly. And in the current bounds the optimal allocation is more into the control of fewer. Also, capitalism is a zero sum game, thus the disincentive to give what you've got.
> By applying regulation and laws to the system, the bounds.
Sure. But those regulations and laws are being repealed or revised to be toothless. And there are many places on earth where laws have no meaning.
> And I can assume you're agreeing to pay the incredibly bloody tab destabilizing our society will have?
And capitalism doesn't have an incredibly bloody tab? Take a global perspective to see the many useless wars in the 20th and 21st century that have been fought to extend the market for capital.
Or consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences, but only short term gains. Do you think that when the oceans rise, the plants die, and the water is too acidic to drink society won't be destabilized?
Only in a zero growth environment. And in one, which economic or political system is not a zero sum game?
> consider that our planet is fucked by global warming thanks to "optimal resource allocation" which takes no account for long-term consequences
Pricing in long-term consequences and accounting for externalities is arguably not a contradiction to capitalism (and I think we should absolutely do much better there).
Ideally we’d even account for the effects of societal unrest due to massive wealth inequalities or areas becoming unlivable due to the climate, or just the immorality of poverty if nothing else.
But that’s a political decision (what do we value how much) in the end, not one of economic systems. Who gets to decide that is determined by the political system, not the economic one. And corruption of political power can exist in all systems.
Bullshit. If this is the case:
1. We will still be stuck doing subsistence farming.
2. No trades will happen.
3. The economy will not grow or shrink.
This is so obviously wrong. Please learn basic economics before trying to "burn it all down": https://www.investopedia.com/terms/z/zero-sumgame.asp