AI companies aim 'not to help workers, but to replace them' | Hacker News Reader

AI companies aim 'not to help workers, but to replace them'

vaticannews.va

33 pointsrawgabbit12 comments

And the leaders of these companies are so genuinely surprised at the fact that the people are refusing this technology.

Sam Altman: “Looking at what’s possible, it does feel sort of surprisingly slow.”

Satya Nadella: “For this not to be a bubble by definition, it requires that the benefits of this are much more evenly spread.”

Translation: "Look at all these poor executives who don't yet have yachts because we still have to pay workers!"

I read it as Jones describing intent, not mechanics. The harder version of this argument isn't that companies want to replace workers, it's that even when AI genuinely augments productivity, the goalposts shift and you get displacement anyway. I wrote about that dynamic: https://philippdubach.com/posts/does-ai-mean-the-demand-on-l... The conclusion was that AI was supposed to free us, but inescapability might be closer to the truth.

It is what it is.

100 years ago tractors and machinery were replacing farm workers etc...

Obviously AI is a step up since you at least needed humans to operate many machines.

Some kind of UBI might be inevitable, higher taxes for large/most profitable companies might fuel it. But that's my idealistic view of it.

UBI is only inevitable if we believe that those in power care about anyone else

I firmly believe they will have no problem trying to cull the population with autonomous drones and such once they think they no longer need us. Our leadership is not filled with virtuous people

> I firmly believe they will have no problem trying to cull the population with autonomous drones and such once they think they no longer need us.

They wouldn't really need to cull the population proactively, they just need to make sure they can defend themselves against the inevitable uprisings when people can't afford to eat and feed their families.

It would be much easier to justify their actions to themselves in the name of defense. Even non-virtuous people like to be able to convincingly lie to themselves about being good people.

Well I guess the prosperity preaching will fill that role

> They wouldn't really need to cull the population proactively, they just need to make sure they can defend themselves against the inevitable uprisings when people can't afford to eat and feed their families.

Arguably the best way to defend against the threat of uprising is to get rid of it before people reach that breaking point

I dunno, maybe by starting detainment camps under the guise of deporting people who are in the country illegally

Who knows. We have no really good examples of this sort of large scale population culling to draw from in history

Every peasant revolt in history would beg to differ.

You quite simply cannot defend yourself from millions of people who have absolutely nothing to live for other than to see you drawn and quartered. Sheer numbers will overwhelm any conceivable defense.

>I firmly believe they will have no problem trying to cull the population

One could claim that has been in the works for many decades but surely only a conspiracy theorist would belive that so just be a good citizen and stop noticing.

It's really a little of both in different doses

No, one is an unfortunate, temporary side effect of the other.

The models need to be trained to do the work by getting people to do the work with the model. This is merely a transitional consequence leading up to replacement.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com