Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

[flagged]

So you trust the guy who gives AI speeches in front of a background that is a mixture of grey neoclassicism and brutalism which Leni Riefenstahl would have been proud of?

https://xcancel.com/LaceyPresley/status/2060436135671632067#...

Here is a hint: Humans are better in dirt conditions. The robots will not take the place of Saudi immigrant workers but rather of the Saudi secret police.

You will be working in the dirt or perhaps be reassigned to fight the Final Beautiful Ground War against whatever the current axis of evil is.

Man, please don't tar brutalism with the same brush as a Nazi. They've got nothing to do with each other. And besides, the design in that photo isn't brutalist: too much non-structural, non-functional decoration.

You're talking about replacing certain humans with robots. They're talking about replacing humans with robots - final.

So for you the solution is not to dismantle a model like that one but just accept it and displace the quasi-slaves? I swear you people have lost your fucking mind and will push people to violence

> but just accept it and displace the quasi-slaves?

Well, the quasi-slavery is the problem, right? And replacing the Bangladeshi slave labor with robots and AI solves that problem, no?

What happens to that labor if everyone that would hire them previously is now using cheaper artificial labor? They don't exactly have the capital to make use of artificial labor themselves, nor do they have the skills to work other jobs. The problem is solved for the 10% who are citizens. Great! They don't have a moral quandary regarding slave labor anymore (notwithstanding that there are other ways to prevent being in that situation). But, the 90% of the population that is now displaced has a very serious problem if they cannot earn an income with which to feed or home themselves or their families.

You don't let it get to the point where only 10% has access to artificial labor. But also it should be pretty difficult for that to happen as the transition is gradual, not instant, so there will be a soft tipping point where access to artificial labor will be provided voluntarily or there will be revolution. Or mass death by deprivation.

Is there anything indicating this would be what would happen?

That’s the premise of the hypothetical, because this discussion is about what happens when AI and robots replace humans. The point is the Gulf states are examples of societies that already are effectively “post-human labor” as to citizens.

Did you read the article? It's not just about replacing labour with AI but humans as a species to give birth to a machinistic god. The issue is that there is a quasi-religion forming around this ideology, and this are not just a few nutcases but people that are well-connected into industry and politics. Regardless of whether this plan is at all realistic, there is a not insignificant chance that these people will shape society and legislation.

My fan theory of Terminator: It was never the machines trying to kill humans. It was a handful of billionaires who controlled the machines attempting to kill all non-billionaires. They merely claimed they had no control.

Now I’m thinking that some of those billionaires may have worshipped the machines and convinced themselves that they were helpless. Miraculously, their own families were spared.

The big difference between the non-citizen workers in the Gulf states and AI is that the workers in the Gulf aren't rapidly improving in their cognitive capabilities.

> quasi-human automatons

They are humans. Full on people. They are not quasy humam, they are fully absolutely human

Please read what I wrote: "all the work is done by people who are, from the perspective of citizens, quasi-human automatons."

The citizens of the Gulf states do not regard the workers as people. That's bad, but if you replace those workers with actual automatons--AIs and robots--then it seems like the system would keep working (from the perspective of the citizens) while removing the immoral aspect of it.

They do regard them as people and know they are people. They are comfortable with abusing people, that is what it is.

In fact, they are not treating them as robots or quasi robots. People dont sexually harass robots for example, they do it to people.

Of course; to you and me they are human. To their bosses, they are chattel. We’re getting to that attitude even in america by my ken

So you want to be a quasi-AI automaton?

The gulf countries are the closest thing to socialist states on the planet. Something like 70-90% of the citizenry of Kuwait, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia are employed by the public sector.

Even if only 30% of the population are citizens (like in Kuwait)?

You have no idea what socialism is, like so many right wing propagandists and dynastic-autocracy labor-exploitation rentier-state apologists.

That's not socialism. It's an absolute autocratic monarchy distributing oil rents to a privileged citizen caste.

Most of the private-sector work is done by foreign workers who don't receive the same benefits or political rights.

Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. The governance of that state, be it democratic, monarchical, or dictatorship of the proletariat, is a separate question.

By that definition, which again proves my point that you have no idea what socialism is, a king personally owning an entire country through the apparatus of the state would be socialist. Most socialists would reject that conclusion because ownership by a state isn't the same thing as ownership by society.

State ownership alone isn't sufficient. If a hereditary ruling family controls the state, then "state ownership" just means ownership by that ruling elite, not by society.

Socialism is public ownership of the means of production. If there isn’t a way for regular people / “the proletariat” to influence the government, it’s not socialism because an autocratic government isn’t “the public”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com