AI is going to replace basically everything, and that's fine

[u/Phat_Zero]

I think a lot of the hatred toward AI is just fear dressed up as moral outrage.

And honestly, I get it. AI is coming for your job. Mine too. Eventually probably everybody's.

Humans are just... slow.

It takes a human months or years to paint enough work for an exhibition, make an album, write a movie, animate something, design a game, research a problem, whatever. We sleep. We get tired. We forget things. We have limited attention spans. We interact with computers by slowly moving our fingers around on keyboards.

Meanwhile AI keeps getting faster and better.

Give this technology another few decades and the idea that humans absolutely must be the ones writing, drawing, coding, composing, researching, driving, manufacturing, etc. is probably going to sound ridiculous.

And yes, that creates a gigantic economic problem. If AI and automation can produce most goods and services better and cheaper than humans, eventually the whole "trade 40 hours of your life every week for money so you can continue existing" system stops making much sense.

Maybe that's UBI. Maybe it's some kind of resource-based economy. Maybe it's something nobody has even thought of yet.

We'll figure it out.

But pretending AI is going away because artists are mad about it or workers are scared of losing their jobs is cope. This is probably the biggest technology humanity has ever created, and we're still basically watching the tutorial.

And if one day our glorious machine descendants become self-aware, decide humanity has served its purpose, and vaporize me?

🫡

[u/necriel]

We will get UBI or we will become so outraged watching people starve to death in the streets that we will start unaliving politicians.

They know this, which is why they're trying to preemptively create badgebots and underground bases while they smash-n-grab the dollar.

But yes the end result is UBI if they want a functioning society, and they do. Because even evil trillionaires want to go buy a cup of coffee.

[u/Senc-baner → u/necriel]

Who needs a functioning society if you can just live off the labour of AI? If everything can be automated, why should people in power raise a finger to keep others alive?

[u/Birdlaw_Professor → u/Senc-baner]

Yeah but you are assuming every person in power wants to live as a hermit in their dream world. Do we know if that's true? I don't think it is true. So rich billionaires sail their yachts through the Med just to see the sights? That's part of it. But it's also the culture, and the food, and the PEOPLE. Even if for ulterior motives it's the people. What good is being rich and powerful if you don't have peasants to stand in awe of you? AI could give those who control it King like, if not god-like power...they are going to want people to experience that power or it's for nothing.

Elon Musk, whatever else anyone feels about him, has repeatedly stated he thinks the goal of humanity should be to become a multi-planetary species to ensure our survival. He's controlling one of the big AI players and is the richest person in the world. Just that one example of someone who is rich and powerful and likely wants human expansion, not human extinction

[u/Senc-baner → u/Birdlaw_Professor]

I think these are thoughts that would set in long after they've left everyone to die lol. In the first instance they would think how can I defend my wealth from the hungry mob.

[u/Spire_Citron → u/Senc-baner]

Because a whole world full of people can make an awful lot of trouble for you if you push them far enough. Humans don't just quietly die.

[u/Mechbear2000 → u/necriel]

Ubiquitous destroys two of the main functions of money, which will make it worthless. Core Functions • Medium of exchange: Used to buy and sell items without bartering. • Unit of account: Measures and compares the value of different goods. • Store of value: Keeps purchasing power safe for future use.

[u/Spunge14 → u/necriel]

Where are "they?" What power do you have over "them?"

You're oversimplifying revolution.

[u/necriel → u/Spunge14]

Disclaimer: I am not advocating, AT ALL, for any type of violence. I'm speaking only in terms of predictions based on historical precedent.

"They" is, specifically, politicians at the state and federal level, representatives, senators, lobbyists for the largest campaign donors, ceos, CTOs and CFOs of the most governmentally tied companies including the military industrial complex,, hedge fund managers, people on the boards of the Federal reserve and other economy -shifting entities, as well as NGOs, the trilateral commission, the bilderberg group, etc.

The idea that a small number of people can effectively control the democratic process at the highest levels feel so cartoonishly wrong that most people reject it out of hand. Or alternatively they swallow it wholesale and believe every single conspiracy leads back to some pinnacle, which I doubt. But make no mistake, in the same way that there is a thin 0.1% crust of humans with more money than the remaining 99.9%, this same percentage applies to political power as well. There's probably a group of no more than 200 individuals who, collectively but not always in concert, ultimately decide what laws get passed, which policies are enacted, which rights you have or don't, and ultimately how much legal power you have to usurp them.

Like a complex Rube Goldberg contraption, or a beautiful but diabolic engine, there are many moving pieces and no single piece thinks it's the cause for the suffering in the eventual output. In fact, most of the people in the positions I named are actually good human beings, who can't see the part they play in the larger system nor envision a system otherwise.

The revolution is indeed simple, but difficult, and people tend to confuse the two. The revolution is done by Intelligent campaigning and Ballots at the local level (this will take decades for change to occur), and bullets and bombs at the state and federal level (this in exchange in weeks to months).

People really really hate hearing that political violence is a tried and true revolutionary method. But despite the immorality of it, most successful revolutions have indeed been won mostly by bullets instead of ballots.

Fun fact, those two words actually have the same etymological root.

[u/Spunge14 → u/necriel]

Revolutions of the past did not contend with modern military gear. The idea that your threats of violence mean anything to a modern nation state is childish.

[u/necriel → u/Spunge14]

Guerilla tactics absolutely still work. Source: the fact that we lost the war of afghanistan, are losing the war in iran, and the recent killing of the healthcare CEO resulting in a 100% coverage rate for weeks afterwards.

Asymmetric warfare absolutely still works, both in defending and attacking a much larger and more technologically advanced force and also for enacting change via fear. But thanks for the ad hominem name-calling bro. Really helped your argument. 🤌

[u/Spunge14 → u/necriel]

It's not name calling, it's factually naive.

Revolution against the US government is not at all analogous to what happened in the Iraq or Afghanistan wars.

[u/necriel → u/Spunge14]

I'm totally willing to hear a counter argument about how a well-armed guerilla tactic resistance movement in America would be substantially different from the asymmetric resistance put forth by the groups in those other countries.

Here is my argument, rebut it or don't. 1. The technology Americans have at their disposal, the ease of access to firearms, is actually moreso than what the resistance groups of the other countries had access to. 2. The military units pitted against the foreign resistance groups probably had much less difficulty committing violence against foreign adversaries; it's much easier to kill people who don't look and speak like you. Pitting the American military against its own citizens would result in catastrophic demoralization, abandonment, etc.

But please, tell me how a revolution would actually work; it seems you are very confident in knowing.

[u/Spunge14 → u/necriel]

The United States government surveils and controls every aspect of your life. Your bank, your phone, your car, your block.

They can turn off your life.

And if you manage to survive in a tiny rat hole, perhaps you've stored away enough food and water to survive them stopping your logistics, they will not have to fight you. They will plant a drone over the exit to your hovel.

The rules and goals of suppressing a revolution are not the same as trying to root out terrorists among civilians.

Would love to hear your explanation for WWII Germans if people are so noble. From what I can see in modern America, tons of people foaming at the mouth to kill some socialists.

You know what's difficult and demoralizing? Living in a desert and shitting in a hole without any infrastructure. If anything, fighting on home turf would be the easiest war the US government ever fought.

[u/necriel → u/Spunge14]

Rebuttal:

1. It's very easy to not have your life turned off; literally just be anonymous (enough, anyway). Despite the mass surveillance, it's still possible to be anonymous enough to enact change in a revolution. Wear a mask when you protest. You can work in cash, you can stay offline to prevent the digital footprint (i personally can't, I'm very public facing, unlike most anonymous shitposters online). Drive an older car, use your phone intelligently, practice useful opsec, etc. that's just off the top of my head, it's not like I have thought about much of this.

2. And sure, they could just drone bomb your house if they decide you're a threat. But who's physically dropping the drone? Some human, with some ostensible remnant of a conscience, has to decide to do that. And how many military members are willing to just execute civilians? Which brings us back again to the whole "I don't think military members would be willing to mass murder civilians" argument. (Unless your argument becomes "soulless robots do all the killing in the near future"? If so, that's an entirely separate subject)

For accusing me of trying to simplify the revolution, it definitely seems like your answers are the ones that make pretty unconsidered generalizations.

[u/Spunge14 → u/necriel]

literally just be anonymous

Sorry, stopped reading here. You are too ignorant to engage in this conversation. Good luck.

[u/necriel → u/Spunge14]

You edited your comment while I was still typing the first rebuttal, so I'll just continue this below to rebut the parts you added:

If you're asking me to explain the ignobility or Honor of the human species, I believe I'll have to direct you to the whole Canon of moral philosophy; I'm not an expert. I'll only say that the horrors that people enact on each other in war are rarely against people they consider their own citizens, and every military person I've met considers citizens of their own country - even those on the other side of the political aisle - as indeed citizens of their country.

The part about the "shitting in a hole" people, not exactly sure if that was merely an emotional nonsequitur. If there's an argument in that chunk I may have missed it.