“No job is safe … but I’ll still be a billionaire”
The things to remember is that these CEOs have made a whole living out of not knowing what they are doing, but being insufferably confident in whatever vomit of words they spew, whether they know anything or not, while ultimately just saying the most milquetoast blatantly obvious stuff and pretending it’s very insightful. All this while they believe and the money proves that are the most important people in the world.
So naturally it’s easy for them to believe LLM can take all the jobs, because it can easily take theirs.
That’s actually a pretty good idea. What if we started putting tech billionaires through the wood chipper? It could be like the American guillotine
I’m imagining the next viral video trend on the order of “will it blend”.
Do they make a 2-stroke wood chipper? The planet can dank the damage and it’ll get the chuds on board /s
Yeah but we need a healer
Woodchippers are four stroke. Most probably have a V-twin similar to a riding lawnmower.
You could totally hotrod the hell out of it, however. Just like racing gokarts, you could run nitrous or a turbo.
I sure hope Whipple makes a supercharger for a chipper block, Yee haw
There’s is nothing too awful to happen to sundar Prichai.
No horrible fate could befall that man that would not cause me delight.
By we will… he means everyone else suffers while he profits.
Doesn’t this situation call for companies that could decide to block AI and double down on the human workforce? And those companies who do would be rewarded by all of us who hate AI and they would succeed by the supposed rules of the free market. Why isn’t any company stepping up to compete against AI run companies? Wouldn’t it be an amazing opening to compete and win?
Also, it wasn’t talked about in the article, but one of the big arguments for why this AI thing has to be so inevitable is that we have to compete with China. They think we have to start this race with China, to try to win AI.
First of all, I think we might have already lost the race. Second of all, even if you don’t agree that we’ve already lost. What if by embracing AI, China and all the other countries are destroyed by it? What if it just makes so many mistakes and errors that it just destroys their economy and destroys their country?And then the countries who were cautious about AI would be fine.We’d be the winners, not having succumbed to this ridiculous urge to use everything AI.
People always forget that anything and everything hooked up to a network is hackable. I’ll say it again. Everything hooked up to a network is hackable.Including this shitty AI stuff. If we put everything into AI, even if we win, another country could just hack us. And screw everything up. The bottom line is.There is a space to say no to AI and succeed.
I know I’m not that super articulate about this, but I would love to see somebody else write about these ideas with more finesse than I have, so that we could all start talking about this more and stop letting this inevitable push to AI just keep going without pushing back.
Palantir CEO Says a Surveillance State Is Preferable to China Winning the AI Race
Not to mention, we sold China their surveillance tech which has given them the upper hand in this “race” we never agreed to participate in.
The data collecting capabilities of an authoritarian surveillance state (which we created and sold to China) are allegedly what we will have to accept because it’s necessary to win this imaginary race with China…
I know not everybody is a “crazy conspiracy theorist,” but does that logic not seem the
slightest bitobviously fucked? How much of a “conspiracy” is it really to just acknowledge there are wealthy people in positions of power who don’t have our best interest in mind when they talk about making America great and beating China?US tech companies enabled the surveillance and detention of hundreds of thousands in China
US government allowed and even helped US firms sell tech used for surveillance in China
Detailed findings from AP investigation into how US tech firms enabled China’s digital police state
American tech companies to a large degree designed and built China’s surveillance state, playing a far greater role in enabling human rights abuses than previously known, an Associated Press investigation found. They sold billions of dollars of technology to the Chinese police, government and surveillance companies, despite repeated warnings from the U.S. Congress and in the media that such tools were being used to quash dissent, persecute religious sects and target minorities.
And just like that, we love a billionaire
Eat dick, robber baron.
ah yes, the “don’t be evil” corporation
This type of stuff is exactly why I am moving all of my accounts away from Google. Google is now as bad or evenworse than Microsoft.
To where?
I’m more than happy to self host, find a decent provider, or even go without if I need to. I just don’t want Google around me anymore.
For me - self-hosted.
2 steps ahead of you, boss. Locked and loaded ready for the Terminators already.
Is he going to suffer in any way?
Of course not, he’s rich enough that they won’t spend his token instantly.
If AI is going to take our jobs then UBI is absolutely necessary.
That, or an internment infrastructure currently being used to deport immigrants that can be easily refactored to house chain-gang denaturalized citizens who criticized the upper class… which will come true first?!
AI isn’t going to take your jobs, though. AI is going to take over management of the economy, which is a very different thing.
The jobs will still exist, because manual labor continues to be far cheaper to produce and deploy than machine labor. The conditions of employment will get worse over time, as computer management tools prioritize “efficiency” (aka margin of profit) over quality of life and ecological sustainability.
I’m pretty sure we haven’t needed AI for the economy to be managed toward short-term gains at the cost of quality of life and the environment.
AI speeds up enshitification by removing all the actual sensible humans who might pull the brakes.
When the permanent unemployment rate starts to hit 25% or more, we are either going to have to have UBI, or reduce the population by the unemployment rate.
Which solution will be endorsed by which party, and how will they implement that solution?
Be reminded that Stephen “PeeWee Himmler” Miller has already told Trump that he wants to reduce the population of America from 350 million to 100 million. That’s about a 70% reduction. What do you suppose his “solution” would be?
I don’t care how racist/fascist/terrible you are, how the fuck would the country run with so few people? Like, the population would have to be consolidated to one general area right?
Like say for instance it happens, there are now only 100 million Americans living in the US; where are they all living? Northeast close to New York and DC? Closer to California and Nevada? Or are they all just gonna be spread out across the country that everything is going to be small-town America again?
Only a few thousand will live privileged lives. The rest will serve them. If they don’t like it, they can arrange to be unemployed, but since unemployment is now criminalized, with the punishment being the death penalty, it is unlikely there will be much conflict.
Vietnam and McNamara conveniently reduced the unemployment rate. Trump just bombed Nigeria and has eyes on Venezuela. History may not repeat but it often rhymes.
Unemployment during Vietnam was about as low as it is today.
The real human demand of Vietnam was with a very narrow subset of the population - young men between the ages of 17 and 45 (with a heavy bias towards the lower end) - for a comparatively limited term of service (average 1 year). By contrast, the Iraq War didn’t employ youth conscription. It used the “backdoor draft” to deploy national guard reservists and to force existing enlisted troops back into repeated deployments for upwards of eight years. That also didn’t have a meaningful impact on unemployment during the Bush Administration (notable for a comparatively high unemployment rate, particularly post 2006).
Trump doesn’t fix a flood of unemployed people (particularly older people) with war. If anything, he just amplifies the domestic dissent against his administration, which will likely result in more economic pain and higher rates of joblessness.
Water wars, climate disaster, will lead to lives lost. Food scarcity, antivax, cutting the social safety net further, lack of education…
We need to retire that slogan. History is absolutely repeating.
And it’s the AI companies who are going to have to pay it, either directly or via taxes.
Elon Musk was defending UBI recently.
This version of UBI is a capitalist trap. Make everything a subscription, make everything rented not owned, replace most jobs with AI, give you a monthly allowance. Now you need to feed all that money into their products and services, and they can make sure you’ll never have enough to escape. Its feudalism with extra steps and some computers.
How about we remove the b?
Universal income. No accumulation of Capital. No robber barons. Everybody gets the same and you use it as you see fit.
Just… live your life.
Human nature doesn’t allow it. Too many greedy, narcissistic, and sociopathic people.
What a frail cop out
Google is the one who put society through the woodchipper.
He’s a massive piece of shit.
I’m going to go against the grain here and agree with him. If you look at it as this being a new technology, like robotics or computers, then they will cause disruption in the workforce as people who used to do the tasks are replaced with a technology solution in it’s place. That’s how the tech CEOs are looking at this, as a disruptive technology that will either replace people in the workforce (tech support being replaced by AI) or make people more efficient (one programmer instead of a team).
I honestly don’t think he’s wrong. But just like the two technologies I mentioned above, there will be a limit to what AI can do and it will find it’s disruptive nitch and then no longer be cost effective. Back in the 50’s or in the 80’s computers and robotics were going to drive us all out of work… but lo and behold, we all still have jobs.
The real issue isn’t AI, but how this will allow the few to capture even more wealth. AI is just a technology step, the ultra wealthy are a crime.
I’m hoping for a kind of objective truth to emerge from all this, where good AI’s do not function well when trained on incomplete data sources (i.e. the wealthy training AI on hand-picked bootlicked data to forward their malicious narratives).
I’m hoping that AI can only advance once it’s trained on the totality of human discourse, so that it ultimately sees the wealthy for what they actually are (greedy, narcissistic, sociopathic hoarders) so that the AI acts only to better humanity as a whole instead of specific people.
TLDR: I hope the alignment problem can’t be fixed in a way they want.
