• TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    137
    ·
    2 months ago

    Capitalism is all about short-term profit. These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

    Further proof of this: Climate change.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

      Well that’s not true at all. The vast majority of investors are in it for the long run.

    • Blubber28@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Yup, economics are all about “LiNe mUsT gO uP!!!” It’s infuriating as all hell for people that can actually see further than the tip of their own nose.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Did you mean to say shareholder and corporate management? Investment itself (especially diversified) is completely about long-term performance.

  • Damage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    2 months ago

    Pathogens don’t really think of what will happen after the body they’re abusing dies

    • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      They kind of do. (I am so sorry, not trying to be that guy).

      Look at HIV. The original strain is horribly deadly, but the strains that have evolved within the last decade are much more tame. It’s because the virus that kills its host doesn’t get to spread - Zombie outbreaks excluded here.

      The flu is the same way. New strains always emerge, but they are usually not fatal to most even without a vaccine.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    2 months ago

    Don’t think of people having money as an on-off switch. It’s a gradual shift, and it’s already started, before AI was a thing. AI is just another tool to increase the wealth gap, like inflation, poor education, eroding of human rights etc.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    2 months ago

    The rich. Companies will stop targeting products to wider and wider swathes of people, just like nobody caters to the homeless now.

  • Duamerthrax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    18
    ·
    2 months ago

    Corporations, especially publicly traded ones, can’t think past their quarterly reports. The ones that are private are competing with the public ones and think following trends by companies that are “too big to fail” will work out for them.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    2 months ago

    In theory, UBI.

    In practice, it will likely lead to periodic job market crashes due to overapplying to the remaining jobs, and possibly even revolts.

    If AI is really as good as its evangelists claim, and the technology ceiling will rise enough. IMHO, even the LLM technologies are getting exhausted, so it’s not just a training data problem, of which these AI evangelists littered the internet with, so they will have a very hard time going forward.

    • exanime@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      There is zero chance any UBI model would keep the economy going in a mass layoff scenario UBI may keep people alive for a short while (few years) getting the basics needs but that’s as far as it would go.

      In practice, it will likely lead to periodic job market crashes due to overapplying to the remaining jobs, and possibly even revolts.

      This is likely the mildest of outcomes

      If AI is really as good as its evangelists claim, and the technology ceiling will rise enough. IMHO, even the LLM technologies are getting exhausted, so it’s not just a training data problem, of which these AI evangelists littered the internet with, so they will have a very hard time going forward.

      100% agreed. AI evangelists overhyped “AI” to get companies to commit more money than it’s worth through FOMO. Exact same way CVS lost its panties to Elizabeth Holmes

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    2 months ago

    I’m an optimist, so I’ll believe one day we’ll have a utopian society like in Star Trek. I ask politely you don’t criticize me too harshly

    • ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      Hey, that’s a reasonable thing to hope. The flip side, of course, is that I’m hoping I don’t have to live through Star Trek’s idea of how the 21st century goes. They definitely got all of the details wrong, but I’m afraid the vibes are matching a little too well.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        2 months ago

        Hey, we’ve still got 2 months to the Bell Riots, and DeSantis was talking about putting all the homeless people in Florida on an island

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 months ago

      While I agree, I’m skeptical that we’ll see any meaningful advance toward that end in our lifetimes.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      I think it’s as relistic a future as the complete destruction of mankind, but your point of view makes life a lot more enjoyable. Here’s a nice quote to back it up:

      “There is nothing like a dream to create the future” - Victor Hugo

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    AI owners will.

    And if you then go around wandering “oh, but not every AI builds something those few people want”, “that’s way too few people to fill a market”, or “and what about all the rest?”… Maybe you should read Keynes, because that would not be the first time this kind of buying-power change happens, and yes, it always suck a lot for everybody (even for the rich people).

  • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    2 months ago

    I see three possibilities if AI is able to eliminate a significant portion of jobs:

    1. Universal basic income, that pays out based on how productive the provider side was per person. Some portion of wealth is continually transferred to the owners.
    2. Neofeudalism, where the owners at the time of transition end up owning everything and allow people to live or not live on their land at their whim. Then they can use them for labour where needed or entertainment otherwise. Some benevolent feudal lords might generally let people live how they want, though there will always be a fear of a revolution so other more authoritarian lords might sabotage or directly war with them.
    3. Large portions of the population are left SOL to die or do whatever while the economy doesn’t care for them. Would probably get pretty violent since people don’t generally just go off to die of starvation quietly. The main question for me is if the violence would start when the starving masses have had enough of it or earlier by those who see that coming.

    I’m guessing reality will have some combination of each of those.

    • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      2 months ago

      In the USA, it would be option 3 all the way. We would see three classes: Mega Rich, the warfighters of the mega rich, and then the rest of us left to starve.

      They wouldn’t just pull the plug and leave us to our own devices, they would actively destroy farming equipment and industry to make sure life is awful

      • Buddahriffic@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        I’m not even sure it will be 3 classes because having a soldier class risks them deciding to just take over. This is one of the real dangers of AI, they won’t have any issue going into an area and killing everything that moves there until they are given an encrypted kill command. Or maybe the rich will even come in with an EMP (further destroying what infrastructure is left) and act like they are the heroes while secretly being the ones who give the orders to reduce the numbers in the first place.

        Worst part is the tech for that already exists. The complicated kill bot AI is getting it to discriminate and selectively kill. I remember seeing a video of an automated paintball turret that could hit a moving basketball with full precision 20 years ago. Not only that, it was made by a teenager (or team of teenagers).

  • NeptuneOrbit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    That’s the neat part. No one.

    If the rich can hire a handful of the middle class to build and maintain their robots, then they can just cut the poor and working poor out of the economy entirely, and they will be willing to accept any conditions for food and shelter.

    We can arrange the economy anyway we choose. Taking all of the decision making for themselves is part of the plan.

  • markr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    2 months ago

    Everyone will be working multiple shitty service jobs that robots are not cost effective to automate. Our miserable wages will be just sufficient to keep the wheels on the cart from falling off.

  • deadlyduplicate@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    Look up crisis theory, the rate of profit tends to fall in capitalist systems. Because each company is driven by competitive self-interest, it is incapable of acting for the good of the whole. You simply cannot devote resources to anything but trying to out-compete your rivals and in doing so the profit for everyone tends lower and lower until you have a crisis.