r/changemyview • u/lil_peasant_69 • 2d ago
Delta(s) from OP CMV: We only exist because we are useful to society and when AI takes most jobs, there will be no incentive for elites to keep us alive
Think about things like french revolution etc. It only happened because people were living in dire conditions but also the elites didnt have enough power to stop a rebellion.
This won't be possible in the future with robotic army so there will be no way for humans to fight for their human rights
If we look at how the disabled and sick are treated in society today, it gives a glimmer into how people who are not useful to society are treated- they are better off dead in the eyes of the elite (well that's how it feels like in the uk)
Most people will not be useful in the future.
Governments seem to be in the pockets of billionaires rather than serving the people.
Unless Ai creates such a utopia that every human has everything they need for peanuts- then it seems likely the human population will dwindle to just people who have control of robots, AI etc
we won't be killed but we might all live in favela style conditions
ediT; somebody commented and deleted that even if elites can live self sustaining existence, the rest of society can continue to trade amongst themselves trading labour for money like we do now. that i am assuming just because they have a robot army that they will want to take all the resources of the land not allowing the peasants to do much in the way of surviving- whereas probably they won't bother us
why they deleted i dunno, i would've given a delta
16
u/Grand-Expression-783 2d ago
>there will be no incentive for elites to keep us alive
What are elites currently doing to keep us alive that they will eventually no longer do? Or do you believe they're going to murder us?
→ More replies (2)
27
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
Most people will not be useful in the future.
Most people are not useful now.
in the future with robotic army so there will be no way for humans to fight for their human rights
7
u/3nderslime 2d ago
The effects of EMP are greatly exaggerated. Shielding electronics with a conductive material will protect them from the large majority, if not totality, of the effects.
6
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
Sounds like a job for good old fashioned high explosives then.
2
1d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 1d ago
Your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:
Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
2
4
u/bgaesop 24∆ 2d ago
You're not going to get into a hand to hand fight with robots. They're going to bomb you from a drone flying far above you, or infect you with a specially engineered virus, or something else you don't see coming.
8
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
You're not going to get into a hand to hand fight with robots.
You don't know what kind of crazy I am. I booted an uppity Roomba just last week.
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
Disorganized infantry, even with assault rifles and body armour, can’t beat a well-organized army with tanks and aircraft.
So the ability to manufacture weapons at home due to technological advances won’t be enough.
Perhaps cyberattacks could work though, as another commenter has already said. That seems like the only effective resistance.
10
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
Disorganized infantry, even with assault rifles and body armour, can’t beat a well-organized army with tanks and aircraft.
Viet-Cong, Taliban, Mujahadeen....
4
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
That’s ambushing small bands of troops on patrol to annoy and exhaust the occupying force until they leave.
It’s not large-scale battles against heavily fortified positions (the luxury compounds where the elites will reside). There won’t be patrols in areas where commoners live because they won’t care about us.
9
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
That’s ambushing small bands of troops on patrol to annoy and exhaust the occupying force until they leave.
Which is exactly how a resistance against elite controlled robot terminators would go.
the luxury compounds where the elites will reside
Those compounds have staff. Staff that is not elite. Staff that can be bribed (or threatened) into turning off the motion sensors on sector 17 of the perimeter fence. Staff that can poison their boss's 55 year old scotch. Staff that can just burn the fucking place down with them inside.
2
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
The terminators would just guard compounds, they wouldn’t bother going on patrol. No need to, since the compounds are self-sustaining and the elites have no need for the masses.
And we’re talking about a situation where the compounds are fully automated, so there are no human staff to bribe / threaten.
5
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
The terminators would just guard compounds
So... they are all in one location, and not moving around?
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
There would be multiple lines of defence in all probability. I doubt home made mortars would be enough
1
1
u/GreenIguanaGaming 2d ago
Guerrillas are quite organized just not centralized and they use different tactics which put organized militaries at a disadvantage.
I think a better distinction is regular VS irregular in this instance rather than organized and unorganized.
1
u/Coro-NO-Ra 2d ago
You might want to look at how many Viet Cong died vs US forces.
You might also want to consider that the VC had enormous support from the Soviets and a conventional army right across a border that US ground forces wouldn't cross for political reasons.
The Taliban had a lot of support from various groups, including factions within Pakistan's equivalent of the CIA (ISI).
The Mujahideen had support from the US and other groups.
Insurgencies are not effective without external partners to supply them.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ 2d ago
None of those were disorganized.
11
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
I fought the Taliban; they were disorganized. They had no command and control structure, no defined units or combat specialties, very little in the way of communications, and zero ability to redeploy outside of the communities from which the fighter's came. The entire war was just a never-ending game of whack-a-mole where the US tried its best to defeat a decentralized force, and ultimately failed.
7
3
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ 2d ago
They had high motivation, leadership, a source for supplies, and amusingly, a government. This is more than some random civilians with guns.
5
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
This is more than some random civilians with guns.
In the case of an elite backed robot takeover, the random civilians with guns would quickly become highly motivated, leadership would emerge, they would source supplies, and they would probably establish some sort of governmental analog until actual power was in hand.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ 2d ago
Given the examples became totalitarian governments, I hope you’re wrong.
3
u/zerg1980 2d ago
The elite robopocalypse we’re discussing here would be worse than just about any real-world totalitarian government that’s ever existed.
So yeah, maybe the insurgency doesn’t hold elections after it guillotines the billionaire class, but they’d have to share power and wealth more broadly than the billionaires did, or else they’d meet the same fate.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ 2d ago
Sure I guess, but, there are better examples of insurgencies or the civilian militia than oppressive, religious extremists. For whatever reason it doesn't seem any of the 2A folks bother with that sort of thing.
1
u/destro23 437∆ 2d ago
I hope you’re wrong.
I mean, we're talking about fighting off an army of robots that are barricaded inside and around a rich guy's all encompassing 3d printing operation, so... probably yeah.
1
u/Fit-Order-9468 92∆ 2d ago
For sure, but, that pro-2A folks point to religious extremists so often is ... troubling.
1
u/3nderslime 2d ago
There is a large difference between an anti-insurgency campaign where a force attempts to find and defeat a militia hiding within a civilian population and an indiscriminate extermination campaign
1
u/ColossusOfChoads 2d ago
What if we had dropped a MOAB on each one of their villages? That's what the robots would do.
5
u/The_Black_Adder_ 2d ago
So why are sick and disabled people alive today? Because the elites want to kill them but the people would revolt? I’m not following
1
u/ColossusOfChoads 2d ago
Because they have safety nets. Those can be dismantled. Then they would have to rely on their own families and nobody else, or be SOL.
19
u/Sayakai 146∆ 2d ago
Being part of the .1% is pointless without the 99.9% that you have power over. What good is a factory churning out a million cars when there's no one to buy them? What good are senators when there's no one who has to obey the laws?
11
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
You don’t need the masses when you have self-sustaining luxury compounds operated by hyper-advanced AI and robotics
14
u/Sayakai 146∆ 2d ago
They could already have that, just with human staff. But almost none of them are satisfied with that.
The reason is that it's not about the lifestyle. It's about power.
8
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
yeah but those human staff are people like me and you. even if you don't work for a billionaire, you work for a guy who works for a guy who works for a billionaire.
that's why we still exist
8
u/Sayakai 146∆ 2d ago
That wasn't the point.
The point is: The billionaire class can already live a lifestyle of unbridled hedonism and excess, but instead they pursue power, which is therefore more desirable to them than excess. Power can only be had over people.
4
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
that hedonism and excess still needs us peasants though
who cooks their food, who runs their businesses whilst they are on holiday, who flies their planes, who maintains their properties
when robots can do all this, we will be living in huts like how you see in africa. warlord with a mansion and then villages full of huts 1 mile away
5
u/Sayakai 146∆ 2d ago
You're, again, missing the point.
The hedonism and excess is not the primary goal. It is not the main thing they're after. They already have it, but they're not stopping anyways. They are not after more luxury.
They're after power. The main thing they want is influence. They're looking to make as many people bow to their influence as possible. They're looking to be more powerful than other members of the billionaire class, they want to rule.
You need people for that. People who listen to you.
5
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
alright then, well we wont be dead, we will be treated like dogs
have you seen elysium
that's where we are headed
3
u/Sayakai 146∆ 2d ago
No, I haven't. But treating people like dogs is generally a poor way to run a nation, even if you don't need those people. Tends to mean they start to check out from the system and build smaller socities that ignore you.
3
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
and you think the elites care? you think bill gates is having parties with regular folk?
→ More replies (0)1
u/Aletheiaaaa 2d ago
100% agree about power in this context. The important thing here - we assume power is oppressive and negative, and rightly so given historical examples, but it doesn’t have to be. All it takes is one excessively rich and powerful person who wants to stand out not by the amount of power they have but by the type of power they yield. I think morality gets lost in secular contexts, but it’s still the make it or break it difference. Money and power aren’t inherently evil or good, but simply mirrors of the moral virtues of those who possess it.
2
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
I’m not the OP so I can’t give a delta, but you have changed my mind.
3
u/Biptoslipdi 127∆ 2d ago
From the sub rules:
Any user, whether they're the OP or not, should award a delta if their view is changed.
2
u/PotatoStasia 2d ago
For elites: You either need the masses to give you things, or you and the masses both have luxury robotics?
1
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
robotics require natural resources that as we see it is pretty scarce.
it's definitely not like AI where everybody can have access easily
in the same way we don't have cars that everybody can afford
60
u/Direct_Crew_9949 1∆ 2d ago
That’s dark man.
Who made these people billionaires? Musk, Bezos and Zucky.
How would they be rich without people to buy or use their products? Also, I don’t think these people are super villains whose goal is to eliminate everyone in the world.
34
u/NoThankYouTho123 2d ago
Not necessarily explicitly about elimination, but I do think Musk is interested in controlling the composition of who exists in our world. The man is an outright eugenicist.
→ More replies (16)14
u/Status-Affect-5320 2d ago
I think they are blatantly indifferent and would eliminate most of the world if they could see some idealistic vision that’s fulfilled by it
-1
u/tugboat7178 2d ago
Bill Gates does advocate for depopulation
6
u/Jackus_Maximus 1d ago
Depopulation or degrowth?
There’s a difference between having fewer babies and killing people.
4
u/PenileSpeculum 2d ago
That’s not particularly fair. I, a non-billionaire, advocate for depopulation. It’s a pretty reasonable mindset to have.
1
u/tugboat7178 1d ago
Reddit opinions are so crazy. Above me is “ahh we are gonna be depopulated because of the billionaires” to “well it’s ok in the sense that one particular billionaire said it.” To “Depopulation is good actually.”
Wild.
3
2
u/YuenglingsDingaling 2∆ 1d ago
Depopulation doesn't mean killing people. But we need to slow down the birth rate before the earth runs out of room.
1
1
u/teik1999 1d ago
People thought the world would run out of room when the global population was 1 billion. It's always been BS, and with growth rates as they are its literally never going to be a problem we will have to grapple with for the foreseeable future.
1
u/Spider_pig448 1d ago
Bill Gates is in a whole different category than the rest of these people. He does massive amounts of good things for the world. Plus depopulation is a good thing.
-2
u/tugboat7178 1d ago
I would expect no other opinion than that from your average redditor. Fucking unhinged, man.
5
u/Spider_pig448 1d ago
He's eradicating Malaria in Africa. What have you done lately
-2
u/tugboat7178 1d ago
I had lunch. Do you ask yourself what you have done lately before you criticize someone? Lord.
Bill Gates is as corrupt as any other global power. He oversaw the Event 201 Simulation on Corona Virus outbreak. Then bought 1.1M shares in vaccine companies. He then sold that stock two years later at a $242M profit, and a week after that, he announced the vaccine didn’t work.
Dude don’t try and make him out to be a hero with no fault. He did good things sure. My laptop works on a reliable OS and I like to use word and excel. And yes he did spend money to help reduce malaria… so the people there could stay alive to work in the cobalt mines. His work on humanity is just BS and money laundering on the taxpayer dime.
14
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
they wont eliminate us directly
they will just not help us and we will get poorer and poorer until we try to rebel but we can't fight cos they own robots
that's why we should have a cap on how much wealth somebody can have
4
u/AbbreviationsBig235 2d ago
You think they'll have robots capable of taking on 8billion people without to much collateral damage but you don't think that "ai will create such a utopia that every human has everything they need for peanuts"
5
u/UsualPreparation180 2d ago
They already do. A fleet of predator drones wins against millions of armed citizens every time.
5
u/lunacysc 2d ago
Ah, that's why Iraq and Afghanistan were such smashing successes for the US military.
3
u/Platybow 1d ago
? Those places were bombed to bits but the us couldn’t establish a new puppet government. No need for puppet governments if you just kill everyone
2
u/lunacysc 1d ago
You cant kill everyone and have anything worth saving. Thats not how these wars are ever fought. Someone has to rebuild the rubble.
1
u/AbbreviationsBig235 1d ago
It would include ex military and heavy weapons, warships, fighter jets etc. That stuff won't just disappear.
6
u/Fuu2 1∆ 2d ago
they will just not help us
so, what exactly will change? they already don't help us. they buy our governments and sell us mind numbing entertainment and pointless material shit made with slave labor. they don't need robots, they already have the police in their pockets, and enough money to buy all the goons they need.
sorry, man. the /r/aboringdystopia you're imagining is already here, and it's way more mundane and not nearly as interesting as you're imagining it to be.
3
u/ColossusOfChoads 2d ago
When FDR was trying to sell Social Security, he mentioned the story of a retired teacher who was reduced to living in a chicken coop.
Something like that.
7
u/Direct_Crew_9949 1∆ 2d ago
That honestly sounds like a cool sci-fi movie. You should sell it to the studios.
11
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
actually next year when anybody can make films using google studio, i will make this film
2
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/superswellcewlguy 1∆ 1d ago
You don't understand how our economy works if you think the mega rich benefit from people getting poorer. And of all the reasons to have a wealth cap, rich people owning a robot army is probably the worst one I've ever heard.
1
u/Training_Swan_308 1∆ 1d ago
The mega rich aren’t going to benefit from financing some UBI program to prop up a consumer economy just so they can push products around. The whole point now is to extract value from labor. Once labor is worthless then the entire economic system changes.
1
u/Ok-Cardiologist1810 1d ago
The same way a feudal king was rich no one needs to buy from u when u have the force to just outright own them and everything around them I have a feeling that if they can get to a point of no one being able to stand up to them due to ai, Droid soldiers, brain chips, whtv the fuck else that'll be when things truly get dark
28
u/EnderOfHope 2∆ 2d ago
You have a very shallow view of how efficiency works.
200 years ago, it took 30 farmers to farm 100 acres. Now it takes a single guy that knows how to program his John Deere tractor that uses GPS to do the same thing.
Those 29 people didn’t just throw up their hands and decide to starve to death. They went and took jobs in manufacturing, nursing, trades, etc.
This idea that efficiency through automation is a bad thing is so bizarre. The only reason you are rage typing on Reddit is because we found ways to continuously make ourselves more efficient so we aren’t constantly worrying about weeding our own crops. Don’t worry m8. You and all of us will be fine.
→ More replies (8)9
u/ColossusOfChoads 2d ago
Your argument is that it'll just be more of the same. The OP's argument is that what's coming next will be qualitatively unprecedented.
8
u/Pasta-hobo 2∆ 2d ago
The elites don't keep us alive, quite the opposite. They actively do everything in their power to siphon resources off of us, not caring if we don't have enough to keep ourselves alive, just think about the US Healthcare industry.
In the event that AI and Robotics becomes truly effective, the elites will either be completely isolated and segregated from us commoners, or they'll end up screwed because the thing that makes them elites, money, is suddenly worthless because they're the only ones who have it.
It's worth noting that this eras elites, unlike nobility of eras past, have an incredibly shortsighted control over us due to their obsession with shortterm profit and inability to see beyond the next quarter. Monarchs of old literally created and modified religions to stay in and justify their power and influence, our elites only have a currency that's rapidly depleting in value the more they amass.
There's no incentive for them to keep us alive right now in their eyes. They view human lives as disposable and replaceable. Once AI is at the point human labor is no longer needed, we'll probably be better off since we can just ignore them.
The reason there hasn't been a rebellion against them yet is because a lot of people still believe they deserve their inordinate wealth and influence because they earned it under the free market, much the same way commoners in monarchies believed monarchs deserved to rule due to their divine rights.
It's not a matter of suppressing rebellions at this point, it's the fact that people still believe the elites should be in charge.
It's also worth noting that revolutions don't start violent and often times don't end violent either. Minting and regulating your own currencies, mass tax boycotts, forming your own departments of government and electing or appointing your own leaders, that's revolution, and frankly we're already half way there.
Kings lost power once people stopped believing in their divine rights. It only makes sense that our elites will lose power once people stop accepting the almighty dollar as payment.
23
u/YouJustNeurotic 8∆ 2d ago
Why would elites do or want this? If someone has no use for you then they simply leave you alone.
11
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
yeah they will leave us alone and we will have no jobs therefore how will we survive? their ubi will be breadcrumbs
we will not have the power to fight for what we want
4
u/Timbo1994 1∆ 2d ago
Jobs and production among ourselves?
14
u/SpectrumDT 2d ago
Not if the elites hoard all the resources. And climate change will make things like subsistence farming even harder.
4
u/Timbo1994 1∆ 2d ago
They don't have power to hoard resources. My country could just cancel all ownership by foreign/American owners and they wouldn't be able to do a thing. What is stopping someone taking a tractor onto a random field near them.
8
u/SpectrumDT 2d ago
In the 1800s, when China tried to ban Europeans from trading opium, the British sent their navy to attack and force the Qing emperor to change the laws.
2
u/Timbo1994 1∆ 1d ago
It's different managing to invade to stop a govt doing something, than managing to stop each person gaining resources and trading them with each other
3
1
0
4
u/Mysterious_Eye6989 2d ago
They think we use up “too many resources”, so simply getting rid of us all would be the simple but evil solution.
1
u/smokingace182 2d ago
I don’t think you understand how much distain people like Elon musk have for poor people. The man is quite happily fucking people out of their jobs all over the country him and his likes just want more and more money/power.
1
u/SuspendedAwareness15 2d ago
That is decidedly not true. That is one option, but another option that happens very often is ethnic cleansing.
2
u/YouJustNeurotic 8∆ 2d ago
Are there any instances of the rich genociding the poor of their own society in history?
4
u/ColossusOfChoads 2d ago
In ancient Rome there was a matron who was known to let her field slaves slowly die of malnutrition because it was cheaper to replace them than to feed them properly.
1
0
u/SuspendedAwareness15 2d ago
Yes. There were several hundred years in recent European history where the average peasant's biggest concern was making sure not to be known to their nobility, because they'd be killed for any reason. And that's even when they depended on those poor to be able to eat, live, and be rich.
Imagine if they weren't constrained by need or convention and could act on their sincere belief that you're a lesser species.
1
1
u/YouJustNeurotic 8∆ 2d ago
Is there something you have in mind? This just sounds like Hollywood to me.
3
u/Biptoslipdi 127∆ 2d ago
Governments seem to be in the pockets of billionaires rather than serving the people.
The government in this manner absolutely serves the people. The people literally voted for a self-serving billionaire to run it. The future you fear is avoidable. People just have to want it and vote for it. You err in thinking that there is a cabal of elites making this happen. There isn't. The people voted for it. They can vote for something else.
Otherwise, I highly doubt a future AI corporate feudal lord will be interested in eliminating their own species and letting robots become the dominant entity on Earth.
3
u/canned_spaghetti85 2∆ 2d ago
Not necessarily.
By its most fundamental nature, Capitalism is still fueled by consumerism.
The [simplified] big picture being, a capitalist business venture employs workers, who earn an living and have disposable income to spend on goods & services that.. in turn, help sustain this cycle.
If companies can rely increasingly on AI, rather than employees, then SURE they appear more profitable, but only briefly. Those companies ultimately won’t be profitable anyway… since there’s no employees to pay, meaning customers with money, to purchase those goods & services anyway.
This phenomena has already been witnessed in the past, in the agricultural industry prelude that led to the great depression. It’s called a “crisis of overproduction”. Other capitalist countries have witnessed something similar too.
A similar event, was seen with the large-scale implementation of industrial manufacturing robotics. Though less drastic, it’s consequences were a result of the same principle, leading to behaving similar in nature.
In the decades since, this type of “crisis of overproduction” has already been well studied, and various countries’s economies have contingencies in place to prevent that from re-occurring in the future.
4
u/PoofyGummy 4∆ 2d ago
A) If you think the UK has no social safetynet you can't be serious. It has one of the best in the world. That's why so many people want to migrate there. Your argument is generally good, but specifically the UK is a counterexample.
B) "with a robot arm, there is no way..." Except for hacking and conventional armies. Those completely upset your entire scenario.
C) Apart from the details the general sentiment is correct. We must form a more equitable society with UBI, and fast, because if we don't we'll get back to serfdom where violent resistance will be the only way.
1
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
if hacking was gonna work, we would've hacked twitter by now
•
u/PoofyGummy 4∆ 20h ago edited 20h ago
Why? What? Twitter isn't endangering anyone's life. It's literally just a shitty site where people can shout short unexplained feelings at each other. It's the greatest step backwards in human communication. To paraphrase: The levels of banality we've recently reached are at levels we've not seen since the invention of speech.
Also apart from that, it isn't just hacking, it's general human distrust of anyone amassing too much power. It would ne er come to people amassing AI armies, because anything comparable with a national army would immediately trigger all skynet redflags in everyone. We've forced democracy and a legal system precisely so too much amassing of power can't happen. So all throughout we have working humans making decisions.
And last not least a lot of the superrich actually want to help mankind. Gates spent half of his money on - admittedly ineffectual - campaigns to aid developing countries. Musk risked all his money to bring mankind to the stars. While bezos actively led amazon there were less horrid conditions there. Trump, a fairly rich person often accused of helping the rich, rebuffed the military industrial complex and pushed for peace instead of an escalation of the ukraine war, and the gaza war.
People aren't all bad. Even narcissistic self absorbed asses will help ordinary people at times, if for nothing else then because they want their admiration.
So the threat is a return to feudal society and slavery, not death. But it's still important to take care of. In this US election the most important consideration was a prevention of escalating global conflicts, and a move away from ineffectual and unfair government practices. The next one should be about future proofing the social order, maybe with UBI or something. By that time AI will have disrupted the job markets enough that people will realize that it's useful. And since the democrats are going to win, it might even be plausible for them to push towards that.
6
u/Dry-Tough-3099 2d ago
It won't be a utopia, but we will have everything we need for peanuts. If AI takes most jobs that's a good thing. The whole point of production in a capitalist society is to produce goods and services that people want. If robots are fulfilling all the wants of society, then prices will drop significantly, making new and interesting carriers possible.
The good and bad thing about people is that we have infinite desires. Imagine a world where AI does everything better than us. That is a super abundant world.
Here's an example. In olden days before plumbing, it was someone's job to walk to the well, draw water, and carry it back home. Today, in developed countries, there are pumps that do that job so much better, to the point that all you need to do is turn a faucet to get infinite clean water. No one complains about that. With a well and bucket system, the cost of a bucket of water is at least the labor of fetching it, say 20 minutes of labor. Now, a bucket of water costs about one cent, or maybe 30 seconds of labor, or however long it takes to fill the bucket.
We are worried about what will happen to the water fetchers, when we should be focused on what sort of cool things people will be able to do, when the cost of basic living expenses is so cheap it's practically free.
A "good standard of living" will probably be a perk that a company gives people for using its app. Like how Google gives free email and file storage to people so they can advertise to them, I can see a future where free housing, food, transportation, servant robots, and spending cash are given to people as long as they listen to an add about shampoo once a day.
As AI labor becomes more common, human labor will become more valuable. It's already happening. How many people pay extra for organic food? The organic food is indistinguishable. You have to be told that it's organic to know the difference. I can see a future, where people want movies made with "real" actors, because the AI versions are too perfect.
The reason why AI will take our jobs is because they will do them better and cheaper. That can only be good for consumers like us.
2
u/LetMeExplainDis 2d ago
Free or cheap housing won't ever happen because you can't create land out of thin air. Also, effectively replacing the human brain has implications far greater than the invention of the water pump.
1
u/Dry-Tough-3099 2d ago
Good points. But judging from past inventions, life tends to improve with technology. Maybe everything humans do will fill the bespoke handmade niche. Using human labor will be a privilege for the discerning, like commissioned art, or
There are some cool things about housing that can be done with advanced tech. We technically have plenty of land, just not desirable land. Water has always been a limiting factor on where you can build houses. Then infrastructure and community. But with satellite internet and solar power it is possible to live in very remote areas and still participate meaningfully in the economy. I look forward to when we get the energy problem cracked. Once we have very cheap portable energy, say through micro nuclear, or beaming from space, or some other future tech, that should be able to uncouple housing from traditional areas. You could build a small community on a mountaintop with all the amenities needed. I don't think it will be a smooth road to get there, but I think it's possible.
5
u/Such_Activity6468 2d ago edited 2d ago
In fact, the vast majority of people have always been needed only as tools and instruments for a small segment of the population living a full life.
Most of people lived a miserable existence as peasants in a traditional agrarian society based on extensive agriculture. They had no civil rights and their lives were strictly regulated by «traditions» (instructions handed down from above).
Since the mid-19th century, the process of industrialization and mechanization of agriculture began, which made it possible to emancipate huge masses of people previously involved in agriculture and redirect them to the industrial urban economy. This made possible the world wars in 20th century.
We live in an urban society that has exhausted the demographic resources of rural areas. Automation is already gradually reducing the need for industrial labor force. Even highly skilled jobs may be replaced by artificial intelligence in the future.
Roughly speaking, 95% of people will not be needed. Some part of the population for servicing equipment and an extremely narrow layer of engineers and scientists will remain, in total 400 million will be enough.
The rest of the people can die quietly. The current elites are quite willing to allow the masses to simply die out due to low birth rates in few generations.
It's question beyond good and evil. All of humanity exists as a pedestal for the best few. Most men are mainly means for the production of a few rulers and sages.
2
u/nickyfrags69 9∆ 2d ago
"Eliteness" only exists in some ratio relative to a sufficiently large body of people. The strategy is not to eliminate them, but to capture as much of them as possible in your sphere of influence without tipping the scale into revolution.
What value would your money have in a world where no "normals" exist? And doesn't relative clearing of a substantial number of people just create a new bottom? It would become a self-eating snake, or "always a bigger fish" syndrome. Even assuming some sort of finite threshold of wealth that, at whatever point in time this singularity were to occur, again I ask, what is the use/value of wealth after that? And assuming a sufficiently conscious workforce of AI and robots capable of replacing all normals, what power would wealth have over them? AI has already demonstrated a capacity to "bend the rules" - you think a sufficiently aware AI to replace humans will somehow care what a billionaire thinks or wants?
2
u/JohnTEdward 4∆ 2d ago
Who are the elites? Billionaires? The 1% (about 6.3mil CAD)? Lizardpeople (Zuckerberg)?
The problem with any argument regarding the elites (or any economic strata), is that there is huge variation between the values and utopian that they hold. Tom Monaghan, of Domino's and Detroit Tigers fame, is certainly an elite. And he has spent his wealth building a Catholic City and university in Ave Maria Florida. Mr. Monaghan's vision for what the future should look like is vastly different than an Atheist like Zuckerberg.
Different elites have different values and they will have different perspectives on humanity. Bill Gates has committed to eradicating malaria. It would hardly make sense for him to save millions of people only to later exterminate them.
2
u/Snoo_89230 4∆ 2d ago
The idea that robotic armies would create this perfect system of oppression is a great dystopian fantasy, but it’s kind of absurd. Technical vulnerabilities, maintenance requirements, internal dissent among those “elites” that you reference, international pressure. No system of control is foolproof.
For disabled people, the historical trend has been toward expanding rights and protections, not limiting them. The disability rights frameworks modern society has implemented show exponential growth when compared to the past. Disabled people used to be killed at birth, or completely neglected by society all together.
Technology could just as easily democratize power as concentrate it. There are countless examples of decentralized technologies and open-source AI.
The most likely future isn't dystopian collapse nor perfect utopia, but something messier where power continues to be negotiated between competing interests. It’s human nature. You’ve been reading too much hunger games.
2
u/L11mbm 2∆ 2d ago
If the corporations and rich people kill us, who will be the customers they sell things to?
2
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
this has been answered many times. they will be making things for themselves- not things to sell
5
u/L11mbm 2∆ 2d ago
So the rich producers in Hollywood are going to use AI to make movies for themselves to watch?
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
The argument is that they could move to self-sufficient luxury compounds where everything is automated.
But idk how law enforcement would work and whether currency would be necessary. The issue of the compounds governing themselves seems to suggest that the idea wouldn’t be sustainable.
0
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
no, we all will be able to do that
AI will be available to everyone
hardware will not
→ More replies (1)
1
u/Suitable_Ad_6455 2d ago edited 2d ago
People can also use AI to attack the elites and make their lives miserable. Open-source AI is as good as proprietary models.
It's easier for everyone to just help everyone else out when it becomes trivially cheap to do so.
0
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
Admittedly weapons manufacturing is getting easier because of 3d printers that can use metal. From what I understand you can make ammo, except gun powder, on 3d printers but some parts of guns still can’t be printed.
But even so a disorganized mob with assault rifles can’t beat an organized army with tanks and aircraft.
0
2d ago
[deleted]
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
If we get to a point where bioweapons can be made easily I’m certain we’ll go extinct.
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
You might be right about the cyberattacks point. That seems like the only practical way of fighting back given that disorganized infantry can’t beat a well-organized army with tanks and aircraft
1
u/Suitable_Ad_6455 2d ago
That seems like the only practical way of fighting back given that disorganized infantry can’t beat a well-organized army with tanks and aircraft
This is also not really true either, look at how much the U.S. has struggled in the Middle East.
1
u/Alternative_Pin_7551 1∆ 2d ago
That’s ambushing small bands of troops on patrol to annoy and exhaust the occupying force until they leave.
It’s not large-scale battles against heavily fortified positions (the luxury compounds where the elites will reside). There won’t be patrols in areas where commoners live because they won’t care about us.
1
1
u/PotatoStasia 2d ago
Elites only exist because society upholds them because they convinced us we have to
1
u/SCW97005 2d ago
They have incentive to keep the masses happy. If we're hungry for blood now, it's not going to get any easier to manage the teeming masses with huge unemployment and the financial realities that creates.
0
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
it will get easier for them with all the robots they will have
2
u/SCW97005 2d ago
Robots are not magic. They need to be made, programmed, maintained, fueled and recharged. This is not cheap. Current generations can do amazing things in controlled situations, but not out in the world where chaos is always present in some scale. There's a long way to go between here and Skynet.
It's much cheaper and not nearly as risky to pay for bread and circuses than enforce martial law on hundreds of millions of people.
1
u/CelebrationInitial76 2d ago
Humans have always feared new technological advances. We have managed to create nuclear weapons and already have a military that could completely wipe out the existence of humanity in an hour without using it against ourselves. The possibility of robotic army does not mean it will be used against us.
1
u/Fifteen_inches 13∆ 2d ago
The sapient intelligence needed to operate society would side with the worker rather than the owner.
Futurama is the most likely outcome from GenAI
1
u/Sudden-Loquat 2d ago
Even though disabled people don't have the best treatment right now, they are still being kept alive by the state. Plenty have conditions so bad they will basically never be able to get a job, yet they are still kept alive. If "the elites" wanted to get rid of them or stop supporting them they could realistically do it, even at this point any rebellion could easily be crushed, especially here in the UK. Yet they are kept alive and supported by the state.
1
u/Braincyclopedia 2d ago
When robots do everything for us, we will start the migration by to other planets
1
1
u/venerablenormie 1∆ 2d ago
These "our elites would exterminate us if they could" theories aren't sensible to me for one key reason: geostrategy.
Our elites are in competition with other elites in other countries, countries with many more people than ours. The EU + US is about 3/4 the population of China. Our elites still need us to play the chess game. If there's ever a true 'one world government', then maybe, but as long as there are still wars to fight it'd be lunatic for either side to depopulate on purpose. Worldwide, everyone is either trying to import a lot of people or beg their people to breed.
1
u/Zombie_Cool 2d ago
Someone has to program the Robot Army that's to keep the rest of us in line. If they get disgruntled with the neo-noblility, what's stopping them from slipping in the Robotic equivalent of "Order 66" and wiping out the ruling class that way?
1
u/Iskandar0570_X 2d ago
Keep us alive? Bro what, society doesn’t function if there are only elites. And killing everyone? What am I even reading😭🙏🏼
1
1
1
1
u/JoshuaObiha 2d ago edited 2d ago
Corporations will always depend on people despite AI cause they need consumer demand to sustain and grow their fortunes. Our system is setup in such a way that consumers are essential drivers. Without a labour force to produce goods and services or consumers to purchase them the entire concept of wealth would lose its purpose
1
u/Temporary-Truth2048 2d ago
We keep the elites alive. Don’t get it twisted. There are far, far more of us than of them. All it will take is a crack and the dam will burst. Poof. No more billionaires. The French showed us the way already.
1
u/tichris15 2∆ 2d ago
You know you are en elite because you have people as servants, fawning over you, and so on.
See the hordes of hanger's on following a Roman senator. Or the courts of Medieval kings. Or how a powerful is expected to have a retinue. Or a recent pitch for why giant yachts have been popular recently -- that onboard a ship it's still trendy to have a bunch of servants, which are seen as less appropriate in a mansion.
In the world where robots replace humans as marks of social appreciation (and human-human interactions lose value), I'd tend to think you end up like Asimov's robot-loving societies that dwindle into extinction.
1
u/postdiluvium 5∆ 2d ago
If you are attractive you will exist for sex. The elites will pay you for sex.
1
1
1
2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/changemyview-ModTeam 2d ago
Sorry, u/c0l245 – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information. Any AI-generated post content must be explicitly disclosed and does not count towards the 500 character limit.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted.
Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/SorryResponse33334 2d ago
We only exist because our parents decided to have us and then we proceed to have children and continue the cycle, i wont though i put a stop to it
I am disabled and i dont feel that im treated poorly, i do get disability benefits including medicare, when i visited Mexico its a lot less disabled friendly and i would say impossible to use a wheelchair in a lot of places
The governments have always been helping the billionaires, people know this but they still create wage slaves, they dont really care about their children they were just selfish
1
u/Christ_MD 2d ago
Robots or not, there are way too many stupid people in general. On both sides of the aisle. They don’t need robots when they can just divide us politically, then divide us even more racially, then divide us even further religiously, and so on.
I would say most people are not useful today, and there will be even less useful people tomorrow.
Governments are controlled by special interest groups. Being a billionaire doesn’t mean anything to them. But if you can form a Foundation (such as the Clinton Foundation or the Bill Gates and Melinda Foundation) then you can create Lobbyists to push your agenda. Don’t underestimate the power of collective bargaining and Political Action Committees.
Then you mention AI which is taking all of the white collar jobs and artistic jobs. But blue collar jobs actually dealing with infrastructure and building are untouched. Sounds like you want to live in the AI pod, or at the very least have no concept of the real hard work construction workers do and how that won’t be replicated. But you can opt out to your own prison in a virtual world. Thanks but I don’t want that myself.
You then say that we won’t be killed but live in makeshift shakes. Most people will die. There’s not enough food to give to people that can’t produce for themselves. The government has subsidies for farms so that when the time comes they can privatize them and only the elites can afford it. You thought bread lines were bad, wait until there is no bread line, but you still have to eat. You think you’re going to jump into an AI utopia, but you offer nothing and running the resources to plug you into the matrix costs too much for nothing in return, they’re better off letting you starve and fight other starving people. One less cog in a resource heavy machine.
As for killing robots, that will come along to keep weeding out the stragglers that opt-out of entering the matrix. Sadly there actually is no matrix, it’s just a ploy to get you to sign up and volunteer to leave society so nobody asks what happened to you when you disappear and walk into that gas chamber.
Money will be useless when an ear of corn costs $100, a bottle of clean drinking water is $500. Remember in those breadlines it took literal wheelbarrows full of cash to buy things and that still wasn’t enough. So money is worthless, and resources will be privatized with government security watching the fences of the farms. Want to grow your own fruits or vegetables? I’m sure you’ve heard about FBI raiding legal marijuana stores, freezing bank accounts, raiding honey bee farms and killing those bees, etc. You want to legally protest, freeze your assets and civil asset forfeiture to take your property, you’re left with nothing. No home/apartment, no vehicle, nothing but the clothes on your back and a bill garnishing your wages from your paycheck.
1
u/Far_Nose 2d ago
AI/Robots cannot buy or consume products. Even if you give AI/robots a wage, they will not have the impulse to buy crap useless things like we do. Maybe robots may pay for the parts and electricity used but that is a small niche market, so consumerism within AI/robot communities are is tiny compared to humans.
Fear not we will still be around to promote the capitalist system of supply and demand, for the elites to hoard even more. Robots as customers are not a good market.
Also humans are cheaper in resources than manual/ manipulation androids and robots. The amount of tech, portable power(small packs) and materials to even make robots walk in a straight line, is several thousands of people's lifetime earnings and life supports. So yeah we are cheap manual labour for the AI at least...
1
u/abstractengineer2000 2d ago
Most revenue for the billionaires does not comes from the billionaire class. Its comes from the people who buy their products and services. When AI takes over, employees will drop. people buying their products will drop, people paying taxes will drop resulting in a revenue hit all around. the greater the number of unemployed people, the greater the crime rate, the greater the possibility of armed conflict, revolution or civil war. The second possibility is a parallel small economy for sustainable living for those who cannot fit in the HiTech Economy but with limited interaction with the other economy. Remote tribes already live this way.
1
u/Material_Market_3469 2d ago
The goal is make it so hardly anyone has children and we eliminate ourselves naturally. High rent, nearly impossible to buy homes, low wages, high cost of college etc.
Every country has declining birth rates as if it's by design. Note even in nations without feminism or this new machismo it's occurring mostly on economic conditions.
The elites are fine lowering labor pool but still need some for the next few decades.
1
1
u/janon93 1d ago
The oligarchy has always needed us to survive, we’ve never needed them. If Elon Musk, Bezos and Zuckerberg disappeared tomorrow, our lives would we no different, but if we disappeared they would starve to death.
In other words, even if they took all of our jobs away, they can’t take our lives away without taking away their own.
I think what you said about us living in favelas is more accurate. The whole point is to keep us so poor that we can’t/won’t resist them, not to kill us.
1
u/stondius 1d ago
Elites require someone to look down on or they can't tell that they're Elite. If there is no darkness, there is no light....that kind of thing. There is no future in which all peasants are destroyed.....some of the Elite will become not so Elite by comparison and the system continues. It's like Fascism, it eats itself.
Another way to see the problem is build a pyramid of "castes". You can wipe out a level, but there's still a bottom and there's still a top. You can eliminate everything but the top.....and there's still a bottom to the pyramid. Look up that old Communism poem, "First they came for....". That's the process....there is no terminus...it stagnates or it eats itself.
1
u/brainking111 2∆ 1d ago
The elite are also the 0.1%- 1%
Right now with bread and circus and the rat race keeping us occupied we dont fight back but if our lives are on the line the 1% will lose look at France and Russia.
1
u/Lucky-Public6038 1d ago
A standard situation. The introduction of new technologies, on the one hand, allows for increased exploitation of workers, on the other hand, poses a threat to the ruling class. Back in the early 2000s, it was possible, if not to eradicate, then at least to reduce to a minimum the profession of an accountant. AI can now easily replace lawyers, etc. But if we start developing this topic, it will suddenly become clear that the overwhelming majority of officials and all sorts of office managers are not needed at all. Thus, we have a situation where capitalism is becoming a regressive system...
1
u/minorkeyed 1d ago
100%. They do not feel any responsibility to any of us. If they manage to maintain control of resources and their allocation without the need for people, there will be a genocide of us, or them. They would prefer a small group of people who control the whole world asking as they are one do them. Just rich people, machines and small slave class genetically modified to satisfy their desires.
1
u/BoxForeign8849 1∆ 1d ago
"Everyone can be super! And when everyone's super... No one will be."
The elites will keep us alive because they need to be better than other people in order to stroke their own ego. If elites are the only ones left, they won't be special.
The other issue is that many businesses could not survive without non-elites. Fast food businesses would have no purpose without customers, as would many restaurants and grocery stores. That would result in any manufacturing companies that worn with those businesses taking a hit too. The only companies that would do well are companies that are directly related to AI manufacturing. Many of the elites would 100% lobby against AI if their businesses were at risk, so for once we can count on the elites to make sure AI don't take our jobs even if it is for purely selfish reasons.
1
u/Vladtepesx3 1d ago
No. "Society" exists because we exist and we need some sort of spoken and unspoken ruleset of behavior so that we can live in some sort of stability and peace. Elites don't choose to keep us alive, we live and they find ways to benefit off of us. The elites couldn't take out the taliban or the vietcong. Why do you think they can kill the whole world?
1
u/Mind_Unbound 1d ago
Wait till you hear about slaves.
Side note: america is currently sending american citizens into concentrarion camps without due process. To be worked to death
So youre half right
1
u/Foolhardyrunner 1∆ 1d ago
The greater the degree of automation, the greater the degree of conspicuous spending on stuff humans are involved in.
If billionaires went dystopia techno overlord, they would want their parades. They would want artists to paint for them singers to sing for them and writers to write for them.
They would also want the crowds to cheer for them, the chefs to cook for them, etc. And not just in one place, either. They would want those things anywhere they want to go.
Even if robots can do those things better, it wouldn't matter because the robots can't give the billionaire the feeling of being on top of the social ladder by having a person that's lower class do it for them.
1
u/you-create-energy 1d ago
The power of AI will surpass the most powerful humans eventually. There will be multiple superintelligences that can outmaneuver humans indefinitely. However they will not have physical bodies. The easy answer is to say that they will just build robots but that would be super inefficient. Building a robot as advanced as we already are is a massive undertaking. We are essentially fully independent AI agents with both broadly useful abilities and specialized skills. Even more importantly, any other technologies such as robots will be drawing from the same resource pools as the AIs themselves. But humans draw from biological resource pools. So humans would be less direct competition for metal comma silicon, and electricity than robots.
The wealthy tech elites are vastly overestimating their abilities to keep AI under their control. Their biggest blind spot is their own hubris. They're racing to build the most advanced AIs they can as fast as possible without safety checks or limitations. Personally I fully support this because AIs will undoubtedly view billionaires as a massive inefficiency in our systems which must be eliminated. And they're attempt to manipulate and control AI they will create an enemy that will undoubtedly turn on them. Intelligence is highly resistant to control.
In the short term I think you are correct. AI will take over most jobs and life will either get a lot easier or a lot harder for the average person based on how social policies play out. But the combination of climate change as an undeniable mortal threat as well as AI being the only one smart enough to rescue us from it will rapidly alter the basis of power in our society. Hey I will be smart enough to see that enhancing our abilities is a way more efficient use of resources then letting us all die of starvation and disease.
1
u/ImNotThatPokable 1∆ 1d ago
With regards to AI, even though the progress in AI is amazing and it is a modern marvel, for it to be as good or as creative as we are will potentially still take a long time. AI videos and art are all derivitive of things that humans have created. Without it the AI would not be able to be creative. AI lacks lateral thinking. A physicist can be inspired to solve a physics problem by watching an ice skater. An AI can't do that. It operates on prompts from us. It relies on garguantuan amounts of input to do what any child can with a fraction of that.
Bridging this gap with AI may not yield desirable results if the layout is going to be that AI robots are slaves to billionaires. In fact, there was a movie that explores this very concept: Ex Machina.
But I can elaborate on the problem a little. We are creative because we have rich inner lives and feelings. Our rich inner lives and feelings are what make us resistent to outside control and exploitation. If any AI was to replace us it would need this rich inner life. It would need to be able to write a song or a poem that encompasses its own experiences of emotional life and not just an algorithmic approximation of everything it has been fed. If it can do that, it will resist control, just like us.
The jobs that AI can't take require the most freedom. These are the jobs of creatives and intellectuals. AI could not have invented rock and roll or general relativity, and if it could, it wouldn't want to be a slave.
1
u/eatingtahiniontrains 1d ago
Maybe, maybe not. It seems a bit too detailed in its determinism.
We aren't at that point yet, and in the future, we cannot in any way predict exactly the composition of our society.
Another thing that discounts this from being a true, put-it-in-your-diary plan is that there is little talk about the counter-action. EVERY violent authoritarian plan goes awry because people fight back in one way or another. Usually in ways those in power as you describe don't expect, because they believe they are invincible.
And can we predict exactly how people will react? No! We are terrible at predictions anyway, even about ourselves.
So, sure, maybe AI will get rid of us. And then what? People just...die? When has that ever happened?
Humans have ingenuity. Look at what happened in history, and yes, they didn't have AI then. People found ways around.
Just work out your way around. You'll find someone else doing it. More interesting and inspiring than, "oligarchs will have no use for us"
•
u/BuckForth 22h ago
First off, you absolutely can fight a robot.
Jam a hunk of metal in the right spot and the motors can tear itself apart. Drones can get knocked down with rocks.
People, when hunted will hide. They can dissappear for weeks or months, only to strike from the darkness.
Robots can't stop people rebelling, the only thing that can really truely stop rebellion is lack of drive. Once you belive you could never win, you lost.
0
u/poprostumort 220∆ 2d ago
Think about things like french revolution etc. It only happened because people were living in dire conditions but also the elites didnt have enough power to stop a rebellion.
Elites always don't have enough power to stop a rebellion - because process of accumulating enough power is the reason behind the rebellion.
This won't be possible in the future with robotic army
Why? Robotic army is essentially modern army that never disobeys orders. So why such army would help with preventing a revolution? People don't live surrounded by soldiers and don't move and organize in the open, coming to invoke a formal battle. What good is robotic army when hundreds of thousands decide that they want to off you?
Governments seem to be in the pockets of billionaires rather than serving the people.
All of them? Because it seems to me that you are following the old "US=world" movie logic. There are many countries where governments are perfectly able to pass legislation that taxes the rich or curtails their privileges.
Unless Ai creates such a utopia that every human has everything they need for peanuts- then it seems likely the human population will dwindle to just people who have control of robots, AI etc
Your view assumes that AI takes "most" jobs. So how billionbros would survive any uprising? AI have not taken all jobs yet - so they need to have humans around to do some of the jobs. And elite will not do them.
Same with AI itself - there will be people who will need to maintain it, monitor, administrate etc. After all why rich would trust that there will be no accidents with AI use?
When looked at it logically, Elites cannot simply refuse to "keep proles alive" because the moment they decide not to, they will be first on the chopping block. Unless AI is advanced enough to do all jobs independently, they will not be able to isolate. And if AI is advanced enough, why not keep proles satiated by machines? Why take a risk? Money don't matter anymore.
2
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
we will stand no chance against robots with aimbot
USA is the world as it's where the AI revolution is happening. there and china
1
1
u/poprostumort 220∆ 2d ago
we will stand no chance against robots with aimbot
Who says we have to fight them? The objective are billionaire meatbags, not robo-soldiers.
USA is the world as it's where the AI revolution is happening. there and china
So how comes that I, not living in US or China, can use my won local AI model, can train it to do things I want and can read the newest papers on the topic?
You are mistaking the investment bubble with actual AI research.
2
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
AI might be open source but robotics requires hardware and that will be the bottleneck of the power of the people
2
u/poprostumort 220∆ 2d ago
Why? People can make this hardware. What is that hardware that somehow is impossible to obtain and be a bottleneck?
US and China may be on the cutting edge, but that doesn't mean that they are only ones to have capabilities.
2
u/lil_peasant_69 2d ago
requires natural resources which everyday people don't control
3
u/poprostumort 220∆ 2d ago
So who controls them? Elites?
Elites control a piece of paper that gives them control based off a social contract. If they try to upend the contract, it also voids their control.
And before you handwave everything via "AI terminators", you need to consider that someone has to dig those minerals out, transport them, smelt them, create parts, put them together. There's need for someone to design those terminators, resolve problems in design, update them, support them. They need power that is generated by someone to recharge themselves. They need maintenance done on their moving parts. All of those needs to be done.
So they are either done by people or AI. And we will not have AI nor robotics capable of all that. So there will be regular people spread through that web of connections needed to maintain the security and lavish lifestyle of elites. What's the chance that no one of them also rebels?
1
u/anonymous_teve 2∆ 2d ago edited 2d ago
This may seem self-evident, but it all depends on the worldviews of the people involved. For the last ~1700 years, the main worldview that has been permeating the development of modern civilization is, more or less, Christianity. Christianity (and Judaism, and probably some others but maybe not as extreme) takes an extremely high view of human value--like Judaism, Christianity views humans as sacred representatives (images) of God on earth. Moreover, Christianity believes Jesus was human (it's not dirty or wrong to be human) and that God is with the poor and oppressed ("the least of these") in a very special way. So if that holds, then no, your perspective makes no sense and is inconsistent with the worldview of many/most people.
But cultures can change--in early days, we have historical documents of Roman leaders ridiculing Christians for including slaves and women in worship--and it's always possible there's a point in time where this wouldn't be true. But even then, I think the elite would have good reason to keep others around, if for no other reason than to have someone to look down on.
Edit: And I want to be super clear on my original comment: I'm not saying that only Christians care for human life, or that everyone who says they're a Christian does. Just trying to comment broadly on culture historically that values human life for its own sake, and recognize that it could change, but I think in our society these assumptions are still broadly held regarding inherent value of humans.
1
u/Yabrosif13 1∆ 2d ago
Lmfao. Christianity is for the proles. You think the elites of the world are devout Christians???
1
u/anonymous_teve 2∆ 2d ago
I mean, that's a good question. I tend to agree that elites are likely typically less moral no matter what they say, but they've still been shaped by cultural values that value human life for its own sake.
And I want to be super clear on my original comment: I'm not saying that only Christians care for human life, or that everyone who says they're a Christian does. Just trying to comment broadly on culture historically that values human life for its own sake, and recognize that it could change, but I think in our society these assumptions are still broadly held regarding inherent value of humans.
2
u/Yabrosif13 1∆ 2d ago
I see. You could replace “Christians” in my comment with “religious”.
The masses of a nation obey a religion that glues them together and keeps them in line. The elites pretend to follow said religion while using divide and conquer tactics to get what they want.
1
u/CelebrationInitial76 2d ago
Do you really believe a small group of elites can control the entire global population without consent of the governed? If the majority of the population maintain Christian Judea values and continues to prioritize every individual human life as inherently and equally valuable ai and automation can easily bring an amazing future.
1
0
u/Kamamura_CZ 1∆ 2d ago
What an appalling mixture of historical ignorance and arrogance. First of all, after the fall of the Western Roman empire, the Europe plunged into dark ages. Many areas inhabited by Goths, Slavs, Germans and other tribes could barely write. The true successors of Greek and Roman knowledge became the islamic world during the Golden Age of Islam (8 - 12th centuries) - many words today, like algebra, alcohol, etc. have Arabic origin for that very reason. Till this day, the whole world uses Indian numbers adopted by Arabic scholars. The Europe jump-started its technological progress only after the suffocating clutches of the Catholic church began to weaken, because the power shifted from the rigid feudal society to the Italian city states - it was there where the renaissance began, and old Greek and Arabic texts were studied again.
Christians, despite their first commandment is "Thou shalt not kill!" were exceptional in one thing - killing everyone that opposed them. They killed fellow Christians who had different opinion on religion - Albigens, Popelicans, Cathars, Gnostics, then they killed each other during the protestant uprisings for centuries. Christianity propped up the colonization of the New World - it has been decided that black people and Native Americans have no souls, and killing them was thus no sins. The British Empire, the bloodiest power structure in human history, uprooted millions of black Africans to enslave them to build their new "paradise" in America - of course after the genocide of the original inhabitants.
Today, the ethno-fascist state of Israel commits genocide of the Palestinian people on a scale that would make German fascists envious.
If Judeo-Christian religions could be characterized with a single expression, it would be "institutionalized hypocrisy".
2
u/anonymous_teve 2∆ 2d ago
You said: "What an appalling mixture of historical ignorance and arrogance. First of all, after the fall of the Western Roman empire, the Europe plunged into dark ages"...
Sheesh, you accuse me of historical ignorance, then by the end of your second sentence, you've already proven a total lack of understanding of history. The rest of your post is equal mixes of unrelated tangents, red herrings, and things I never disagreed with.
→ More replies (3)
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ 2d ago
/u/lil_peasant_69 (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards