this post was submitted on 31 Dec 2023
270 points (95.6% liked)

Technology

60115 readers
3138 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

I don’t understand. The economy is not only driven by production (workers/labor), but also by consumption (people, also workers).

Let’s say AI can perform the production side without any human labor. That eliminates the workers (who are also the consumers). So, what do you get when you remove most/all consumption from the economy and are left with just AI?

[–] SlopppyEngineer@lemmy.world 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So, what do you get when you remove most/all consumption from the economy and are left with just AI?

You get what's in the movie Elysium.

They don't care. To them, the world is doomed anyway. It'll all have to collapse before they can rebuilt it into a better world, so better to accelerate the collapse as fast as possible so they can start sooner on the rebuilding part of the plan. And if you have to break a billion human shaped eggs to make a tech bro wet dream omelet then that's what'll happen because afterwards they say humanity as a whole will be much better off.

It's very cold hearted.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Elysium has human laborers, though. The main character literally works at a factory creating the droids for the station's uses.

[–] fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It seems implied that they have labor and work as a means of control and less because they need to. Most of the work seemed to be just oppressing people like him.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I don't see any attempt at the movie's part showing that the products they were making weren't somehow used by the citizens of Elysium. The droids are everywhere, implying that they fulfill a need based on what remaining manufacturing can be done on world.

It's not meant to portray a society that has a fully automated economy, it's about one that relies on the other for creating goods that will be used and priced out of the range of the laborers who created it.

[–] Aceticon@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

In these people's mind it's always somebody else who is supposed to employ people and pay them salaries.

It's roughly a Tragedy Of The Commons situation: each such individual wants to take without giving, and it is indeed sustainable if only a few do it, but as others see them gaining from doing that, they too want to do it - eventually in aggregate there will be too much extraction for what little production there is to keep up and the whole thing collapses.

This has already been going on with Globalization - notice how in the last 2 decades or so for the average person in wealthy nations it feels that money doesn't go as far and the abundance of shinny toys still fails to make up for a feeling of constant pressure and uncertainty, and how what we are told is the inflation adjusted amount equivalent to a 1960s blue collar worker salary that paid for a house, car and a family of 5 back then, in the present day barelly covers housing.

IMHO, there are already too many with too much power (and, remember, Money is Power) whose relation to Society is purelly extractive, and the political direction in most Western nations, especially the US, is for things to keep on getting worse so it seems we're bound for dystopia.

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Why do you think labor is demand capped and not supply capped?

In the short term we're going to see first movers downsize as they scale up artificial labor to maintain status quo production.

But those first movers are going to have effectively dug their own grave when other companies instead keep head counts high but scale up production with the additional support of artificial labor.

So you'll have one company offering their same slate of offerings with the same marketing at 1/10th the labor costs, pocketing the difference. But then their smarter competition will have 10x the variety in offerings with 10x more targeted or niche marketing efforts at the same labor costs.

The companies that prioritize their quarter over their 5 year performance are going to die out.

The greater job loss isn't going to be driven by automation but by outsourcing, which is going to be easier than ever with the ways translation is going to be improved to the point of seamlessness using AI as an intermediary. So no matter what the job a human working from home in the US can do, someone else can do it a lot cheaper elsewhere even when it requires reading and writing a lot of English.

The threat is realistically less "AI can do your job" and more "another human aided by AI will take your job."

If the US government were smart, they'd be investing in nationalized AI as a public utility similar to the USPS and passing laws restricting outsourcing labor or at least taxing/tariffing the labor itself significantly, using the proceeds from both ends of this pincer approach to fund social services or basic income.

Because you're right that draining main street is going to be bad news for progress. But it's not that AI is going to do this inherently. It's a very specific aspect that's going to do this in most cases, with demand for human labor remaining high as production scales up and out.

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm not sure this is true, most of recent big tech changes seem to have been driven through a "invest a lot at loss, then monetize" model. So I don't think this relies on demand anymore.

[–] twack@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Where do you think the money for the monetize step comes from if it's not demand?

[–] Bogasse@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago

Funding, right?

Don't companies like Twitter, Uber, OpenAI, Bumble etc. fully rely on them for growth and try to actually be profitable once they have reached all the audience they can have?

As a user this is especially infuriating because many of these service have an expiration date, for example there will be a new dating app every so often, which will start its enshitification process after about 2 years.

[–] c0mbatbag3l@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Humans consumers will still exist, and at that point we would have no choice but to facilitate some kind of UBI or else there's going to be a few billion people that aren't going to just sit around and die.