this post was submitted on 16 May 2025
485 points (94.0% liked)

Memes

50385 readers
1215 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
gary_host_laptop@lemmy.ml
sexy_peach@feddit.de
cyclohexane@lemmy.ml
cypherpunks@lemmy.ml
485
Just one more reform will fix it! (lemmy.ml)
submitted 5 days ago by hamid@vegantheoryclub.org to c/memes@lemmy.ml
41 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 41 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 10 points 3 days ago (3 children)

There's a sticking point that no one's been able to explain to me:

If you're in the minority, revolution is against the democratic will of the people.

If you're in the majority, you have the votes to actually accomplish something with reform. It's not like we live in a monarchy, reform is possible under our system.

If reform isn't working to bring about your goals, either your goals aren't popular enough, or they are popular but the people lack the will and organization to vote for them.

If the people lack the will and organization to vote effectively, they certainly lack the will and organization to topple the government.

My area of expertise is managing complex systems and change implementation. I sincerely don't understand how revolution is supposed to work where reform doesn't. No one has been able to give me an answer that doesn't bill down to idealistic hope. How is this revolution supposed to be implemented, and why can't we build the foundation for revolution while simultaneously using the tools we have for reform? Wouldn't widespread support for reform be the best possible proof of consensus?

[–] leftytighty@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago

This assumes that everyone is equally politically informed and engaged, and that everyone has given governance as much thought as one another.

The sad reality is a huge portion of people sleepwalk through life and they'd get by the same in a democracy vs. feudalism vs. socialism.

[–] dzervas@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I think (reading aint my cup of tea so I do what I can) that the idea is that the majority of the people are easily swayed

one could argue that this is the case now with the amount of capitalist and anti-leftist projections

and the idea to fix the root cause of the above is tackled by each revolution-worthy system - education, free time, access to knowledge, etc.

though youve got a very good point that if we depend on stupid people to build something better, were buiding it on/with stupid people

good discussion subject, I'll take it to my friends

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago

Excellent point

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 7 points 3 days ago

departs when full

I love this detail.

[–] AllToRuleThemOne@lemmy.world 31 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Cmon bro, just one more reform, bro. It will fix the system. Bro, i promise. Bro, bro its going to serve us all. This time realy, bro.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What is a revolution if not a lot of small reforms happening all at once?

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 10 points 3 days ago

It is the overthrowing of the current system, and replacing of it with a different one. Not a bunch of small reforms happening all at once.

[–] pseudo@jlai.lu 26 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Funny, the revolution is the one not spinning...

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 19 points 4 days ago (2 children)

The one not spinning endlessly in a trapped cycle, yes. That's the point, the reform side is "moving" in place, never actually moving nor is it capable of moving. The revolution van is capable of moving.

[–] AndrasKrigare@beehaw.org 10 points 3 days ago

I think they're making a joke that one of the definitions of "revolution" is making a complete circle. In the cartoon, "reform" is making a ton of revolutions.

[–] loonsun@sh.itjust.works 15 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's a play on words joke

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago

Ah, I'm stupid, got it now!

[–] Korhaka@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago

Thought this was about the UK reform party at first, still works

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 11 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (4 children)

The AI haters will hate this, but I think AI is gonna provide the push that forces the fundamental changes we want. You can only replace so many people with AI and robots. The theoretical point of zero employees also means zero customers, because nobody has any money to buy anything, so making employees obsolete makes business and profits obsolete. In the real world the system will change long before that point, because it will have to. It might be from food riots and social breakdown, or political movements finally taking hold, I don't know, but AI will make the profit system eat itself. I'm just not looking forward to the extremely difficult transition period.

[–] drewcarreyfan@lemm.ee 6 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I want to believe you're right, but in a world where AI can fully replace human labor, that will likely also apply to the areas of mass surveillance and military suppression.

Imo, one of the scariest and most frustrating developments in robotics in the past 50 years is the ability to process billions of text and voice conversations, all at once, 24/7. Things really take a different tone when all of a sudden the US Government can find it feasible to listen to all of us, every time.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 3 points 3 days ago

Yes, we're going to have these surveillance capabilities. Anti-AI memes and boycotts won't stop it. The rational choice is to develop authority structures the public can trust. Instead of treating the whole concept of authority as the enemy by default, we have to figure out a way to make it trustworthy. The question is how, and I don't have that answer but I know that's the question. I see it as kind of analogous to how providing basic income, healthcare, etc. for everybody would cut down on crimes of survival. When people aren't desperate they don't do desperate things. If making laws didn't attract money and prestige, greedy people wouldn't be part of it but public-spirited people would.

[–] explodicle@sh.itjust.works 8 points 4 days ago

I want to believe you're right. But everything else so far has just been a gradually applied multiplier on human labor, not a full replacement. Instead of a sudden tipping point, we'd watch each other become destitute one by one, perpetually looking out for only ourselves.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I think you're talking about accelerationism. IMO, the main problem with unrestrained AI growth is that if AI turns out to be as good as the hype says it is, then we'll all be dead before revolution occurs.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

The trick is to judge things on their own merit and not on the hype around them.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

In that case, you should know that Geoff Hinton (the guy whose lab kicked off the whole AI revolution last decade) quit Google in order to warn about the existential risk of AI. He believes there's at least a 10% chance that it will kill us all within 30 years. Ilya Sutskever, his former student and co-founder of OpenAI, believes similarly, which is why he quit OpenAI and founded Safe Superintelligence (yes that basic html document really is their homepage) to help solve the alignment problem.

You can also find popular rationalist AI pundits like gwern, acx, yudkowsky, etc. voicing similar concerns, with a range of P(doom) from low to the laughably high.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Yes I know, the robot apocalypse people seem desperate to be afraid of is always just around the corner. Geoff Hinton, while a definite pioneer in AI, didn't kick anything off, he was one of a large number of people working on it, and one of a small number predicting armageddon.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The reason it's always just around the corner is because there is very strong evidence we're approaching the singularity. Why do you sound sarcastic saying this? What probability would you assign to an AI apocalypse in the next three decades?

Geoff Hinton absolutely kicked things off. Everybody else had given up on neural nets for image recognition, but his breakthrough renewed interest throughout the world. We wouldn't have deepdreaming slugdogs without him.

It should not be surprising that most people in the field of AI are not predicting armageddon, since it would be harmful to their careers to do so. Hinton is also not predicting the apocalypse -- he's saying 10-20% chance, which is actually a prediction that it won't happen.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I'm sarcastic because I would assign the same probability as a zombie apocalypse. At the nuts and bolts level I think they're both technically flawed on a Hollywood fantasy level.

What does an AI apocalypse even look like to you? Computers launching nuclear missiles or what? Shutting down power grids?

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Please assign probabilities to the following (for the next 3 decades):

  1. probability an AI smarter than any human on any intellectual task a human can do might come to exist (superintelligence);
  2. given (1), probability it decides to kill all humans to achieve its goals (misaligned);
  3. given (2), probability it is successful at killing all humans;

bonus: given 1 and 2, probability that we don't even notice it wants to kill us, e.g. because we don't know how to understand what it's thinking.

Since the AI is smarter than me, I only need to propose one plausible method by which it could exterminate all humans. It can come up with a method at least as good as me, most likely something much better though. The typical answer here would be that it bio-engineers a lethal virus which is initially harmless (to avoid detection), but responds to some trigger like the introduction of a certain chemical or maybe a strong radio signal. If it's very smart, and has a very good understanding of bioengineering, it should be able to produce a virus like this by paying a laboratory to e.g. perform some CRISPR operations on some existing bacteria strain (or even just mix some chemicals together if Sagan turns out to be right about bioengineering) and mail a sample somewhere. It can wait until everyone is infected before triggering the strain.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

Or how about you don't assign me tasks and I don't do them? Cuz I don't remember signing up for a class.

[–] jsomae@lemmy.ml 1 points 18 hours ago

Well, the probability you have for the AI apocalypse should ultimately be the product of those three numbers. I'm curious which of those is the one you think is so unlikely.

[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

I agree with you that AI will probably replace a lot of white-collar jobs by 2035, which is not that far away, and it will necessitate political change.

I also consider that UBI (Universal Basic Income) is probably the most natural way forward. It pays a constant amount to each person per month, based on money collected through a wealth tax. It does not have to be implemented all-at-once, but can be gradually introduced. I.e. only provide $200/(person*month) in the beginning, and then continuously scale up as needed.

The wealth tax is needed simultaneously because the money has to come from somewhere. Printing money anew is not great because it leads to steep inflation.

[–] LovableSidekick@lemmy.world 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Exactly, and as automation gradually makes profits obsolete, the wealth tax and UBI should evolve from money into a basic right to receive goods produced by the automation. Money is really just a middleman. If we eliminate scarcity we won't need it.

[–] BevelGear@beehaw.org 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

June 14th

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 26 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

not usually on your own soil (openly), but yes you do.

[–] BevelGear@beehaw.org 6 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Your right and that's why June 14th is the protest day - https://www.nokings.org/

[–] umbrella@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

i wish you luck and all the best

[–] BevelGear@beehaw.org 5 points 4 days ago

Thanks, I appreciate it.

[–] aaronbieber@beehaw.org 4 points 3 days ago

We only do DraftKings here!