Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Mortal-Region t1_j73dezq wrote

I hear this point a lot and it makes no sense to me. There's no need for large corporations to be "generous benefactors". The fact that their products benefit others is precisely what makes those products valuable. "Keeping it for themselves" is nonsensical.

The idea that they would keep all the increased profits also doesn't hold water. For example, if computer chip A is just as powerful as computer chip B, but it costs half as much, company A will quickly dominate company B. Company A will thus become much more profitable, but only because it's selling cheaper chips.

(Incidentally, the Paris Commune is a terrible role model. It was the body that orchestrated the Reign of Terror.)

0

ttylyl OP t1_j73e3ri wrote

This is in a scenario where AI is allowed to replace human labor en mass. You are right, it is an assumption, hopefully world governments will be able to handle it in time and amicably for the formerly working class.

In the scenario you set up with the chips the working class is chip b and ai is chip a. AI will dominate human labor and push them out of the market. Once that happens, what will happen to the humans? You know, you and me.

And they are keeping it to themselves, it’s closed source. We are allowed to see the outcome of some limited parts of the AI at the whim of a company owned by amoral investment firms.

2

Mortal-Region t1_j73ize2 wrote

>AI will dominate human labor and push them out of the market.

What will AI be laboring at if humans are out of the market? Ultimately, a product's value is its benefit to humans.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j73zeh7 wrote

Yes but which humans and how. In the scenario I fear, AI would be laboring for the projects of the people who own it. Eventually over time one of the people who own ai/robot labor will decide that non-skilled unemployed people(most of us at this point) are useless overhead, we should spend less on keeping them alive.

Think about it this way, what are humans laboring for now? A:provide for eachother, food medicine etc to keep labor pool alive and healthy and B: demands of the rich and powerful. What if suddenly reason A becomes useless overhead(human labor useless for production, why waste ai power/labor on having them live comfortable lives), if you were to cut it out you have more power/money for B. Because the severe stratification of power, only those of the owning AI class will be able to make these decisions, and they are more than a little biased.

People have committed genocide over less

2

visarga t1_j741vp4 wrote

> What will AI be laboring at if humans are out of the market?

Maybe it needs resources for self replication or evolution. AI might have its own needs.

2

Mortal-Region t1_j7475mv wrote

That's the alignment issue -- that an AI might favor itself over humans. Here the context is the elite reserving the benefits of AI for themselves. I say that's a nonsensical idea because the value of AI derives from the benefits it provides to the masses. For example: lightbulbs, chips, the Internet, search engines, smartphones, etc, etc.

1

visarga t1_j741kg5 wrote

> AI will dominate human labor and push them out of the market.

AI teamed with a human will dominate both AI and human. AI is much better with a human, and humans are better with AI. Since we have competition, every company will have to add AI to their current workforce and keep the people, because they are the differentiating factor. You can scale AI in the cloud, but you can't simply spawn people.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j7423k5 wrote

This is true, but simple things can be handled by ai alone. And huge portions of are economy are simple enough it can do it alone. It is far, far cheaper to pay for AI than to pay for a human.

1

visarga t1_j742w3h wrote

Yes, it doesn't make sense to put humans do things that AI can do better. But the competition will use humans-with-AI to extract 2x from the AI, while you're using AI-alone at 1x rate. Everyone will have the same AI from Microsoft and Google, but humans are limited.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j743d4h wrote

I agree, but you could compensate rather easily by simply paying for 2x AI for 1/100th the cost of one human and one AI.

I agree that skilled jobs will be humans and AI together, but unskilled labor is called that for a reason, they aren’t focused on the quality, but the quantity.

1

visarga t1_j744swb wrote

If you put Stable Diffusion or chatGPT to generate automatically without human review or prompting, they will generate tons of garbage. Generative AIs are garbage until someone stamps their work as good. So they need humans to be worth anything. They are just junk on their own. It's a long way off from job replacement - even self driving cars require human at the wheel. These AIs still hallucinate facts, who can use them as they are now. Clearly someone will have to find a way before they can get useful without being babysitted.

1

ttylyl OP t1_j745ggc wrote

Yes ai needs trainers, but 1000 trainers can make a simple but concise model that replaces 500,000 jobs, call centers are an easy example. And then they have to make another model that takes more jobs if they want to keep theirs.

The new jobs from the AI market won’t match the jobs lost from AI replacement. Think about it this way, a company wouldn’t new tech unless it saves them money right?

1