Not asked: does anyone want this?
No one chose the economy we had before either.
You are who, what and where you are by virtue of historical accident. The serfs of the Middle Ages sure as shit didn’t want that economy either, nor did the unwashed masses, dying at such an alarming rate of dysentery and cholera that the population of major cities was only sustained through mass migration during industrialization in the 18th and 19th centuries. Nor did more or less any slave during human history.
The last ~150 years of economic freedom and prosperity for a large percentage of the population that has been wide spread across industrialized economies is the exception, not the rule, and the difference is and always has been the fact that industrialized economies have required large amounts of skilled specialists to make the systems they developed work.
If you change that calculus, there is no historical precedent to assume that human societies won’t revert to the mean.
idk I feel like I read a few things from history about people rejecting the economy that was forced on them and demanding better, maybe it was AI generated?
- [deleted]
I hated sitting around in school classrooms so much that I fantasized about a system that would just give me work to do and I would turn it in and go about my day.
This description of Alpha school might have been up my alley. AI learning certainly was.
Either way, we do need to think about options for self-motivated students.
Is this really for the students? Or is this for the people who believe they (and by extension their children) are the "Alphas" of society.. are there other values we should be teaching than "superior people do this and if you don't do this you are the inferior".. time will tell I guess. Crabs in buckets and all that.
Is there some redefinition of “average” going on? What are LLMs but a statistical representation of likely speech? What is generated except some likely and plausible output that seems to fit the bill? At what point is average exceeded?
Average is exceeded by RL'ing hard enough.
But I think you are missing the bigger picture -- its true that LLM's might have a tendency to average out things but even if this is true, everyone needs to keep up.
People who use AI correctly will use it where they would have otherwise produced below average works.
> Those who resist AI and/or fail to set high expectations for themselves will have to settle for lower income and status.
It's great that we're spending all those resources making the world worse. \s
social Darwinists are rejoicing daily.. they don't tend to comment in the open. Several distant relatives here in the USA fly private planes while this board is active.. I guess that they spend zero time talking about the needs of others or "fairness" issues..
It’s universal too; I know a lot of women, queers, POC, who don’t give one second of reflection to the reality 12-13 year old kids are sewing all the crap fashion they buy off Temu, or off the shelf at local shops who just import cheap crap to cash in on “buy local” memes.
They call it freedom and self determination. I call it co-dependency and learned helplessness. Labor exploitation.
Low skilled in their own right; they have no idea where to start solving their needs so never engage the motor agency.
Learned helplessness so a minority of humanity; first world affluents; out to avoid being responsible for themselves while they scold everyone else via TikTok.
Yes the politicians are awful for their own reasons but so many merely express concerns while carrying on without putting any real effort into solving their exploitative waves. Empty virtue signaling.
how worse?
There's many things to be unpacked here, but one that feels particularly compelling is how the potential of AI is being leveraged to divide people further along class lines instead of being a tide that rises all boats. The narrative around AI adoption is largely a rehash of "think of how much more we could do with less", which is generally great for the ones who owns the means of production, not so much for the ones who are on the factory floor. It's quite visible when AI is being used as an excuse to lay people off and expand the expectation on whoever is left without necessarily increasing compensation to follow with the "added productivity". The worker/employee power dynamic is only made worse there since it seems to be a shared corporate wet dream to hire as little as possible and have "digital coworkers" fill the gaps. This isn't a new story: before, it was offshoring to cheaper markets (i.e. where the power dynamics are even more tipped toward the rich), now it's the dream of a digital worker that doesn't talk back and will work 24/7.
There doesn't seem to be much interest in using this to make people work less and engage in the rest of life more, hence the jokes about how somehow, the machines are generating art while folks are still toiling away to make ends meet.
The class division is even in the original message we're responding to: failing to get on the bandwagon or being pushed from it leads to lower income and status despite there being plenty to go around if we only stopped chasing infinite growth.
you've got it all reversed - this is exactly how things get better and not worse.
Curious to hear your reasoning there.
The only argument I've heard to far about how this is the path to betterment relies on getting past a theoretical hump where AI and robotics go further and can replace most labour, and the upper class giving up it's power over the masses voluntarily instead of going further down the same road we're already on.
I can't speak much for the first, but I think trickle-down economics has better chances of working out than the second (i.e. none).
AI can help increase productivity, that is get more outputs (goods/services) for the same inputs.
Two hundred years ago, shirts had to be hand-spun, hand-woven, and hand-sewn, so ordinary people could only own one or two. Now because of automation and factories they are so cheap that poor people have many.
Previously 97% of the workforce was engaged in agriculture, and even in the 20th century, famines killed millions. Now with increased productivity we create so much food that obesity is the defining health crisis of our time.
All classes have been able afford better clothing and more food, not just those owning the means of production.
> instead of going further down the same road we're already on
Even in the last 25 years, we've seen large increases in life expectancy, child mortality fell by more than 50%, 1 billion people left extreme poverty, access to knowledge and education expanded, and more.
I don't buy too much into your framing of pitting classes against each other.
But I think we both can at least agree on this - AI can actually replace some labour or augment it enough to require some shuffling.
My argument is that if AI brings efficiencies, products become cheaper and cost of living reduces. It's how it always worked - agricultural revolution, industrial revolution and information revolution. Cost of living reduced constantly because efficiency increased.
> upper class giving up it's power over the masses voluntarily
The upper class needs labour to consume their products. So it is in both interests that both labour has more money to spend. What then happens is, people are richer but the upper class gets even more wealth. Everyone benefits.