I introduced a coworker to modular synths, and then suddenly, they had a ton of synths and debt to sweetwater, and then they got divorced. I kinda wondered if their GAS led to a divorce
Answer the question: who's coming to save you? Bernie? Donald? AOC? J.D.?
Better if you don't need saving at all, because you've been empowered to help yourself at your job. Ultimately the goal is to free you entirely from dependence on a day-to-day occupation.
You may have noticed that no one else is even trying to help.
It’s not great, and I wasn’t arguing for it. I was saying AI isn’t going to lead to that on its own.
Mechanically how is AI going to lead to a social safety net? You can’t just handwave the productivity increases when they are all owned by a handful of concentrated wealth
I see it as a second Industrial Revolution. After the IR, everybody still had a job, but most of those were (in the words of one personal friend) "bullshit jobs." Jobs that didn't involve growing food or building tangible things. What we'd call "white collar jobs," in other words. The economic value associated with those jobs simply didn't exist before the IR. It couldn't.
After this incarnation of the Industrial Revolution, those white-collar jobs will be mostly gone, and nothing will replace them. I personally don't think CEOs and politicians will end up being any more immune than junior programmers. New forms of organization will have to emerge on both the labor and management sides. (Democracy at the nation-state level is pretty much toast anyway, so something else is going to have to replace it, AI or no AI.)
Blue-collar labor will eventually be subsumed by robotics, but that will take longer. Things like UBI will make more sense in this environment than they do now, and I think that'll be a big part of it. Not to say that all gains will be equally distributed, or that they should be, but I don't things can get much worse than where they are headed today with regard to the tilted economic playing field.
The worst case scenario would indeed be if all the gains get concentrated and centralized, as the major AI labs seem to want, but I don't think it'll work out that way.
>The worst case scenario would indeed be if all the gains get concentrated and centralized, as the major AI labs seem to want, but I don't think it'll work out that way.
Youve laid out an idealistic view of how the world will work. You have not laid out how the transition between the current world where wealth is being concentrated somehow turns into UBI.
Even this sentence
> I personally don't think CEOs and politicians will end up being any more immune than junior programmers.
Implies that you think the capitalists who own these systems are going to be in charge since CEOs work for their boards and politicians largely follow their donors.
Again, lay out exactly how you think we move from our current system to UBI via AI technology.
>but I don't think it'll work out that way.
Is not you laying out how you think it will work, but a dogmatic religious belief with no evidence or logic behind it.
edit: Im sorry, I glossed over this sentence.
> Democracy at the nation-state level is pretty much toast anyway...
Are you a rationalist, e/acc, or someone related to TESCREAL, or especially anything touching on Curtis Yarvin? If so no need to answer, I think you guys are in a cult with the modern equivalent of Dianetics, so we are never going to see eye to eye.
Youve laid out an idealistic view of how the world will work. You have not laid out how the transition between the current world where wealth is being concentrated somehow turns into UBI.
Nor have you laid out how traditional political and social structures are going to save your job (or anyone else's) in the long run. You say you're "Angry and opinionated." We've seen the anger part, so let's hear some opinions.
Are you a rationalist, e/acc, or someone related to TESCREAL, or especially anything touching on Curtis Yarvin? If so no need to answer, I think you guys are in a cult with the modern equivalent of Dianetics, so we are never going to see eye to eye.
I'm e/acc-curious, you could say. Lots of philosophical overlap but I'm not much of a joiner. Not sure who the rationalists or TESCREAL are.
I know who Yarvin is, though, and would generally take the opposite side of any argument with him. If there's a "cult" in play here, it's the voters who were duped into electing and then re-electing Trump. Democracy simply cannot survive if it continues to grant stupid people the same political power as smart people. The stupid people will be herded to the polls by unethical smart people like Yarvin, using the power of mass media and social media as we've seen.
Meanwhile, the remaining smart people get along together like cats in a sack, ensuring they have only sporadic political influence that is bound to diminish further over time.
At the same time, democracy cannot retain the support of the people if it disenfranchises voters on grounds of education or intelligence. That leaves one obvious conclusion: that it won't survive. How AI will get us past that, I have no idea. But if you want to predict the future you're going to have to account for both the rise of AI and the fall of democracy.
They also impact local utilities with little return contribution. Few jobs after construction, and no guarantee they’re even being used to support those paying the taxes for them.
Being big brother of sorts doesn’t help. Particularly as they’re not quite right all the time. But they are quite confident.
Rather than using a browser for playback, I would recommend Supersonic or some other player that can speak the Subsonic protocol that Navidrome supports. Desktop apps will be a much more pleasant experience than a browser.
It's a maintained Qt6 fork of Clementine, which was a port of the amazing Amarok 1.4 to Qt4, which is all that Amarok 2 should have been in the first place.
reply