It would be cool to remove the need for everyone to work jobs they hate just to survive though.
They’re gonna want something in exchange for UBI. Maybe we all have to give blood for their anti-aging research, or sleep in beds that harvest our body heat. Something.
AI oligarchs don’t want to replace anyone.
They want businesses with money paying them huge subscription fees, and they want lock-in so that all businesses out there depend on their tech to continue to function.
It’s the same model as we saw with streaming video.
They couldn’t care less about the working class, one way or the other, which is part of the problem.
Honestly?
I think AI replacing office workers is just a pit stop till AI can operate kill drones…
Billionaires are 100% asking themselves if they really need us, and the fucked up thing is if robots can grow their food, produce their goods and shield their compounds from us…
They don’t need us. At that point theyre gonna want to get rid of us for the space if we can’t make them money, and where were headed we won’t be able to.
They “need” a small buffer population that enjoys the oligarchs protection from us, but are loyal because they can be killed/exiled at any time.
But 99.9999% of the world population, they’re probably ok with killing off already.
If not, they definitely will be once they squeeze every last ounce of resources out of us and the planet starts really dying. They’ll even convince themselves it’s “for the greater good” to save the planet they killed making their billions.
They’re just gonna keep getting crazier, there’s no logical reason to think the trajectory or acceleration will change. Eventually it’ll be a literal class war unless we prevent by taking our resources back.
Correct. AI drones that can kill is the goal here.
No doubt about it. There IS no logical reasoning the trajectory will change.
But try to inform the population…
Eh, there’s like five other catastrophes between now and then…
Right now it’s 100% an inevitability, but if we fix the shit that will fuck us before that does, we can just fix that at the same time.
Like knowing eventually the sun will run out of helium causing it to grow in size and destroy the entire planet. It sucks, but we got more pressing matters.
Don’t waste energy warning people about Skynet, focus on getting rid of billionaires. If we just stop the killbots, the oligarchs will just kill us a different way.
Killbots just leave a better planet behind than nukes or viruses
heliumhydrogen. its currently fusing hydrogen to helium, but because its a fairly average size star, it will be unable to then fuse the helium into later fuels (carbon, neon, oxygen, silicon). so it expands, sheds off its outer layers and becomes a white dwarf, cooling down until its at ambient temperature as a black dwarf.
Edit: so a sun sized star can use helium as a secondary fuel, fusing it down to carbon after a helium flashover (but thats not where our star is at right now). the resulting white dwarf will be a combination of helium, carbon, oxygen and trace amounts of other elements.
Right now it uses hydrogen, some day that runs out.
Then primary will be helium, and shit will suck but we can probably maintain life on Earth… But Mars would like be in flames.
Then the helium burns off, and a heavier element becomes primary fuel.
At that point, the flames of the sun likely extend out to the Earths orbit.
I skip steps sometimes and like I said, long enough timeline.
But you skipped the entire “red giant” step…
Before it can become a white dwarf, it’s gonna barbecue our entire planet as a red giant…
yup. agreed on your timeline.
Wow someone who actually gets it
The “ultimate question” is: do they really just want a whole lot of people to die? They bluster around the topic like that’s a question that you just don’t ask, but when you boil away all the BS, what’s left is: are you saying that you’re going to lock people out of any possible way to feed themselves and their children and just “let them figure it out for themselves”?
You must remember one thing. The 1% are called the 1% because we are the 99%.
So when we’re left to “figure it out for ourselfs” in a life or death situation, historically speaking the end result is revolt and revolution.
Oh, but that won’t happen this time, the elite control all the cannon, most of the muskets, the army is overwhelming, the peasants are weak from malnutrition, they’ll never succeed in a revolt, they’d be fools to try.
The scenario I’m saying is they either succeed, or they die. Why would they be fools for trying, if they’re going to die otherwise?
Well, there’s the whole “let them eat cake” narrative to go along with that - generations of uber-power and wealth don’t teach much in the way of street smarts. The French aristocracy had no personal concept or grasp or even inkling of what desperation felt like, what desperate starving people would be capable of - and there’s the true logic of it as well: after they revolted conditions did actually get worse - as everyone predicted - but that didn’t matter: as you say, there’s no point in hanging on to a pitiful existence through obesiance just because it might be more pitiful for a generation if you revolt.
I’m not sure how you think they aim to achieve that business lock-in, but many of us suspect it’s by offering a product that replaces workers.
They want the working class, they just want them to be the corporate town serfs. What is the point of being really rich if you can’t feel superior to someone else?
I’m starting to think that serfdom, as an aspect of feudalism, is too modern for the new technocrat caste.
A few days ago, Sam Altman did an interview saying he no longer supported universal basic income for those put out of work by AI. Instead, he supported “shares in ownership” or “shares in compute”. That is, instead of a guaranteed income, the lower classes would be gifted some sort of income producing asset based on the value of some particular tech company or the AI industry as a whole. If the industry did well, the lower classes dependent on it would thrive; if the industry failed, they would starve.
That’s not serfdom. That goes even further back, to the patron-client system of ancient Rome. The patron, generally the leader of a wealthy noble family, would provide their clients with money, food, and gifts. In return, the clients would vote for the patron and his allies in elections, act as bodyguards and enforcers for the patron, intimidate/beat/kill the clients of rival patrons to keep them away from the polling booths, advertise the patron’s businesses, and generally do whatever the patron wanted. The clients helped the patron maintain their wealth and political power, and the patron would share the rewards of that wealth and power with their clients.
Think about the sort of country we would have, the sort of politicians who would be elected and the sort of laws who would be passed, if Altman’s idea came to fruition. Imagine if we had a significant unemployed underclass whose financial security depended solely on the success of the AI industry, and who would be rewarded by their technocrat billionaire patrons for electing AI-friendly politicians or blocking AI-friendly regulation.
Mere serfdom would be preferable.
I’m fine with the working class being replaced with robots. That was always the dream of robots. As long as it means that everybody gets to live a life of leisure. Because that was also always the dream
We’re all going to live a life of leisure, right?
deleted by creator
Just going to point out that there are only 3000ish billionaires in the world, and about 8b everybody else. Wouldn’t even need 1% of the world’s population to slay those dragons. Imagine how much pollution could be reduced, how much wealth could be spread around if we just dedicated ourselves to eliminating the Billionaire class.
Personally I would even say the teams that slay a dragon, deserve a share of the hoard while the rest is redistributed.
The window in which these calculations remain relevant is rapidly closing with the development of robots and drones.
Robots and drones require maintenance and operators. The so-called advantage will always be vulnerable to their ability to repair and produce them. Which diminishes greatly as they kill off the very population that does just that.
Their power is a mirage.
100%
Most people with the right hacker mindset and skills aren’t billionaires. Those bots are a pretty beefy force multiplier when they suddenly obey someone else.
Is this not just a jaundiced slant on the future we were all promised where machines do all the work and we lay around in togas eating blancmange.
Just replace “togas” with “mass graves” and we’re good to go.
The machines becoming stronger and smarter than us and starting to wonder if they needed the monkeys around was always a fly in the ointment of that particular utopia. Not to mention the monkeys themselves feeling a bit like a fifth wheel and getting demoralised.
Feels like the odour of mass graves would clash with the blancmange
Found Angus Podgorny’s alt account
A quivering glistening mass.
Has anyone tried asking the AI companies for a list of demands?
Total submission
We have enough food and housing for everyone. People shouldn’t need to work bullshit jobs.
The richest 1% are the only people standing in the way of a utopia.
Sir, the struggle is very long and ongoing since the so-called Industrial Revolution. You gotta have enough angry people to end the class struggle once and for all.
Replace us?
Subjugate, control, and exploit us.
They can’t handle not being feared, worshipped, and not having peasantry to make them feel powerful.
This argument falls apart the second you think it through for more than 30 seconds.
If AI were to “replace the working class” outright, who exactly is left to pay rent, buy products, or participate in the economy at all? Companies don’t operate in a vacuum, they depend on mass consumption. No working class means no customers. No customers means no revenue. It’s not a controversial take it’s basic economic reality.
The idea that large corporations are collectively marching toward eliminating their own consumer base is not just wrong, it’s absurd. Firms adopt automation to reduce costs and increase productivity, not to self destruct their own markets.
What’s actually happening is far less dramatic and far more grounded, specific jobs get automated, new ones emerge, and the labor market shifts. That transition can absolutely be messy and uneven, and yes, it can hurt people in the short term. That’s a real conversation worth having.
But this “AI will wipe out the working class entirely” narrative isn’t serious analysis, it’s just lazy doomposting dressed up as insight.
If you’re going to criticize AI, at least engage with how economic systems actually function instead of defaulting to an echo chamber of half formed panic.
You are imparting rationality on a system known for not acting rationally. Capitalists both act against their own interests and against the larger communities interests quite frequently. Economists sometimes describe it is “economic externalities” and recognised long ago that modelling players as rational actors was flawed. Why would companies risk their own futures by funding climate denialism?
One of capitalisms greatest weaknesses is it greatly rewards short terms gains at the cost of long term profits or failure. Even if you trash a company you walk away wealthy.
You’re absolutely right! Can’t argue with this.
What you’re describing is it pursuit of short-term profits. This pursuit is often categorized as an actual mental disorder.
What this article is describing and what the people in this comment section are describing is a complete replacement of employees by AI. Which just isn’t a thing that’s going to take place.
I’d say the pursuit of short term gains is an inherent pattern in the human brain. If you look at it from a survival mode it makes more sense for a hunter-gather to eat everything he finds in a spot because if he doesn’t it could be gone tomorrow and he’d starve even if it means he’s wiping out this food plant in the long term. You see this in how many poor people handle money (spend it today because it could be gone tomorrow), people and their health (why deny myself this bacon today for the possibility of heart disease 20 years from now?), etc. It takes discipline, education and sometimes outside pressure to stop this behavior.
Economies are strongest when small amojnts change hands often which is exactly the opposite of what the current concentration of wealth seeks to do. These are people who work and vote against minimum wage increases, unions, and who constantly push propaganda blaming the working class for spending money to deflect from the fact that they don’t pay enough.
It’s not “absurd” to say that the richest among us are trying to drain wealth out of the working class because it’s happening in broad daylight. We can all see it, they don’t give a shit about their employees. It’s to the point were every 4-day work-week experiment has been a success both for employee happiness and productivity but we still aren’t seeing that schedule being adopted.
The rich do not care about you, and if millions of the working class die they don’t give a shit. Slave plantations weren’t actually all that efficient but it didn’t matter because it the abuse was part of it.
deleted by creator
You were correct in deleting your comment. It was complete bullshit.
(Bellow is what the above person wrote to me. This person likes to comment then delete what the wrote which to me is in bad faith.)
Let’s hypothesis for a moment. Let’s pretend tomorrow there was 1 humanoid robot with above average intelligence for each working class human. The robot costs 10% of what a human costs and is owned by the ultra wealthy. Before we consider who’s going to buy products and pay rent ask, with that amount of power and the ability to command nearly 8 billion robots, do they need the anyone to buy their products or pay the rent? They can get whatever they want from their robot army that working class people could provide and for a fraction of the price.
deleted by creator
You’re saying that people who own corporations would replace every worker with 8 billion autonomous robots just to avoid paying wages.
Do you see how flawed that argument is? Did you read my original point, that without workers earning income, there would be no one left to buy the products or services these corporations sell? The entire global economic system is based on consumption. If people aren’t making money, how exactly are they supposed to consume anything?
You’re essentially arguing that corporations would eliminate their own customer base before considering the consequences to their business model.
These companies generate billions precisely because they understand how markets function. Undermining demand on that scale would be self-destructive, not profitable.
I’m sorry I have to be the one to tell you this but you’re stupid. You know you’re stupid because you deleted your comment on bad faith so others wouldn’t see it. The fact that you’re self aware is even more distressful because you obviously want to say what you want to say regardless of how idiotic it sounds. Omg. You’re a rare sort. I don’t think I’ve ever come across someone like you yet!
(Bellow is what the above person wrote to me. This person likes to comment then delete what the wrote which to me is in bad faith.)
Wow, loser response. Enjoy being that way.
I thought the plan was to use AI to push all of us into a permanent underclass.
Anyone got a mirror of the post? I’m getting this error message:
Sorry, a potential security risk was detected in your submitted request. The Webmaster has been alerted.
Reference ID: 18.a104d217.1777692249.4596f77
You can proceed to www.senate.gov.
If this problem persists, please contact the Office of the Secretary Webmaster at webmaster@sec.senate.gov.
Clicking the www.senate.gov link gives the same error message.
Who wins in a scenario like this?
Sanders is currently obsessed with this idea that AI will take everyone’s jobs. It’s all he posts about on social media.
I think it’s unfortunate that he is so laser focused on this, because AI doesn’t really work as well as it’s being hyped. And it’s turning out to be more expensive than using human beings in a lot of contexts. A lot of businesses are using it as a cover story for layoffs, so they don’t have to blame their own poor decisions and leaderships. “Oh, it wasn’t my fault profits were down, it was the AI!” But instead of digging deeper, he’s just buying into and repeating the hype.
What he is really saying is they are going to kill you one way or another economically at first and then when they get the tech right. Their army of drones/robots. He can’t just say that outright to this population.
LLMs and current generative AI won’t. But there will be better AI systems in the future.
And consider the scale of the datacenters they’re building: New AI data center in Utah will generate and consume more than twice the amount of power the entire state uses. They’re installing 9GW of natural gas turbines on site. They’re planning for better AI that will be much different from the current batch.
While we all know that current AI is much worse than human work, consider that they might just use it anyway, and not care that their product is shit.
Sadly, Bernie is - and always has been - just a politician. One of the few good ones, but still out there playing the popular angles. AI taking everyone’s job is the popular angle of the moment.
