Comment by azan_
16 hours ago
> Either way though, what's more interesting than what you specifically said is that AI boosters have no answer to this structural argument about the reality of post-scarcity. Tellingly, you didn't address that part of my comment at all, either.
You've fished a comment from completely different discussion, where a point was that if AI were to displace workers, it would be different than previous waves of automation (and there meeting these capabilities was assumed, not put forward by me). But in this thread it's more down to earth discussion about manufacturing capabilities if there is no ASI. But sure, I'll bite - yes, capitalism won't work in post-scarcity society. But we are not leaving in post-scarcity society and in our current situation capitalism is amazing system. If capitalism would get us to post-scarcity society then well, you'd have to admin that capitalism is amazingly effective. Your assumption about AI-rulers (I presume altman and amodei, not governments) having abundance machines and not sharing the abundance with anyone else is really without any merit. For this scenario to work we would need to meet few conditions that are so unlikely that it's not really worth entertaining them seriousl: 1) powerless government 2) actual ASI that's abundance machine 3) ASI that's perfectly aligned towards serving altman and amodei and none else 4) altman and amodei deciding that everyone should be poor. And also as someone who I guess you'd call AI booster (so a person that's not deluded about AI capabilities and sees how powerful they are and how current concerns with AI such as water use are overblown) I can tell you how I address this - you can't stop progress. It never worked and never will. I think world would be better if we would've stopped developing AI. But it's impossible so you might just embrace it.
> If capitalism would get us to post-scarcity society then well, you'd have to admin that capitalism is amazingly effective
I will freely admit that. But that's not the critique. Effective at what? Cancer is effective. Effectiveness for its own sake is not an inherent good. Capitalism is amazingly effective at centralizing power in a few oligarchs.
> Your assumption about AI-rulers (I presume altman and amodei, not governments) having abundance machines and not sharing the abundance with anyone else is really without any merit.
It's not an assumption. It is a structural argument. You have not addressed any of my points - why would they share?
> 1) powerless government
The government doesn't need to be powerless. It just needs to be aligned with the oligarchy. I would posit that is already the case - see basically anything the regime does.
> 2) actual ASI that's abundance machine
Yeah I agree with you there, I'm not sure that one's gonna happen, but what if it does? Under current ownership structures, it would be a bad thing.
> 3) ASI that's perfectly aligned towards serving altman and amodei and none else
Maybe Musk. Maybe Zuckerberg. Probably also Trump, as per 1).
> 4) altman and amodei deciding that everyone should be poor.
Their fellow oligarch Musk literally cut USAID which was providing for the poorest, most vulnerable people on Earth, while he was the richest man on Earth. You do not become a billionaire by caring about the poor.
> you can't stop progress. It never worked and never will
Of course you can. Some examples: Civilian Supersonic Flight, Genetics under Lysenko, Firearms in the Tokugawa shogunate.