Topic: The purpose of human life is about to change within the next decade.
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #122,213
We already have people yearning for human created things in a world where AI is becoming standardized.
AI is going to replace the entire workforce.
The only question is if human workers will end up homeless and in shanty towns or if they will somehow managed to retain having homes or apartments.
AI is going to replace the entire workforce.
The only question is if human workers will end up homeless and in shanty towns or if they will somehow managed to retain having homes or apartments.
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 24 minutes later[^] [v] #1,335,095
Why would the system grant humans the land and raw materials for that?
Before, humans had leverage to demand those. Now they don't.
A few rich humans with a network of smart labor can keep everything to themselves, and push the remaining proles into ghettos.
Before, humans had leverage to demand those. Now they don't.
A few rich humans with a network of smart labor can keep everything to themselves, and push the remaining proles into ghettos.
(Edited 49 seconds later.)
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 21 minutes later, 46 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,096
@previous (B)
The ultra-wealthy is still a small minority compared to the global population though. How are they going to keep a population around 8 billion to stay in the ghettos and not risk their own lives doing so? Eventually someone is going to send them to the gallows.
The ultra-wealthy is still a small minority compared to the global population though. How are they going to keep a population around 8 billion to stay in the ghettos and not risk their own lives doing so? Eventually someone is going to send them to the gallows.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 29 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,100
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,116
@1,335,096 (A)
One rich guy can hire guards, and a buy a swarm of drones that makes him more powerful than 1000 people.
@previous (C)
Some people do in fact live in police states already. The more liberal countries are already seeing their privacy and rights eroded, so give it time.
One rich guy can hire guards, and a buy a swarm of drones that makes him more powerful than 1000 people.
@previous (C)
Some people do in fact live in police states already. The more liberal countries are already seeing their privacy and rights eroded, so give it time.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 hours later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,132
So who will this ai workforce be making products for
dw !p9hU6ckyqw double-posted this 1 year ago, 15 seconds later, 5 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,133
Also will they solve the issue of ai having no hands or feet
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 4 hours later, 9 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,139
AI has made the internet much worse and I have no hope it will do much good in the workforce either
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 44 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,142
The issues now is that it's not cheap to convert a workplace into a robot club, but with time....
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,147
@1,335,133 (dw !p9hU6ckyqw)
> Also will they solve the issue of ai having no hands or feet
Maybe. But either way, it will probably be far simpler (and cheaper / more efficient) for the AI to hire somebody to carry out certain tasks
> Also will they solve the issue of ai having no hands or feet
Maybe. But either way, it will probably be far simpler (and cheaper / more efficient) for the AI to hire somebody to carry out certain tasks
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,150
@1,335,116 (B)
You'd need a worse police state than any police state ever seen, even Nazi Germany, for people to just meekly accept that there are no more jobs left and they'll all simply have to live in a tent and starve.
In reality what will happen is overwhelming political pressure will establish a UBI which most people will subsist on.
You'd need a worse police state than any police state ever seen, even Nazi Germany, for people to just meekly accept that there are no more jobs left and they'll all simply have to live in a tent and starve.
In reality what will happen is overwhelming political pressure will establish a UBI which most people will subsist on.
(Edited 32 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,151
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 17 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,157
Anonymous C double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,158
@1,335,151 (G)
I am by the way focusing on B's comments in this thread suggesting that humans would have no leverage, and no choice other than to be forced into ghettos and starve in slums, protecting himself by murdering people with drones (?).
However I dispute this because the political mandate comes from the people and they will bring pressure to bear to ameliorate hardship should the situation come around that "AI replaces the entire human workforce".
I am by the way focusing on B's comments in this thread suggesting that humans would have no leverage, and no choice other than to be forced into ghettos and starve in slums, protecting himself by murdering people with drones (?).
However I dispute this because the political mandate comes from the people and they will bring pressure to bear to ameliorate hardship should the situation come around that "AI replaces the entire human workforce".
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 11 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,164
@1,335,139 (Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU)
I already hate my aggressive auto-complete they make us use. Sometimes I do my work in notepad and paste it back just to avoid it. Although I hear microsoft is adding AI to notepad too - I fucking give up.
I already hate my aggressive auto-complete they make us use. Sometimes I do my work in notepad and paste it back just to avoid it. Although I hear microsoft is adding AI to notepad too - I fucking give up.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 14 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,190
@1,335,158 (C)
Why does a technofeudal lord care if he has a mandate?
Real political power grows out of the barrell of a gun and the rich can afford more weaponry.
Why does a technofeudal lord care if he has a mandate?
Real political power grows out of the barrell of a gun and the rich can afford more weaponry.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 35 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,197
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 15 minutes later, 15 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,207
@previous (C)
What I'm describing is nothing like Mad Max, and like I said we aren't there yet but will with time.
What I'm describing is nothing like Mad Max, and like I said we aren't there yet but will with time.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 37 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,211
@previous (B)
You're describing some hypothetical billionaire seceding from a nation and sending mercenaries and swarms of drones to murder people, whilst somehow having a stranglehold over business in the nation seceded from.
You're describing some hypothetical billionaire seceding from a nation and sending mercenaries and swarms of drones to murder people, whilst somehow having a stranglehold over business in the nation seceded from.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later, 16 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,219
@previous (C)
Businesses already expand, and use security to defend their property. They will stop paying workers as they automate those positions, allowing them to buy up more land and spend more on security.
Businesses working together to enact policy favorable to themselves, at the expense of the population, already happens. Many countries refuse to enact policies that have a solid 50%+ support among the people.
This isn't hypothetical, it's already happening. I'm saying there's no reason to think that trend will suddenly reverse.
Businesses already expand, and use security to defend their property. They will stop paying workers as they automate those positions, allowing them to buy up more land and spend more on security.
Businesses working together to enact policy favorable to themselves, at the expense of the population, already happens. Many countries refuse to enact policies that have a solid 50%+ support among the people.
This isn't hypothetical, it's already happening. I'm saying there's no reason to think that trend will suddenly reverse.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,221
@previous (B)
There is a critical level where the authorities, executing the mandate of the people, will intervene, even if only to save itself. And you seem to think that the rich guy will just use drones to blow up people and nothing will happen lol. The first time that drone swarm is released would be a shit show for that guy like nothing else, and he'd be thrown in jail for the rest of his life.
There is a critical level where the authorities, executing the mandate of the people, will intervene, even if only to save itself. And you seem to think that the rich guy will just use drones to blow up people and nothing will happen lol. The first time that drone swarm is released would be a shit show for that guy like nothing else, and he'd be thrown in jail for the rest of his life.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 27 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,224
Those fucking humans are stealing our jobs!!!(Edited 18 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 16 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,229
@1,335,221 (C)
Not if their commander-in-chief is working for business interests. Not if the democratic factions represent a class of unemployed people who cannot fund military activities.
It isn't all about numbers, it's about the strength of each individual combatant too.
This isn't 1 man commanding a drone army against hundreds of millions, it's billionaries/trillionares and their chosen minority subset of the population being rich enough to defend the means of production against a mob of people without the resources to meet basic needs.
It doesn't have to happen in one battle either. 51% can oppress 49% with numbers being a trivial, unimportant factor because it's so close. When that 49% is wiped out the process can repeat again.
How many autonomous humanoid robots can Elon produce, and have serve him loyally? Those bots can repair other bots, run on cheap electricity, and replace humans in about any industry.
In the past the elites wanted masses of poor people because it lowered labor costs. Once that isn't the goal, they can use their power to cut those mobs off from resources and watch the mob eat itself alive. Many peasants vs. a few cavalry was already lopsided in favor of the cavalary in the past. Humanoid bots, cheap drones, and automated factories just increase that power balance even more.
Not if their commander-in-chief is working for business interests. Not if the democratic factions represent a class of unemployed people who cannot fund military activities.
It isn't all about numbers, it's about the strength of each individual combatant too.
This isn't 1 man commanding a drone army against hundreds of millions, it's billionaries/trillionares and their chosen minority subset of the population being rich enough to defend the means of production against a mob of people without the resources to meet basic needs.
It doesn't have to happen in one battle either. 51% can oppress 49% with numbers being a trivial, unimportant factor because it's so close. When that 49% is wiped out the process can repeat again.
How many autonomous humanoid robots can Elon produce, and have serve him loyally? Those bots can repair other bots, run on cheap electricity, and replace humans in about any industry.
In the past the elites wanted masses of poor people because it lowered labor costs. Once that isn't the goal, they can use their power to cut those mobs off from resources and watch the mob eat itself alive. Many peasants vs. a few cavalry was already lopsided in favor of the cavalary in the past. Humanoid bots, cheap drones, and automated factories just increase that power balance even more.
xx joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,232
But who is going to buy the products created by the business owners?
Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 17 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,234
@previous (xx)
> But who is going to buy the products created by the business owners?
The only reason business owners want customers is to get the money those customers have.
If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
> Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
Do those three care at all, if they have the means of production to provide everything they want?
> Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
There will still be the same amount of land to occupy, there will still be the goods their machines make for them.
What problem do the rich have in this situation? What do they want, that they cannot get, if the masses are impoverished or dead?
> But who is going to buy the products created by the business owners?
The only reason business owners want customers is to get the money those customers have.
If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
> Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
Do those three care at all, if they have the means of production to provide everything they want?
> Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
There will still be the same amount of land to occupy, there will still be the goods their machines make for them.
What problem do the rich have in this situation? What do they want, that they cannot get, if the masses are impoverished or dead?
xx replied with this 1 year ago, 53 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,242
@previous (B)
> > But who is going to buy the products created by the business owners?
>
> The only reason business owners want customers is to get the money those customers have.
>
> If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
>
> > Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
>
> Do those three care at all, if they have the means of production to provide everything they want?
The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
>
> > Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
>
> There will still be the same amount of land to occupy, there will still be the goods their machines make for them.
>
> What problem do the rich have in this situation? What do they want, that they cannot get, if the masses are impoverished or dead?
The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
> > But who is going to buy the products created by the business owners?
>
> The only reason business owners want customers is to get the money those customers have.
>
> If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
>
> > Everything is consumption-driven. If people have no money they will not be able to buy from Bezos, Musk, even Trump.
>
> Do those three care at all, if they have the means of production to provide everything they want?
The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
>
> > Without some form of UBI, the entire global economy will come crashing down, including paper wealth like stocks and bitcoin.
>
> There will still be the same amount of land to occupy, there will still be the goods their machines make for them.
>
> What problem do the rich have in this situation? What do they want, that they cannot get, if the masses are impoverished or dead?
The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 18 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,243
@previous (xx)
> > If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
>
> The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
The market is always changing. If normal people don't have money, and only billionaires do, then businesses will adapt to serve the needs of the people with money or they will go out of business.
Tesla will make fewer cars, and instead make robots to sell to other billionaires, or have those robots perform labor on their own. Have the robots pull the raw materials out, make the products you want, and perform the services that you desire.
Most trade will happen between the rich.
> The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
I'll ask again then, how does this hurt Elon?
Anything he needs, he can get. Why does he care if he can make people cars at that point?
> The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
100% disagree, you are ignoring why they want profit and treating it like an end in itself.
People form businesses, and seek profits, because profits buy them goods. If they can get the goods directly, they've achieved their goals with fewer steps.
> > If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
>
> The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
The market is always changing. If normal people don't have money, and only billionaires do, then businesses will adapt to serve the needs of the people with money or they will go out of business.
Tesla will make fewer cars, and instead make robots to sell to other billionaires, or have those robots perform labor on their own. Have the robots pull the raw materials out, make the products you want, and perform the services that you desire.
Most trade will happen between the rich.
> The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
I'll ask again then, how does this hurt Elon?
Anything he needs, he can get. Why does he care if he can make people cars at that point?
> The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
100% disagree, you are ignoring why they want profit and treating it like an end in itself.
People form businesses, and seek profits, because profits buy them goods. If they can get the goods directly, they've achieved their goals with fewer steps.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,246
@1,335,229 (B)
I ain't reading all that shit but you're delusional if you think that some rich guy can just start blowing people up and get away with it. If robots take all the jobs and the government doesn't address it because of corruption, it will inevitably end with the government being overthrown by another one that will. Political power is derived from the people.
I ain't reading all that shit but you're delusional if you think that some rich guy can just start blowing people up and get away with it. If robots take all the jobs and the government doesn't address it because of corruption, it will inevitably end with the government being overthrown by another one that will. Political power is derived from the people.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 19 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,249
@previous (C)
> I ain't reading all that shit but you're delusional if you think that some rich guy can just start blowing people up and get away with it.
We've already been over this, and that's an oversimplification of what I said. It was clarified here: @1,335,229 (B)
> If robots take all the jobs and the government doesn't address it because of corruption, it will inevitably end with the government being overthrown by another one that will.
One government is backed by resources, technology, and advanced weaponry. One is backed by angry, resourceless peasants. The conflict will be quick and one-sided.
> Political power is derived from the people.
That would be nice, but no, it's backed by the ability to exert force.
The fact that you don't understand why people seek out profits, and explicitly said they don't care about getting goods, reveals how little you understand about the nature of business.
> I ain't reading all that shit but you're delusional if you think that some rich guy can just start blowing people up and get away with it.
We've already been over this, and that's an oversimplification of what I said. It was clarified here: @1,335,229 (B)
> If robots take all the jobs and the government doesn't address it because of corruption, it will inevitably end with the government being overthrown by another one that will.
One government is backed by resources, technology, and advanced weaponry. One is backed by angry, resourceless peasants. The conflict will be quick and one-sided.
> Political power is derived from the people.
That would be nice, but no, it's backed by the ability to exert force.
The fact that you don't understand why people seek out profits, and explicitly said they don't care about getting goods, reveals how little you understand about the nature of business.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 53 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,274
@previous (B)
I think you have a strange idea of how countries work, but I can assure you that if AI replaced the entire human workforce and people were literally starving it would cause an outrage, and if the government said LOL TOUGH TITS then that government would be toppled. No matter how many advanced missiles the army has.
(By the way, the army would refuse any unlawful orders to murder civilians, and even if they don't then it's been proven over and over that they cannot win against a guerilla insurgency).
I think you have a strange idea of how countries work, but I can assure you that if AI replaced the entire human workforce and people were literally starving it would cause an outrage, and if the government said LOL TOUGH TITS then that government would be toppled. No matter how many advanced missiles the army has.
(By the way, the army would refuse any unlawful orders to murder civilians, and even if they don't then it's been proven over and over that they cannot win against a guerilla insurgency).
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 8 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,276
@previous (C)
> I think you have a strange idea of how countries work, but I can assure you that if AI replaced the entire human workforce and people were literally starving it would cause an outrage, and if the government said LOL TOUGH TITS then that government would be toppled. No matter how many advanced missiles the army has.
We already live in a world where 8 people own more than half of the world's population, so why hasn't this already been done?
Explain how millions of unemployed people fight against this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
This doesn't even account for humanoid bots owned by corps that can aid their side.
Saying "I can assure you" isn't an argument, it's what you say when you can't think of any argument.
>
> (By the way, the army would refuse any unlawful orders to murder civilians, and even if they don't then it's been proven over and over that they cannot win against a guerilla insurgency).
The military is already working to automate pilots, and the Ukraine war shows how a few drone operators are much more effective than masses of half-trained soldiers.
They won't need humans to be loyal, they will have obedient bots. Not that patriotism trumps paychecks in any authoritarian country today anyway.
> I think you have a strange idea of how countries work, but I can assure you that if AI replaced the entire human workforce and people were literally starving it would cause an outrage, and if the government said LOL TOUGH TITS then that government would be toppled. No matter how many advanced missiles the army has.
We already live in a world where 8 people own more than half of the world's population, so why hasn't this already been done?
Explain how millions of unemployed people fight against this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HipTO_7mUOw
This doesn't even account for humanoid bots owned by corps that can aid their side.
Saying "I can assure you" isn't an argument, it's what you say when you can't think of any argument.
>
> (By the way, the army would refuse any unlawful orders to murder civilians, and even if they don't then it's been proven over and over that they cannot win against a guerilla insurgency).
The military is already working to automate pilots, and the Ukraine war shows how a few drone operators are much more effective than masses of half-trained soldiers.
They won't need humans to be loyal, they will have obedient bots. Not that patriotism trumps paychecks in any authoritarian country today anyway.
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,277
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,279
@previous (C)
Can you, for once, explain why nothing you said has come true in a world that is already an oligarchy with extreme inequality?
Why don't the masses of people living on $2 a day overthrow those 8 people?
Can you, for once, explain why nothing you said has come true in a world that is already an oligarchy with extreme inequality?
Why don't the masses of people living on $2 a day overthrow those 8 people?
xx replied with this 1 year ago, 22 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,283
@1,335,243 (B)
> > > If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
> >
> > The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
>
> The market is always changing. If normal people don't have money, and only billionaires do, then businesses will adapt to serve the needs of the people with money or they will go out of business.
>
> Tesla will make fewer cars, and instead make robots to sell to other billionaires, or have those robots perform labor on their own. Have the robots pull the raw materials out, make the products you want, and perform the services that you desire.
>
> Most trade will happen between the rich.
>
> > The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
>
> I'll ask again then, how does this hurt Elon?
>
> Anything he needs, he can get. Why does he care if he can make people cars at that point?
>
> > The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
>
> 100% disagree, you are ignoring why they want profit and treating it like an end in itself.
>
> People form businesses, and seek profits, because profits buy them goods. If they can get the goods directly, they've achieved their goals with fewer steps.
You're missing the point. Musk and Bezos can already obtain any goods they want. Its not about goods for them.
> > > If customers have no money, why should they care at all about providing for them?
> >
> > The business owners dont care, but who will pay them money if no one has any income? For example, Tesla sells cars mainly not to billionaires but to average people who can't even afford to pay cash currently for the vehicles. If all of Tesla's customer base is out of work, Tesla will sell almost no cars, the stock will crash, and Musk's net worth will fall dramatically along with the value of Tesla. Same for Bezos, if the majority of people have no income, they are not going to be able to pay for Prime or anything else Amazon sells
>
> The market is always changing. If normal people don't have money, and only billionaires do, then businesses will adapt to serve the needs of the people with money or they will go out of business.
>
> Tesla will make fewer cars, and instead make robots to sell to other billionaires, or have those robots perform labor on their own. Have the robots pull the raw materials out, make the products you want, and perform the services that you desire.
>
> Most trade will happen between the rich.
>
> > The super rich don't care about ordinary people, but they are not motivated only by satisfying their own needs. Owning a company like Tesla is meaningless if no one can afford to buy Tesla cars.
>
> I'll ask again then, how does this hurt Elon?
>
> Anything he needs, he can get. Why does he care if he can make people cars at that point?
>
> > The rich don't want goods they want PROFIT. But there is only profit if you can find someone to pay you more for something than what it cost you.
>
> 100% disagree, you are ignoring why they want profit and treating it like an end in itself.
>
> People form businesses, and seek profits, because profits buy them goods. If they can get the goods directly, they've achieved their goals with fewer steps.
You're missing the point. Musk and Bezos can already obtain any goods they want. Its not about goods for them.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 20 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,286
@previous (xx)
Once you get to a certain level of wealth, it's about crafting a world in the way you want.
We could have a world that is better off, but only if that's the whim of those billionaires, not because "political power is derived from the people".
There are cases of rich philanthropists, and also cases of genocidal tyrants. Neither is guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that these decisions will ultimately be made by those with capital.
Once you get to a certain level of wealth, it's about crafting a world in the way you want.
We could have a world that is better off, but only if that's the whim of those billionaires, not because "political power is derived from the people".
There are cases of rich philanthropists, and also cases of genocidal tyrants. Neither is guaranteed. What is guaranteed is that these decisions will ultimately be made by those with capital.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 26 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,293
@1,335,279 (B)
Because we live in a world of nations, not a one world government. Nobody in a first world country is on $2 a day and if it started then you would start to see the outrage.
Because we live in a world of nations, not a one world government. Nobody in a first world country is on $2 a day and if it started then you would start to see the outrage.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,294
@previous (C)
Why should a billions of poor people care about national lines drawn on a map if they are bloodthirsty and ready to win their rights and material gains?
We will also have two nations if a fascist coup controls the old US government, and a democrat government of the people opposes it. Surely the masses won't shrug their shoulders and give up because territory they want is held by a different nation.
Either the poor have the means to overthrow a small group of people, or the small group of people has the means to maintain their power. Nationalism doesn't really factor into who has the means to enforce their will.
Why should a billions of poor people care about national lines drawn on a map if they are bloodthirsty and ready to win their rights and material gains?
We will also have two nations if a fascist coup controls the old US government, and a democrat government of the people opposes it. Surely the masses won't shrug their shoulders and give up because territory they want is held by a different nation.
Either the poor have the means to overthrow a small group of people, or the small group of people has the means to maintain their power. Nationalism doesn't really factor into who has the means to enforce their will.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 18 minutes later, 21 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,297
@previous (B)
I'm obviously talking about a European country or America, not somewhere in Africa. You're just being obtuse because you're embarrassed I called out your retarded cyberpunk fantasy.
I'm obviously talking about a European country or America, not somewhere in Africa. You're just being obtuse because you're embarrassed I called out your retarded cyberpunk fantasy.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later, 22 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,300
@previous (C)
It's not a fantasy, drones are being used to make one operator more effective than 100 soldiers in Ukraine today.
The US/EU also has high inequality, and a government that ignores the wishes of the people already. The trend has already been more inequality, that isn't suddenly going to reverse one day.
It's not a fantasy, drones are being used to make one operator more effective than 100 soldiers in Ukraine today.
The US/EU also has high inequality, and a government that ignores the wishes of the people already. The trend has already been more inequality, that isn't suddenly going to reverse one day.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,322
@previous (B)
You're all over the place. Are we back to the "billionaires can deploy fleets of drones to protect themselves"?
Nobody in the US/EU is struggling for work or subsistence to the point there is mass starvation and poverty. If you are able to remain stable for long enough, please try to keep in mind the scenario is "AI is going to replace the entire workforce".
If we are in a scenario where 90% of people are unemployed and the official advice from a corrupt government in league with trillionaires who freely break the law to murder protesters with military weapons, there would be a revolution.
You're all over the place. Are we back to the "billionaires can deploy fleets of drones to protect themselves"?
Nobody in the US/EU is struggling for work or subsistence to the point there is mass starvation and poverty. If you are able to remain stable for long enough, please try to keep in mind the scenario is "AI is going to replace the entire workforce".
If we are in a scenario where 90% of people are unemployed and the official advice from a corrupt government in league with trillionaires who freely break the law to murder protesters with military weapons, there would be a revolution.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 5 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,327
@previous (C)
> You're all over the place. Are we back to the "billionaires can deploy fleets of drones to protect themselves"?
That's one way a billionaire can use violence, but not the only way.
> Nobody in the US/EU is struggling for work or subsistence to the point there is mass starvation and poverty. If you are able to remain stable for long enough, please try to keep in mind the scenario is "AI is going to replace the entire workforce".
Inequality has been rising in both regions, that's the trend.
> If we are in a scenario where 90% of people are unemployed and the official advice from a corrupt government in league with trillionaires who freely break the law to murder protesters with military weapons, there would be a revolution.
Revolutions don't always work, especially when power is skewed so much.
> You're all over the place. Are we back to the "billionaires can deploy fleets of drones to protect themselves"?
That's one way a billionaire can use violence, but not the only way.
> Nobody in the US/EU is struggling for work or subsistence to the point there is mass starvation and poverty. If you are able to remain stable for long enough, please try to keep in mind the scenario is "AI is going to replace the entire workforce".
Inequality has been rising in both regions, that's the trend.
> If we are in a scenario where 90% of people are unemployed and the official advice from a corrupt government in league with trillionaires who freely break the law to murder protesters with military weapons, there would be a revolution.
Revolutions don't always work, especially when power is skewed so much.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 9 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,334
@previous (B)
It's like talking to a brick wall with you, argue-chan. Maybe there are other ways, but that's the way you've said it will happen. And now because revolutions don't always work, that means they don't exist? Because inequality is rising today, that is equivalent to the hypothetical 90% unemployment scenario? No, obviously not.
It's like talking to a brick wall with you, argue-chan. Maybe there are other ways, but that's the way you've said it will happen. And now because revolutions don't always work, that means they don't exist? Because inequality is rising today, that is equivalent to the hypothetical 90% unemployment scenario? No, obviously not.
(Edited 42 seconds later.)
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,339
@previous (C)
> It's like talking to a brick wall with you
Did I ignore anything you said?
Drones are part of war, and humanoid robots are a fraction of the cost of meat.
Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
> It's like talking to a brick wall with you
Did I ignore anything you said?
Drones are part of war, and humanoid robots are a fraction of the cost of meat.
Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
(Edited 35 seconds later.)
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 12 minutes later, 23 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,343
@previous (B)
You wiggle like a snake.
> Drones are part of war
Irrelevant. If a rich man tries to go start a private war with civilians, he will be taken down by the state, which enforces the rule of law.
> Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
See what I mean, it's like talking to a brick wall. Mass poverty and unemployment will result in massive political upheaval, which if not addressed will inevitably result in the tearing down of the system and the establishment of a new one. It will likely end one way or another with a UBI, as I said from my very first reply. Robot manufacturing and administration does not take away the mandate of the People, from whom all political power is derived. This mandate is not dependent on people having jobs. You claim that people will give up that power and go into ghettoes, and billionaires will use drone warfare to murder people who don't. That scenario will simply not happen.
You wiggle like a snake.
> Drones are part of war
Irrelevant. If a rich man tries to go start a private war with civilians, he will be taken down by the state, which enforces the rule of law.
> Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
See what I mean, it's like talking to a brick wall. Mass poverty and unemployment will result in massive political upheaval, which if not addressed will inevitably result in the tearing down of the system and the establishment of a new one. It will likely end one way or another with a UBI, as I said from my very first reply. Robot manufacturing and administration does not take away the mandate of the People, from whom all political power is derived. This mandate is not dependent on people having jobs. You claim that people will give up that power and go into ghettoes, and billionaires will use drone warfare to murder people who don't. That scenario will simply not happen.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 34 minutes later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,347
@previous (C)
> >Drones are part of war
>
> Irrelevant. If a rich man tries to go start a private war with civilians, he will be taken down by the state, which enforces the rule of law.
Didn't we already talk about a fascist coup? When the billionaires control the government it won't be that simple.
>
> >Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
>
> See what I mean, it's like talking to a brick wall.
Then say whatever you feel I ignored.
> Mass poverty and unemployment will result in massive political upheaval, which if not addressed will inevitably result in the tearing down of the system and the establishment of a new one.
Why would anyone care what those people want when they have lost their ability to produce an income?
> It will likely end one way or another with a UBI, as I said from my very first reply.
Who would fund it? After the fascists are in charge, they would give corporations and the rich what they want.
> Robot manufacturing and administration does not take away the mandate of the People, from whom all political power is derived.
The mandate of the people is an idea, and wars are decided by weapons.
At one time, when humans had leverage from their labor, their opinions (especially en masse as a political mandate) mattered. That's why democracies provided a useful framework.
After they lose their leverage as laborers and fighters, counting their votes has no real meaning.
> This mandate is not dependent on people having jobs.
It always has. If the workers form their own society, they will have the wealth. If the wealth is created by machines owned by the rich, it's only their opinions that really matter. Democracy can be ignored.
> You claim that people will give up that power and go into ghettoes
No, I never claimed they would give up that power. I claimed they would simply lose it, as the trend has been going.
They will not be able to afford homes, as is happening now, because they have no leverage to demand land.
> and billionaires will use drone warfare to murder people who don't. That scenario will simply not happen.
Drones are already used in wars. If necessary, police could adopt them to enforce order. Or security corps or gangs outside the law could utilize them to fulfill contracts put out by the rich.
> >Drones are part of war
>
> Irrelevant. If a rich man tries to go start a private war with civilians, he will be taken down by the state, which enforces the rule of law.
Didn't we already talk about a fascist coup? When the billionaires control the government it won't be that simple.
>
> >Revolutions exist, but they win when they have more power than their opponent. Every job has been automated, rollout is in process now. Why do you think humans have some guarantee to maintain what they have now?
>
> See what I mean, it's like talking to a brick wall.
Then say whatever you feel I ignored.
> Mass poverty and unemployment will result in massive political upheaval, which if not addressed will inevitably result in the tearing down of the system and the establishment of a new one.
Why would anyone care what those people want when they have lost their ability to produce an income?
> It will likely end one way or another with a UBI, as I said from my very first reply.
Who would fund it? After the fascists are in charge, they would give corporations and the rich what they want.
> Robot manufacturing and administration does not take away the mandate of the People, from whom all political power is derived.
The mandate of the people is an idea, and wars are decided by weapons.
At one time, when humans had leverage from their labor, their opinions (especially en masse as a political mandate) mattered. That's why democracies provided a useful framework.
After they lose their leverage as laborers and fighters, counting their votes has no real meaning.
> This mandate is not dependent on people having jobs.
It always has. If the workers form their own society, they will have the wealth. If the wealth is created by machines owned by the rich, it's only their opinions that really matter. Democracy can be ignored.
> You claim that people will give up that power and go into ghettoes
No, I never claimed they would give up that power. I claimed they would simply lose it, as the trend has been going.
They will not be able to afford homes, as is happening now, because they have no leverage to demand land.
> and billionaires will use drone warfare to murder people who don't. That scenario will simply not happen.
Drones are already used in wars. If necessary, police could adopt them to enforce order. Or security corps or gangs outside the law could utilize them to fulfill contracts put out by the rich.
Anonymous C replied with this 1 year ago, 10 hours later, 1 day after the original post[^] [v] #1,335,417
Okay so in Bs mind:
- There is a fascist coup
- Those fascists in charge are then corrupted by businessmen (???)
- Those businessmen create a PMC and start attacking civilians with swarms of drones and killer robots
- The fascist president won't do anything because the businessmen pay them money (?????)
- People won't do anything because "nobody cares" and they can be ignored
- Ignoring 300 million rioters makes them go away
- Anonymous B is not a fool
- There is a fascist coup
- Those fascists in charge are then corrupted by businessmen (???)
- Those businessmen create a PMC and start attacking civilians with swarms of drones and killer robots
- The fascist president won't do anything because the businessmen pay them money (?????)
- People won't do anything because "nobody cares" and they can be ignored
- Ignoring 300 million rioters makes them go away
- Anonymous B is not a fool
(Edited 27 seconds later.)