> The key question is "For whom?" Because there are clear winners and losers as in any social fad.
Are there though? We are just at the front of the curve, if we look at the whole... what if AI destroys the underlying mechanics of exchange society, and we rely upon production that only occurs as a result of those mechanics for food, and by extension the disruption caused by AI causes this to fail, with everyone starving... where would the winners be if everyone ended up dying?
"There's only a small probability that an ignition would light the atmosphere on fire."
If only people treated AI with the same care.
> You shouldn't be engaging in a debate with that kind of person...
I agree. A debate requires that both participants follow certain principles. Play-acting on the other hand is where one pretends they are engaging in good faith, and then have a tantrum in reserve. It is the art of the toddler (and infantile).
> Are there though? We are just at the front of the curve, if we look at the whole... what if AI destroys the underlying mechanics of exchange society and we rely upon.
I fully agree that there are risks and the one you describe is quite real. However, there are important wrinkles which render campaigning against rushed AI impractical and possibly outright damaging for the cause.
For one, the presumptive winners define themselves as such because... they can! Power corrupts, good luck using persuasion to uncorrupt it. In other words, they'll take their chances, hide in their bunkers, etc. Human nature hasn't changed in the last 100 years except for the worse.
Next, the problem with AI is just another step in the complicated relations between man and machine. In other words it's a political problem and there's history of successfully solving it by political means. The previous solutions involved workers rights and wider sharing of the fruits of productivity increases. It took some work to get it done and it can be done again despite the concerted efforts of the would be "winners" to prevent it and pull us back in the Gilded Age.
Except, this was just a temporary measure, and largely was rapidly undone through concerted effort from the Fed and its partner money-printers (following the abandonment of the sound dollar policy/petrodollar), along with the legislative repeal allowing stock buybacks, dark pool/PFOF takeover of the market, commodity warrant printing (money printing to suppress and yield farm differences), etc.
The can has been kicked down the road so many times, and as happens, eventually juggling all those up in the air causes multiple of them to drop at once and the dynamics of the resources needed to overcome become simply unavoidable.
Many believe that we'll simply fall back into a Gilded Age, but Socio-economic collapse with an immediate malthusian reversion following Catton's updated model is far more likely.
Are there though? We are just at the front of the curve, if we look at the whole... what if AI destroys the underlying mechanics of exchange society, and we rely upon production that only occurs as a result of those mechanics for food, and by extension the disruption caused by AI causes this to fail, with everyone starving... where would the winners be if everyone ended up dying?
"There's only a small probability that an ignition would light the atmosphere on fire."
If only people treated AI with the same care.
> You shouldn't be engaging in a debate with that kind of person...
I agree. A debate requires that both participants follow certain principles. Play-acting on the other hand is where one pretends they are engaging in good faith, and then have a tantrum in reserve. It is the art of the toddler (and infantile).