Computer scientist and Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton doubled down on his warnings about how artificial intelligence will affect the labor market and the role of companies leading the charge.
GriffTheMiffed on
Yeah, obviously. That’s the whole commercial argument being made. Intelligence being replaced by something artificial.
And? Who is surprised by this stance? Is this anything other than “modern technology has commercial implications that are comensurate with its disruptive capacity?”
Practical-Salad-7887 on
“I’m sorry guys, but everyone has to die for the good of the economy. You understand, right?”
Tiptonite on
If people want better living standards, which needs cheaper goods – someone will be loosing their jobs.
We used to have 90%+ of the population working in farming, though the transition from that was at best very disruptive and exploitative.
Yawarete on
Some of us might starve, but that’s a sacrifice THEY’re willing to make!
andrew_kirfman on
They won’t even if we are replaced.
Humans get fired, they stop consuming, companies go bankrupt, companies stop using AI.
Idk how most of these corporations aren’t able to see the absolute economic death spiral that gets kicked off if they really start replacing people.
cecilmeyer on
And humanity cannot advance unless tec giants and oligarchs are replaced.
QuadraQ on
Well duh – the problem the AI “gurus” have been trying to solve is wages. They just can’t say that in public. That said humans are underrated and corporations will have to learn this the hard way, and that’s how the bubble bursts.
BitingArtist on
You really think our government is going to hand out checks to half the population? They will exterminate us.
FandomMenace on
When all the jobs are cut, all the former workers have starved to death, and efficiency is near 100%, no one will be left to buy the products they are selling. What’s the point?
I think Nate Soares (if anyone builds it, everyone dies) said it best when he asked how we’d feel about a private company with a nuclear problem. This is basically worse. There is a 25% chance this goes terribly wrong and we create skynet.
CrunchingTackle3000 on
Without wages, there’s no demand — so even infinite productive capacity becomes useless. You get a paradox: absolute abundance with zero consumption capacity. This is what Marx called the “crisis of overproduction,” amplified by automation.
r2k-in-the-vortex on
AI tech giants cant profit from their investments even if human labor is replaced.
They are investing as if the AI work would be priced equal to human work its replacing. No it wont, not even remotely close. It will be priced at whatever the lowest offer by competing AI provider is going to be. In most cases its going to be near zero. It is zero right now with everyone offering free service.
Yatta99 on
Imagine if AI gets good enough where a company can replace its CEO/BoD. Imagine all the savings from not having to pay bonuses, golden parachutes, or even investors (if it goes private). The game of Monopoly never ends well.
EscapeFacebook on
The issue (for them) is it not happening in the numbers they fantasized about.
nwbrown on
Remember that anyone who calls themself the “godfather of AI” can be safely disregarded. There have been many, many people who have make significant advances in AI. This is nothing but a cheap appeal to authority.
Gaudhand on
They’re building the future foundations of global Authority in every conceivable intellectual endeavor. It’s a very small investment to make for such power and absolute dominance.
The dignity of species means little in the pursuit of power. That’s the way it’s always been. The distinction now is that such efforts have the potential to be absolute.
My advice to everybody is align yourself with your community because when city states fall we are all that we have left. In the end, it’s the heart of mankind that will determine our future, not the authority of those being replaced by their creations.
16 Comments
From the article
Computer scientist and Nobel laureate Geoffrey Hinton doubled down on his warnings about how artificial intelligence will affect the labor market and the role of companies leading the charge.
Yeah, obviously. That’s the whole commercial argument being made. Intelligence being replaced by something artificial.
And? Who is surprised by this stance? Is this anything other than “modern technology has commercial implications that are comensurate with its disruptive capacity?”
“I’m sorry guys, but everyone has to die for the good of the economy. You understand, right?”
If people want better living standards, which needs cheaper goods – someone will be loosing their jobs.
We used to have 90%+ of the population working in farming, though the transition from that was at best very disruptive and exploitative.
Some of us might starve, but that’s a sacrifice THEY’re willing to make!
They won’t even if we are replaced.
Humans get fired, they stop consuming, companies go bankrupt, companies stop using AI.
Idk how most of these corporations aren’t able to see the absolute economic death spiral that gets kicked off if they really start replacing people.
And humanity cannot advance unless tec giants and oligarchs are replaced.
Well duh – the problem the AI “gurus” have been trying to solve is wages. They just can’t say that in public. That said humans are underrated and corporations will have to learn this the hard way, and that’s how the bubble bursts.
You really think our government is going to hand out checks to half the population? They will exterminate us.
When all the jobs are cut, all the former workers have starved to death, and efficiency is near 100%, no one will be left to buy the products they are selling. What’s the point?
I think Nate Soares (if anyone builds it, everyone dies) said it best when he asked how we’d feel about a private company with a nuclear problem. This is basically worse. There is a 25% chance this goes terribly wrong and we create skynet.
Without wages, there’s no demand — so even infinite productive capacity becomes useless. You get a paradox: absolute abundance with zero consumption capacity. This is what Marx called the “crisis of overproduction,” amplified by automation.
AI tech giants cant profit from their investments even if human labor is replaced.
They are investing as if the AI work would be priced equal to human work its replacing. No it wont, not even remotely close. It will be priced at whatever the lowest offer by competing AI provider is going to be. In most cases its going to be near zero. It is zero right now with everyone offering free service.
Imagine if AI gets good enough where a company can replace its CEO/BoD. Imagine all the savings from not having to pay bonuses, golden parachutes, or even investors (if it goes private). The game of Monopoly never ends well.
The issue (for them) is it not happening in the numbers they fantasized about.
Remember that anyone who calls themself the “godfather of AI” can be safely disregarded. There have been many, many people who have make significant advances in AI. This is nothing but a cheap appeal to authority.
They’re building the future foundations of global Authority in every conceivable intellectual endeavor. It’s a very small investment to make for such power and absolute dominance.
The dignity of species means little in the pursuit of power. That’s the way it’s always been. The distinction now is that such efforts have the potential to be absolute.
My advice to everybody is align yourself with your community because when city states fall we are all that we have left. In the end, it’s the heart of mankind that will determine our future, not the authority of those being replaced by their creations.