The AI Threat Isn’t Skynet. It’s the End of the Middle Class

a reply to: soficrow


I'm a huge fan of Elon Musk - I don't necessarily take to heart everything he says as portending any near-term future - and it's for reasons like the aforementioned. He views things very logically.


But for us, you and I, our purposes, I think what is likely to happen is only a matter of a history lesson from as recently as 2007 (albeit there are others). When 'too big to fail' were keywords meant to signal some sort of change in thinking and with the hopes of a solid resolution. Fast forward 10 years, and here we are with almost nothing changed on as shaky ground as before.


We are a reactive community of people, the most litigious society on the planet, and we 'law' ourselves to death. I used to joke about my brother's wife that she was the Government in a pantsuit...her idea of addressing ANY problem that ever arose was (and this is satirical)
to "form a committee, to write a report, to figure out how to address the problem".


While Elon Musk and his visionary prophecy likely rings true, my sister-in-laws mentality will be what reigns supreme and things will be implemented that could have addressed it, far too late.

a reply to: soficrow

The response to this, falls within the lines of one of the two possible solutions I proposed. Give the workers the machines that are taking their jobs. A UBI doesn't necessarily have to pay out in dollars, it can pay out in revenue generating assets that support the workers. If 15% of the workforce disappears due to self driving cars, then it stands to reason to me that 15% of the workforce should own those self driving cars to support them.

For what it's worth, Bill Gates is thinking along the same lines as me and recently proposed the idea that machines pay the taxes/income for those who they displace.

originally posted by: Aazadan
a reply to: soficrow

If 15% of the workforce disappears due to self driving cars, then it stands to reason to me that 15% of the workforce should own those self driving cars to support them.

What about the upkeep of those machines? Cars are relatively simplistic with respect to upkeep, but other more complex machinery in factories and the like are more niche. Who becomes responsible for the upkeep of those? The (now) new owners of them?

For what it's worth, Bill Gates is thinking along the same lines as me and recently proposed the idea that machines pay the taxes/income for those who they displace.

Do you (we) really believe that a corporation whose intent it is to streamline their business, will now somehow miraculously be welcoming in to having to pay machinery raises to offset rising cost of living etc? Never mind the fact that now they are spending even more if they are paying them human wages + the power to run them. At this point, living humans are more cost effective.

originally posted by: alphabetaone
What about the upkeep of those machines? Cars are relatively simplistic with respect to upkeep, but other more complex machinery in factories and the like are more niche. Who becomes responsible for the upkeep of those? The (now) new owners of them?

When you automate jobs, you create a few new ones. Not as many as you had before, but a few. There would be people responsible for maintenance, until you could eventually get to the point where all machines repair each other. At that point I don't think anyone would be responsible, but that point is still well over 100 years away.

Do you (we) really believe that a corporation whose intent it is to streamline their business, will now somehow miraculously be welcoming in to having to pay machinery raises to offset rising cost of living etc? Never mind the fact that now they are spending even more if they are paying them human wages + the power to run them. At this point, living humans are more cost effective.

I don't think they'll have a choice. Robot vendors will have the option to lease/rent their machines rather than sell them, we've already seen a lot of software move to subscription models, I see no reason why other goods won't in the future as well. And even if they didn't, the software issue alone would be enough to stop a machine from working and force the business owner to rent rather than buy.

And no, humans are not more cost effective, even if you have recurring costs on the machinery. A machine might cost $2 or $3 an hour, a human, even at minimum wage is closer to $21/hour after wages, taxes, and insurance.

originally posted by: Aazadan

And no, humans are not more cost effective, even if you have recurring costs on the machinery. A machine might cost $2 or $3 an hour, a human, even at minimum wage is closer to $21/hour after wages, taxes, and insurance.

Well, not in the context to which I replied to you though. You had stated Bill Gates and yourself being on the same page. From what I read that you had typed, unless I misread it, is that "machines pay the taxes/income for those who they displace."

If they're paying the income for those they displace, then they're matching what was lost...that loss being the (averaged I assume) $21/hour + the cost to run the machine, with the upkeep still up in the air.

a reply to: alphabetaone

In such a scenario an individual would basically be an independent contractor that leases the machines they own. Or perhaps acting like a staffing agency, except they're staffing machines for the company rather than people. Then you provide the machines themselves through taxes raised on them.

It's pretty analogous to our current situation where the government provides education through taxes (machines through taxes), people supply labor to corporations (machines to corporations), and corporations pay a wage, which in turn gets taxed to buy the next round of machines.

It's eventually going to devolve into a model that resembles slave labor, but as long as machines aren't sentient, that won't be an issue.

a reply to: Aazadan

In theory, it's not a bad plan, to be perfectly honest. But then again, neither is purist communism (which this is very akin to).


With respect to sentient machines, it is truly only a matter of time and I think we all know that. My personal feelings on it (as they have been) is the only way to stave off a takeover by machine is for us to evolve into becoming one while retaining our humanity, such that it is.

a reply to: alphabetaone

The main difference is that the subsidies you give people are revenue generating assets rather than consumer goods. From those assets, people can establish their own basic income. The big downfall I see in such a plan is that, leaving these goods in private hands to make individual business decisions is ultimately going to result in some people making poor decisions and winding up with nothing and in need of more help. It's the same failure our current system has, though I think it would be reduced in scope.

I'm not quite sure how to address that. In any economic system, you end up with a situation where some people can and will lose big.

All that brain power and they can't grasp a simple fact; Automated employees don't go shopping....

This is a reason Europe is toying with the minimum income idea.

This is a reason I am encouraging my kids to get into careers a kiosk can't do.

The computer AI predictor system "Skynet" briefly introduced in the following short video has completed its war predictions. All possible moves by NATO forces and troops have been calculated and counter moves put in place.



NATO/EU unholy alliance of crusaders is doomed.

Sorry I can't seem to embed the link properly, for the previous post:

www.youtube.com...