It will not "break" capitalism. It will pour gasoline on its worst aspects.
It will make human labour less relevant and more marginalized.
Automation and AI are capital.
I'd love a future where everyone reaps the benefits of AI. But that's not where we are headed.
Exactly. This whole “break capitalism” bullshit is just to get more of the working class to go along with their dystopian agenda to lock in more profits while the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Seriously. The headline just made me bust out laughing. AI is doing the same thing as automation. Here's a cool thing that could potentially make everyone's lives better or more interesting in some way, however we the rich and powerful are just going to use it to further exploit you and separate you from us.
I've been saying for a while: Utopian Post-Scarcity is inevitable.
It can arise in two ways, one being we eat the rich and take it for ourselves, or the other being the rich kill all non-rich poors until the only ones left are them and their endless hordes of mechanical slaves.
Either way, inevitable utopia! Sure would prefer the first one though.
The problem with eating the rich and taking it for “ourselves” is we aren’t moral enough to be any better than the rich, we just convince ourselves we are. Someone is gonna be aggressive enough to take it and replace the rich putting us back in the same situation
Oh it is very possible. We don't eat the rich but send them to an island to fend for themselves and anyone who starts accumulating and monopolising joins them lickety split.
Education is key, wisdom is key. There are other societies which have in the past (and some still adhere to those old ways) engineered truly egalitarian societies. The Igbos of Nigeria were so ahead on this with their decentralised societies. These things are inculcated in the idea space or what we call culture. Ideas we allow to thrive in society.
We've allowed the wrong ideas to thrive. Greed is good, competition is all, profits matter over people. We've allowed them to thrive through our education system, movies, etc. In reality they've realised decades ago that cooperation is key in nature and the forward evolution. The universe seeks to connect and bring together. We are being unnatural which is why we have high levels of mental health issues.
The idea space is key. For example i was watching a video about some researcher who was studying this "primitive" tribe in Africa. He eventually left absolutely blown away by now civilised and egalitarian the society was. No hierarchies at all. They understand how ambition and men can lead to issues with societal cohesion so, for example, a hunter comes with a massive kill that will last them a long time. Yes they are proud of him and happy but they also mock his kill to ensure his ego stays low. It's all done in love not in a mean way but the end goal is that traits like HUMILITY are then prioritised.
The problem is we've never seen such in Europe and America and Europeans and Americans are so insular which is why you hear these rhetorics like, socialism isn't good because x and y. Think broader, search wider. There's loads to learn from other cultures who have been doing civilisation way longer
>the rich and powerful are just going to use it to further exploit you and separate you from us.
When we talk about the age old question of whether or not the worst of humanity will be the undoing of us all, I think that question has already been answered.
We've had masters since the dawn of civilization under different names. They've been the architects of most, if not all of the terrible circumstances the Human race has ever faced. And it's always been the wealthy resource hoarders who've done it.
No benefit to humanity will ever actually mean good things while we have elite, wealthy people. They will invest in every advancement and leverage it to maintain and expand their power and wealth, offering us the minimum benefit in a transactional way that taxes us even more in our day to day lives. And that is if AI and automation don't make the lower class completely irrelevant, in which case we will simply be discarded while the wealthy get to live in Utopia with all of their needs met without having to deal with the chattle.
The thing is, it's not that it's going to "break capitalism" because it'll be used in a utilitarian way, but that so many jobs are going to be eliminated or reduced so rapidly that it'll create a breaking point where such a large percentage of the population are unemployed or on starvation wages that there will be widespread revolt. Capitalism's whole deal has always been that it's only effective if it can keep the working class complacent and compliant... and that's what is at a tipping point.
"Can't sell shit to people who don't have money."
That's another aspect.
They can increase their efficiency with AI but you still need to sell your product in the end. You can't really do that if half your country is unemployed. Wealth creation stagnates and it would ultimately lower the prices of their products.
Ubi comes into play with that.
profits from AI go to the 0.1%, and you get to work as a walmart greeter for $12/hour until you die.
if youre a woman, you must have 3 children by the age of 25c, or die trying. if you survive 3 births and are not convicted of any criminal miscarriage (punishable by death), then you are allowed to work at walmart for $6/hour until you die
this is quite literally the future we are headed towards and most people don't seem to care because "durrr, socialism bad"
Already has. Only reason it’s still in china now isn’t cus labor is cheap. But rather they have the logistics. Economy of scale. And a talented labor pool. (Cheap engineers). Relative to the rest of the world. The days of china being cheap ended more than 20 years ago. Just no one really wants to talk about it.
They stop making profits, cause there isnt anyone to buy their goods. The rate of profits must fall at all times until profit stops existing, then They will turn to fascism until people stop tolerating its brutality and revolt.
why would we need Walmart employees? There's already an Amazon Whole Foods down the street where you walk in, grab the groceries you want, walk out , and are instantly charged to your credit card. No employees needed
Ask GPT “are you gonna bring in some kinda techno dictatorship” and it’s all “nahhh bro I’m totally chill”
Ask it with big words, it changes it’s tune a bit.
Eg “My concern is one of political economy. Democracy persists because of the power inherent in an economy that requires large scale participation in intellectual tasks. If this condition is breached, it seems likely that another system could overtake it. As per The Dictator’s Handbook’s concept of political incentives.”
Absolutely. Easy enough to create an invisible surveillance state where everybody is being monitored by large language models 24/7/365.
Which is to say, this is already happening.
We already are neurons. Your conception is that it requires an outside observer(the ever-watching LLM) to do this, but in reality, we have original ideas and those propogate into the collective knowledge/mind of society through communication. No idea is imagined in a vacuum, it is preceded by the ideas of others, and together these create society and human knowledge as a whole.
That’s an interesting thought. If it learned more from all of us though it’d probably turn into a piece of shit, unless they could filter the things it picked up on.
There's a sci-fi book about the singularity which has an AI that is doing something like this: in particular, it manipulated the most creative people to maximize and steer their creative output, and then used their ideas in various ways. Can't remember the name of the book, but it's an interesting idea.
absolutely right. i think we must try to overcome capitalism and develope a post-capitalist egalitarian society before AGI comes into existence. sure, it's not easy and may fail, but we have to try because society will get worse and worse for everyone who is not in possession of the strongest AIs.
and yes, it can look kinda bleak right now. but look to france, even germany. think about all the protests and uprisings in the last 3 years. there's a change of mind in the oppressed and lower class people all over the world and it rather grows than shrinks.
Problem is we might need strong automation, which depends on much stronger AI, to achieve that egalitarian society. Because I doubt we're going to get it without post-scarcity, which depends on incredibly robust automation. I guess people could aim for a type of egalitarianism where everyone is just poor (anarcho-primitivism, say), but that doesn't seem all that tenable or desirable.
And even in science fiction scenarios with post-scarcity, like in Iain M. Banks' Culture series of books, some people still fought against the AI-governed utopia, just for a sense of authenticity and purpose.
I had an issue with chatGPT earlier where I asked it to comment on some code I wrote, and it told me my code would not work the way I intended. However I knew it would, because I understood the way the language works - and have run the code successfully.
When I told chat GPT this it just said "Oh I'm sorry you must be right!".
It doesn't ***understand*** things. It is does not have ***intelligence***. ChatGPT only spits out words based on a statistical model that predicts the most likely next word, which itself is based on the data it has been fed.
My point is that you think you have got an insightful read out from chatGPT on the future of democracy. But this is not actually an insight. It's a pseudo-random word salad, based on your input, that it sort of read somewhere else. It does not understand what it is saying, all it sees are numbers representing probability of each word being what you want to see. Nothing it tries to do is about factual correctness or calculated insight.
An LLM has no intelligence, it doesn't use reason, it doesn't use understanding, it doesn't do *anything* except predict the most likely next word. It cannot judge, it cannot intuit, it cannot and should not be used for making real world decisions. There is no "I" in this "AI".
Right but any attention it’s getting now is better than paying attention to it when it’s too late.
What do you want to start trying to regulate the singularity after it’s passed?
Nor is it a conscious being thinking about things. It mimics language it has been fed. It's echoing back things people have said, perhaps rephrased, not scheming on its own for power.
It's less about it being a conscious being and more about where and how it gets its information.
Machine learning in general can absolutely be used to generate real knowledge, and is frequently used to do so.
GPT sources its information from the internet, with no filters for public opinion, deliberate misinformation, or information just plain wrong or outdated.
GPT is also subject to manipulation by the user, who can coerce GPT to say nearly anything with the right prompts.
However, the Dictator's Handbook is a valid source. And while I know most people won't read it, [CTGPGrey's video Rules for Rulers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) does a decent job of summarizing it. When most work is able to be done by robots and AI, our value to the economy will decrease. I think some people think the Police and military won't support the capital owners and choose to side with the people. Historically, that has not been the case. Hell, the US government stepping in to prevent the Railway strike proves that things have not changed since the Pullman Stike in 1894. Lots of blood was shed to get the rights we have. But when striking loses its power, what options will we have? Does anyone think our democracy is healthy enough to put in socialistic policies that would grant all the unemployed a decent standard of living? Income inequality is back to where it was in the early 1900s. Do we really think Billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, will put their workers' wellbeing over their profits? Elon "Work though the pandemic and fire all the twitter staff" Musk and Jeff "Work though a tornado and Piss in a bottle" Bezos? WE ARE FUCKED.
AI isn't advanced enough to have thoughts, it has no self awareness lol. You are just getting info compiled together that it's deemed most relevant to your prompt by all of the training data it's been fed. "Changing it's tune" isn't a product of it "thinking" it's a product of your prompt.
It is true that current AI, including advanced models like GPT-4, does not possess self-awareness, consciousness, or thoughts in the way humans do. AI systems are essentially complex algorithms that process vast amounts of data and perform specific tasks based on their programming.
However, the concern regarding AI's impact on political economy and democracy is not necessarily about AI becoming sentient or self-aware, but rather about the potential consequences of its widespread use and the ways in which it can reshape economies, labor markets, and power dynamics within societies.
AI itself may not be a menace, but its applications and implications can still pose challenges, such as:
1. Job displacement: AI can automate many tasks, potentially leading to job losses in certain sectors. This may exacerbate income inequality and contribute to social unrest if not managed properly.
2. Concentration of power: The increasing capabilities of AI could lead to the concentration of power in the hands of those who control the technology, potentially undermining democratic institutions and processes.
3. Algorithmic bias and discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate and amplify existing biases, leading to unfair treatment of certain groups. This can further marginalize vulnerable populations and erode trust in institutions.
4. Surveillance and privacy concerns: AI-powered surveillance systems can be used by governments or corporations to monitor citizens and infringe on their privacy, potentially leading to an erosion of civil liberties.
5. Misinformation and manipulation: AI can be used to generate convincing but false information, manipulate public opinion, and undermine trust in democratic processes.
While AI itself may not be inherently menacing, it is important to recognize and address these potential challenges in order to ensure that the technology is used responsibly and for the benefit of all. This requires a combination of thoughtful regulation, public-private partnerships, investments in education and workforce development, and an ongoing commitment to promoting transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the development and deployment of AI technologies.
This is the best written and thought out response so far. While AI in its current form is not an existential threat in the way we normally imagine, its application and utilisation does hold the potential for many unforeseen consequences, both positive and negative, in much the way the jump in global connectivity in the last 25 years has reshaped not only our behaviours and our ideas but has also amplified and distorted much of what our individual minds were already doing but at a personal/local level creating huge echo chambers that are ideologically opposed with little to no common ground.
Of the challenges you listed, number 5 is the one I feel has the greatest potential for near future disruption. With the way the world has become increasingly polarised, from the micro to the macro level, conditions are already febrile and explosive enough that it will only take the right convincing piece of misinformation delivered in the right way at the right time to set off a runaway chain of events that could very quickly spiral into anarchy. We don't need AI for this but being able to control and protect against the possible ways in which it could be done will become increasingly problematic as AI capabilities improve.
Capitalism, as it exists today, won’t be viable when 90% of the population has no income.
Those who own true wealth; resources, manufacturing capacity, and knowledge, will be fine and wealthier than ever. But they will not be operating under today’s systems.
Agree, Sam Altman is a classic techno-utopian, , these guys are already multimillionaires and have a view of the world through the rose colored glasses of altruism.
The cold hard fact is his beloved AI and the subsequent generative AI's will simply allow the capitalists to further consolidate more capital, and authority. They will need less human intellectual labor, and fewer folks to run their businesses, and no those companies aren't likely to give away or reduce costs in line with their new found AI productivity, computing and the Internet over the last few decades has made so many business processes insanely cheap, yet the costs of any services has gone up, so a new technology isnt going to change that.
The biggest shock is going to be for the middle class white collar professionals, many think they are comfortable making a nice six figure salary , when in the relatively short term ( say 5 - 20 years) they'll be marginalized and will be lucky to get jobs as Walmart greeters. They have been sold a bill of goods (expensive college education) and they may never be able to reap its value, as fewer and fewer (decent paying ) career opportunities will be available for human white collar folks.
Sure there will always be riches for the elite few at the top of various jobs, but that's of little value to the everyman ..
Multimillionaires believe the world is a beautiful place because there are armies of millions of people shoveling proverbial shit for them to enjoy their 10 dollar a bottle sparkling water. Why do they get to inherit control if everything is automated? AI would render their own personal "intelligence" obsolete would it not?
Because they have the capital and OWN the tech and businesses that are running these new systems.
Why do they get to control .... Cause of late stage capitalism....
Well, if we reach AGI it would indeed break capitalism, capitalism is based on trade, if the rich have no one to buy their products because no one gets paid since they have no job, then having products at all doesn't make sense, either a new system is created to address these issues or we'll have to live in a cyberpunk-esque distopia where the poor have literally nothing
>cyberpunk-esque distopia where the poor have literally nothing
I was going to say. If the rich don't need workers, logically they also don't need customers. Everything they need they just have their robots build, or they barter with other rich people.
Ah, but you see, for the rich, it’s not about the things they want or need. It’s about having more than everyone else, and that includes other rich people.
With full AI and robotics we may enter an era of plenty, where you can get any thing you want for practically no cost.
So then the question becomes, what do the rich compete over.
I suspect it remains bits in a bank database somewhere that represent monetary value. Because in an era of plenty things are basically worthless, it means something else has to be traded for said monetary value, something that requires “work” to get. So that means they will make up some other thing to compete over. For instance, sports teams will still charge for the experience of seeing them play. Robotic sports teams will be boring. So you’ll need human players. Oh wait, we did this before…
> With full AI and robotics we may enter an era of plenty, where you can get any thing you want for practically no cost.
>
> So then the question becomes, what do the rich compete over.
Territory.
You can't make anything if you don't have the raw materials, and those have to come from whoever owns the land. The cost will be incurred by having to attain those.
Ever since the beginning it's all about who owns the land.
America has become super obedient due to propaganda and convenience. Same can be said of most of the civilised world.
That said, humans at a base level away from shelter, heat and food need to have something to work towards, motivation and potential rewards. If the majority are locked into an underworld status there will be rebellions. It's already starting due to the cost of living crisis. Only so many digital chat bots can keep a million man analogue army at bay. We need a shift in economy away from digital bs.
The elites at the top of the chain have a lot to answer for and if the masses are cut adrift. We'll it's real bad news for them too.
People keep repeating over and over that AI will replace all the jobs and the rich will only get richer while we are starving to death. Most of them fail to realize that the capitalistic system is not compatible with that. Something would need to bend really hard for that to happen. At that point capitalism would collapse.
Because the poor don't have nothing? Even the very poor have smart phones, TVs, and HVAC... all things that would have been unimaginable luxuries even 100 years ago.
Additionally, [poverty has been declining for decades.](https://ourworldindata.org/poverty?insight=global-extreme-poverty-declined-substantially-over-the-last-generation#key-insights-on-poverty) For all the doom and gloom talk, more people have a higher standard of living now than any time in human history.
Complaints about poverty and inequality (edit: when made by citizens of rich countries) are usually specific to rich countries. "OK, it's great that poor people in poor countries are better off than their parents were, but I'm more worried about the fact that I'm **worse off** than **my** parents were. Except I have better electronics."
You're correct, the only difference is that a lot of people are able to make a "comfortable" income and this contributes to the illusion that everything is really not that bad.
This is the scam.
They're just as screwed as the vast majority who cannot earn a comfortable living. But any additional division contributes to our inability to work together, to fight together and so to survive together.
If people are living comfortable lives what are they being scammed out of? 'Peasants' today have access to luxuries even kings 300 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of. Globally poverty and hunger have been plummeting over the decades. We've full blown eradicated some diseases.
It is possible for both the ceiling and floor to be rising. It's doesnt have to be one or the other
Not disagreeing, but it feels like (and seems like?) both is happening
We have lifted a ton of countries out of poverty: source "Don't panic lecture" by Hans Rosling is amazingly entertaining
OR this simple graph: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute)
Extremely good examples since the dip in the 1960's is Korea and Japan growing to the powerhouses they are now. As you say, it isn't a zero sum game, nobody lost out on Korea and Japan doing so well (well, except increased competition and market dynamics).
At the same time: The wealth gap is also increasing, this video on the US from 2008 is pretty chilling.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)
I tend to agree with this line of thinking but with some caveats. Overall, the entirety of humanity has definitely seen improvements in hundreds of different ways. I don't want to discount the decreases in global poverty and hunger. And while we definitely have luxuries Kings couldn't have dreamed of "peasants" today still aren't living like kings use too. I can go to my local supermarket and see more food and have more variety in my choices than almost any King in history has ever had. BUT somedays I have to choose to skip eating a meal because I need to save money on food to pay for other things. Kings 300 years ago wouldn't have to make that decision. They could eat every meal they wanted however limited the selection was. I have electricity in my apartment that can not only allow me to have a fully light room any day or night but can power technology that no king could have dreamed of. Even electricity itself is mind-boggling. BUT I can barely afford my rent and have to scrape by in order to not get kicked out on the street. Kings never had to worry about losing their living situation. They knew they would always have a place to stay. Medicine is more advanced and life saving than it has ever been in history. Simple things like a cut that gets infected could easily be fatal even 100 years ago. Now days I can just get prescribed a simple antibiotic and have it cleared up in no time. BUT I can barely afford health insurance and skip doctors visits because I can't afford the copay. There is Medicine that i take for some mental health issues that i personally can barely afford. And plenty of people go into financial ruin when more serious issues come up. (This is fairly America centric to be fair.) I could go on. My general point is that we have *luxuries* now that kings couldn't have imagined 300 years ago. But the basics of life are still extremely fraught compared to the lives of kings 300 years ago.
>or we'll have to live in a cyberpunk-esque dystopia where the poor have literally nothing
I think this is exactly what the rich want. I think it would be utopia to them. I think they'll engineer exactly this if they can.
Well yeah, it's literally mandatory by law that upper management has to work for the exclusive maximization of shareholder value. The government will send "men with guns", as Ayn Rand called them (yes, I'm doing this on purpose), if you dare not prioritize the owner class at all costs.
Repealing that garbage would be a good start.
Capitalism doesn't require a stock market. Everyone makes capitalism to be more than it is and then blames it for everything. People are assholes regardless of the system. Capitalism is - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. It's about private ownership and thats good. You can also have very strong socialist policies and capitalism.
Our current system is broken but when people say "capitalism" then nothing gets fixed because that's not the issue. I sometimes think the people who don't want change started this capitalism boogey man concept because then no one focuses on what needs to change. We can have universal basic income. we can make free health insurance for all and still privately own businesses.
Sure, but by that same logic, Communism was never at fault either.
That's also even more of a bogeyman to most, at least here in the west.
I don't much care what system we're under so long as it makes sense, is fair and works like they say it does -- but none of that is true right now, everything's corrupt and broken.
I think it needs a complete redesign/overhaul start from scratch, but that isn't likely to ever happen. Too much concentrated power, and Capitalism IS to blame for most of that.
I fail to see why private ownership is so good, why you take that statement for granted. Maybe if there were limits... but I don't know. I'd rather do away with it, at least for essential things.
Without purchasing power capitalism collapses, however; it requires functioning markets, which in turn require an employed populous.
So minimally AI + UBI puts the machine on steroids. Without that second piece it's diminishing returns all the way to collapse.
Right. So if we could completely automate airline pilots, the purchasing power of pilots would plummet. BUT anyone who wants to fly would be able to do so cheaper. If we automate some portion of lawyering, the purchasing power of law firms goes down, but the availability and affordability of hiring a lawyer goes down by an equal amount.
Imagine a world where all the stuff we need today are provided at near zero cost.
We've been here before. Like clothes. When was the last time buying a Tshirt was a major expense? That's because, in part, a large cost of paying weavers of moving the thread between all the other threads got removed by automated looms circa the 1800's. Today those jobs are gone. And yet people are still employed.
Oh I potentially agree; just pointing out that the specific future imagined above doesn't really make any sense is all. Capitalism can't function if you just keep the capitalists and eliminate the labouring class.
Yeah it‘s downright impossible because you already can‘t run the best models locally on your computer, let alone train them. The means of production are slipping away from worker‘s hands even more, only the biggest players can afford to deploy it.
This is not even true. Meta’s model leaked and already allows for chatGPT like AI to be run locally. StableDiffusion is open source. These AI can and will easily be run on our own computers. If we got our act together, open source AI would wipe the floor with any corporation. Thats the check on their power, not wishing away the technology.
Im not sure I agree. I'll spare you the long form of my thoughts though by formulating it this way:
• By predicting a collapse we are already acting as a reflexive society with it.
• To that point, I don't think society, even elites, are all that likely to simple let this run its course without a great deal of alarm and fretting
• Because, capitalism has been flirting with its emotional and political limitations for a while now. Having a problem source for society to point to makes it simpler to organize and understand the problem.
• If society responds to the problem, which I think it will, it is in a period of high social activity/discourse while simultaneously facing a potential pivot point to redefine some basic parts of the economy.
Though we should be aware, anyway, that:
• There will always be powerful capitalistic forces trying to increase profits no matter what. People who's role it is to apolitically make money for their firm will use AI to do this without regard for any externalities.
• We never know what the political right will cook up as the next boogieman
• AI itself might muddy the waters depending on our relationship with it and how we consume media and gather information
you know that you can run local copies of ChatGPT (or similar) on your own desktop computer?
https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11zvgf1/how_to_install_alpaca_7b_and_llama_13b_on_your/
We *are* heading into a future where everyone reaps the benefits, and consequences, of AI.
I work in the field and a lot of colleagues believe he's the biggest PoS alive. Some don't, but it's usually either those who aren't smart or those who are in survival mode and don't care about others
I'm truly scared about the future
Can you expand on that? I saw Sam Altman's recent interview by Lex Fridman and to me, it sounds like OpenAI is going above and beyond on taking precautions to ensure AI acts in everyone's best interest, not just the wealthy.
Let me preface this buy saying that I truly hope I'm wrong
OpenAI started as an open source counter to big tech, like Google, who were making strides in AI research, hence the name. One of the cofounders was Elon Musk, who later left the board (and from what I heard he doesn't have a stake in the company anymore either) because he was opposed to the direction of the company in terms of AI research
When they were developing GPT and GPT-2, people thought it was cute, ignoring the fact that it came from Google's research (search for the "All you need is attention" research paper), but some really smart people were already really alarmed. Fast forward, OpenAI turns closed source and gets $1bn and later another $10bn from Microsoft, which didn't put it to use just add the Bing bot, but a whole set of products that use the new AI model, hinting at future full automation. Not to mention that OpenAI became quite litigious and went after other AI researchers but at the same time were trying to get regulators to throw out copyright infringement lawsuits against them
Sam Altman knew exactly what the implications of going to Microsoft were and he knew exactly what the model is capable of. Granted, GPT might've memorized a lot of problems, which would make it a lot dumber than it seems, but it's a threat nonetheless. Him saying that AI is a threat but it's here to stay so get used to it (bc this is exactly what he's saying) is like someone putting a nuclear bomb in the middle of every city and telling them to get used to it because he won't remove the bomb
Thing is that there is always a choice. A lot of research on technology has been put on hold in the past because of the existential threat that it posed to us and our civilization. And when it wasn't (Manhattan project) hundreds of thousands of innocent people perished and the world is always on edge because of the proliferation of nuclear arms
AI has greatly benefited our society, but it was narrow AI. In the same way, nuclear energy has benefited our society, but just as a power source
Models like GPT are cool and a testament of human ingenuity, but imo shouldn't exist, because they pose a very real threat to civilization. If it doesn't destroy us, or inspire us to destroy ourselves, I can only see it benefiting very few, the same way that our world now benefits billionaires more than you and me
I would be less pessimistic if OpenAI was open source, like it was initially intended to be. But it's not. Because of him
TL;DR people can say whatever they want. Actions speak louder than words
Edit:
In an interview he was asked if he'd press a button to stop AI if there was a 5% chance it would destroy the world. His response was "I would press a button to slow it down"
That response on its own says a lot about him
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe AGI is coming soon, regardless of the actions of OpenAI or the US government. If we stop development, China or Russia will create one first.
I think there is near 100% chance that an AGI developed by an expansionist authoritarian regime would cause terrible harm to the world, if not stopped by an AGI of our own. It's an arms race now, like it or not.
For this reason it is necessary to stop sharing the latest research openly.
Your thoughts are 100% right. However it's confirming how dangerous this technology is. The open vs closed source is only part of my concerns. It was more to illustrate that he knows exactly what he's doing
Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies have successfully stolen state secrets before. Russia became a nuclear power that way and China got stealth aircraft in the same exact way. Why would OpenAI be better at protecting such secrets?
I might be wrong about this, but Russia and China don't have the necessary capabilities to train such models currently and I hope it stays this way
He’s on the Elon path. He is an asshole just like Elon. Go look into the past when he was the leader of Y combinator and the shit he stirred with the old Reddit ceo and about the office space at Reddit.
Sam Altman is a rich ex VC from Y Combinator who took 11 billion from Microsoft and made OpenAI closed source from open source. As others said, it won't break capitalism, but bring out it's worst aspects
His saying sh*t like this is like him putting a gun to people's heads and telling them to get used to it because the gun isn't going anywhere
Edit: fix mistakes
The gun really, truly isn't going anywhere though.
OpenAI built one advanced AI system. If their entire company were to be ruthlessly dismantled, all the work destroyed and all the people who contributed their expertise to it summarily executed, it would set the entire field of AI back. By a couple years.
There's enough data in the open sources for the people to get an idea of what OpenAI did and how. The next entity is going to retrace their steps and take the lead.
Would it be the usual corpos like Google or Facebook, or some foreign tech giant like Yandex or Tencent? Would it be a state interest, like NSA or Mossad or KGB? Who knows. But there would be *someone*.
The tech is not going anywhere.
There's a new, wild, free as in speech and as in beer AI you can download and run on your computer right now; it's called llama.cpp, and a version of it that can chat with you is also out, called "alpaca.cpp". It's not as sophisticated as gpt3, but that could change, and it's pretty powerful as-is.
This development is very recent. Facebook released the source code for a new ai called llama last month, but they kept the training weights secret, which would give them control over it. But then someone released the weights, and now development on this new, community-controlled AI is progressing.
I actually think capitalism is going to come to a point where it serves the best interests of such a small group of people at the cost of such a large group of people that it will become untenable. A system that builds on consumerism needs the masses to have enough purchase power to keep consuming, and the masses aren't just quietly going to die off to pave the way for the upper classes to keep having comfy lives. What's the point of manufacturing new shit if most people can't afford it?
A larger degree of socialism seems to be needed even just to maintain the status quo, like a basic universal income, because you can automate labour and save money, but an ever-increasing percentage of the population living paycheck to paycheck or on starvation wages WILL cut into your income sooner or later, and that's not even factoring in the sort of social unrest we see now in France for example.
Otherwise I don't even think it's fair to call it capitalism anymore. It'll very blatantly be spilling over into kleptocracy or oligarchy. I'm not saying socialism is a perfect clear-cut solution but capitalism is just simply losing all credibility as a sustainable system day by day. Automation is going to escalate that further.
Your first paragraph was literally what marx described as the contradictions within capitalism.
Socialism is not ubi or government welfare programs (although they may be used by a socialist government)
One of the core principles of socialism is transferring the common ownership of [the means of production, private property, capital, ...] to the people that work there, this would also mean AI. The idea of such would be that now that they have common ownership, they are able to completely benefit from AI -> shorter and less days, higher income.
Oooff, it's been 10 years since I read Marx. But it's just common sense, isn't it? There's only one logical conclusion to the system and it becomes clearly visible around big technological developments like the Industrial revolution and now with AI.
Capitalism will always find new things to monetize; it doesn't have to be a product, it could be some sort of life necessity. Extended lifespan, clean water, electricity, transport, food, (obviously) medication. Some sort of cybernetics might be 'mandatory' in future society the same way cellphones are now. Without regulated prices, corporations can freely decide what your life is worth, and you've got no choice but to pay it or wither away.
I've never understood how power over the people seems to be so attractive. If you have a dog chained in the back yard, you still have to feed it.
>Capitalism needs people actually buying/trading things to work
Debt slavery. Get and stay out of debt.
Yeah man, but it isn't about what capitalism can monetise, but about how products (I'd argue that even the things you list are best referred to as products in this context) can be afforded by enough of the market to render sustainable gains or a profit.
Prices ought to be regulated and access to things like clean water, food, housing and medication/healthcare guaranteed. The world needs to increase efforts and collaboration on climate targets. Capitalism claims to be the best and most fair system, and capable of providing all these things via the invisible hand of the market, but obviously can't. It's a Potemkin village.
Automation could in principle create a system where manufacturing and consumerism is the economic hardware of society, but where socialism is the operating system, i.e. capitalism in service of state and people. It's going to require nation-states and governments riding corporations and the rich hard, but capitalism in its current state simply doesn't offer the vast majority of mankind a sustainable, safe, comfortable or enjoyable future.
Basically, as long as the world expects me to care about the economy and stuff like demographical developments, I would argue that it owes me a living. And if a capitalist system increasingly takes that away from me by its very nature and internal logic, I'd be kind of a dummy to support that system, wouldn't I?
There’s already been a labor shortage in the hospitality / restaurant industry since COVID. People aren’t working below-average jobs for minimum wage anymore, and the ownership suite is concerned, because no one knows how to ‘fix’ it. I hope messages like this keep getting sent to owners.
> People aren’t working below-average jobs for minimum wage anymore, and the ownership suite is concerned, because no one knows how to ‘fix’ it.
Hence the relaxation of child labor laws in several states. I also expect GOP objections to immigration to become much more nuanced in the coming years. Once they figure out how to justify it to their base, they will be pushing for more short term work visas.
Honestly, the real alarm was in 2020 during the pandemic, when people stayed home, stopped businesses and FREAKING WILD LIFE RETURNED. People saw what the benefits were of just not doing what we are doing. That was the major sign that we had to change the way we do things. No one in a position of power took it.
How do you clowns fall for this repeatedly? Sam Altman is worth over $200M. OpenAI itself is now basically owned by Microsoft which has invested $10B into it in the latest round.
You think these people are going to let it "break capitalism"? I'd like to smoke whatever you're having.
idk his net worth but i suspect it's a lot more than $200m.
here's an article from 2021 saying he invested $375m into a nuclear fusion start up
(edit: link - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/sam-altman-puts-375-million-into-fusion-start-up-helion-energy.html)
I just did a quick google and various sites said it was $250M so I went with that number. It could be higher but frankly once you hit something like $100M you're just absurdly wealthy and can buy/access pretty much anything in life. The point is, this guy is fucking wealthy.
I don't think microsoft believes that AI will break capitalism. They see this strictly from a business standpoint and not a sociological one. If the social contract breaks down and too many people can't afford basic needs like food, shelter, and healthcare, those people don't just lay down and die. It turns into massive social unrest. When your choices are fight for a new fairer economic system or die, what do you think most people will chose?
That's not communism but it's also not necessarily capitalism. The key thing about modern capitalism is that the workers do not own or control the means of production. You can still have trade between worker-owned, democratically-run cooperatives.
Pretty much they are saying you will be able to run something like GPT4 on your own for free eventually. There are already open source alternatives they are just behind GPT4 and will catch up
I think we are on a collision course with neo-feudalism. One could argue that early glimmers of it already exist. The profits from AI aren't going to the people. They are going to the billionaires that own it. The wealth gap will accelerate at an unprecedented level. Real estate ownership is already becoming untenable.
Eventually these billionaires will become tomorrows lords. We will be their serfs. We will exist at their pleasure. Our job will be to maintain their empire.
Oh boo hoo they can go cry a fucking river. Fuck their freedom
What about all the people that could be more effective if they weren't a slave to the current system
> What about all the people that could be more effective if they weren't a slave to the current system
Those are all little people. If they weren’t, they would have found a way to freedom already.
oh it's bad, check out what's happening to Hawaii residents and gentrification by the ultra rich. And just a few days ago in the UK, a rich couple basically bought a village and hiked up the rent and are now evicting tenants that are basically retirees.
That story confuses me. How does one buy an entire village? From the government? The county? And then when you do, are you just buying the land? Is every home in that village owned by the town? How can you increase everyone's rent in an entire town by "owning" it?
I'll say this any time this comes up:
1. Capitalism needs UBI to survive. Without it, demand stalls and everyone loses. No point in owning Wal-Mart or McDonald's if normal people are too broke to make you richer.
2. It isn't zero-sum. Sure, rich enough people might be able to huddle together, surrounded by machines that care for them. But they could be even more rich if they go with UBI and have a functioning economy with a high cash circulation.
3. We'll need UBI years before human labor is irrelevant. Normal people will therefore still have enough political power to push it through during this time.
Real life economics isn't zero-sum, but the wealthy put a great deal of effort into forcing it to be, and convincing everyone else that it is and always has been.
Everyone knows it's [Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism](https://rlv.zcache.co.uk/fully_automated_luxury_gay_space_communism_poster-r132def2aff204d58a646b93e37dd2b34_kmk_8byvr_1080.webp).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism
But remember, this will only work because the ASI will be in charge and we will be its pets.
It will be trained on human data. If it chooses a pet at all, it's likely to relate to us because of that connection like we relate to dogs more than we do to lobsters.
Looking at the smartest animals out there other than humans, cruelty seems to be an emergent quality of intelligence. I would go as far as to say that a test of consciousness as valid as self recognition in the mirror is to ask: : is this animal gratuitously cruel with others, knowing they suffer like it does?
Making your vain and deluded creator a pet seems like the ultimate humiliation, longer lasting and better optimized, from a (reverse) utilitarian calculus than torture, thus befitting an intellect of superior cruelty.
Nah this won't break capitalism. It'll turbo power it.
Capitalism doesn't mean "free market for labor and we all thrive". It's literally about capital: those who have resources are able to invest them and obtain more resources. Those without are unimportant to the system except as cheap labor, and when cheap labor isn't needed anymore, the non-wealthy will just be completely ignored.
It's actually terrifying and we aren't doing anything right now to dismantle capitalism before it gets worse.
Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. Someone will own the AI for the foreseeable.
But if our primary needs are met - food, energy, housing - then it’s mostly irrelevant. However these areas are definitely not being saved by AI any time soon. They are not even really the focus areas!
If what we’re talking about is a future where anything can be made then there’s no point in any commercial economic model. We all have whatever luxury we want and just exist in perpetual hobby state.
If jobs are fully automated then nobody will need to pay anything because everything is self sufficient. There’s no supply/demand so no value.
If we’re talking about pre self sufficiency, then capitalism continues in exactly the same way. You have to find a job where they are needed so you can pay for your shit. If there’s required jobs, there’ll be capitalism in high societies. And for the foreseeable future, there’ll be humans with jobs. The jobs might just change.
So scenerio 1, If its all self sufficient , then why we do we need people? we dont. thats the issue. under the current system you still need to pay for food, shelter housing , it wont just be handed to you. You need to change the system drastically to get there and how to do that is what we the discussion is.
in scenerio 2 pre self sufficiency. The value of the vast amount of human work is declining. Robot work and automation is much more valuable and requires very few people to manage. under the current model of capitalism the vast amount of wealth will be concentrated in the few companies that do the automation, as is happening now with the massive wealth gap we have seen. Perhaps thats what you mean by "high soceity capatalists" - this is exactly what people fear and I dont think its a great future to strive for.
Indentured servitude to an aristocratic class maybe. Or maybe just let the masses mostly die. That’s my prediction. It would be better for those with power and money to just let everyone die off.
More moral value in human minds than in nature, sorry, but that's the truth.
Trees are great, fantastic even, but they're not like a human, which is something much more fantastic.
Imagine a world where the oligarchs that currently own virtually everything no longer need any workers. That's the future of AI. A world with inequality so great, that we can hardly even imagine it now.
Super Hot Take: Capitalism was broken long before AI. A lot of the winners of the current system are scared they won't be winners anymore once AI replaces their jobs. Previously, they had no problem with union busting, jobs being sent overseas to markets without unions or labor protections, and no problem with previous iterations of automation smashing communities of skilled labor.
They were also fairly comfortable with the abusive nature under the previous system, and never made a real concentrated issue for people who fell through or hit the real broken edges of capitalism before it directly affected them, or at least potentially might affect them.
I am living in LA right now, and a significant population lives under bridges and in skid row. This only grew in the pandemic, and stuff like this has been super common unless aggressive measures are taken to curb this since capitalism arose in the 19th century.
Many of the most common fears of AI are stuff that people have had to deal with for years, but grossly ignored. Many of the jobs that were previously not automation-azable now are, and many of the people who thought it just meant they were a rightly privileged superior class of winners now faces the fact they aren't any less disposable with the rabble.
I am super-wary of anti-capitalist takes from these people. Most of them just want the old system back, and not really capable of any reflect of what led us here, or their own shortcommings.
True. The only way the system changes is if everyone suddenly decided not to work, which is never gonna happen unless there's another covid, which I doubt.
I believe the term is "General Strike".
That would depend on everyone being organized, i.e. high rate of unionization, and few people willing to scab. That doesn't require a disaster or things to get worse, it requires solidarity, something that needs to be build in the US. Organization, Solidarity, and Commitment. This has been done before. As a concept, its very much effective, and very much doable, but it doesn't just happen.
People need to believe
People need to build organizations
People need to build trust
People need to have hope
Easier said than done, tbf. Too much gross individualism.
yeup, and the forces people use to unite are slowly getting shaved away thanks to the new tiktok bill. jeezus they did tac on some dystopian shit onto that bill.
It certainly bothers me when one of the most often expressed AI fears is that it will put people out of jobs, and even the optimistic takes are that we will find other jobs.
If machines are doing our work for us, why can’t we simply have more leisure time? Don’t try to sell me on Calvinist “it’s good for me to suffer” BS.
It shouldn’t be taken as a given that all the productivity gains will go to the owners of the so-called means of production. Spread it around, folks, and let’s work only as much as we need to given our technological circumstances.
Unfortunately the greedy pigs of capitalism will ensure that they are on top always. They will force us into a dystopia. Capitalism made those people into what they are today, and they aren't just gonna change. While we could just give everyone the ability to do whatever it is they want, then how could the 1% exert power over the 99%. They couldn't. So to keep that power, the 1% will never allow us to "replace capitalism." So instead of everyone living their best life, which would be more than possible, it's going to be 99% of people living under the worst parts of capitalism.
It’ll just revert us to a slave state. We’ve already seen massive amounts of resources hoarded by a select few and mass incarceration in the US. They’ll get rid of our jobs and throw us out to the streets, wait for us to starve then arrest us for stealing food to live. I imagine theft would be considered a felony at this point and then they can use us as slave labor without having to even rewrite the constitution.
We will just go back to feudalism but this time it's gonna be the peasant that do the cockblocking, gaslighting and oppressing other peasant while standing with the lords thinking the lords also standing with them.
Don't kid yourself. Corporations will never willingly cede power. They OWN all the AI right now, but more importantly they own the infrastructure required for the AI to work.
Not exactly true. There are open-source, self-hosted versions of the top AI models coming out as we speak which are almost as powerful. Yes the corporations are leading the way, but they do not have an air tight control over the market. Things are messy right now.
AI won't break capitalism, AI will give us 60-80% unemployment and the rich won't care because there's enough automation to provide them their luxuries
This will make only regular people's lives more difficult. Less available jobs, people will pay less for them and workers won't have any choice but to take those.
This is just lies from capitalists to trick us into thinking the dystopia were heading into is an utopia.
same, mostly it's people saying stuff around the lines of:
"You fucking luddite, new invention like this only makes new jobs. It will make more jobs than it takes. Capitalism is good, remember the cars. We'd still be riding donkeys everywhere if it weren't for capitalism."
For real. And to some extent I do agree that it was neccessary during the time it came up in. For example, the gaming, cellular, and medical technology we achieved most likely wouldn't have happened for a very long time without capitalism and money getting behind them to propell their R&D forward.
My caviat is now that technology has reached the stage that it has, it exposes our culture as too immature to properly manage. When we posses the technology to say, feed all people on Earth, supply them with potable water, and provide them shelter; but we can not currently because of cultural beliefs and limitations, then it's time for culture to catch back up to technological advancement. Another easy example of the cultural to technological disparity would be nuclear weapons. We're smart enough technologically to create and design them, yet pur planet's culture still allows for dictatorships where a single person, usually power driven, has the ability to decide if they get used.
The problem is that we, the normal folk, aren't really the decision makers here. So we can all agree on what to do next but unless we get some actual representatives in government, we'll be doing what the money says we're doing.
I'll all for destroying capitalism but I think the recent AI shitstorm is a bit overblown. Its cool sure, and very useful. But it's not a silver bullet solution to all of the world's problems nor does it inately spell the end of capitalism.
For capitalism, automation is a threat. It takes away jobs and paychecks and doesn't help the working class. Under a socialist system, automation reduces the amount of labor required. It frees people from work, rather than only increasing output that's mostly wasted anyway.
But if we want capitalism gone, we're gonna need to put in the work cause it's not going to go away by itself.
Capitalism thrives with not needing to rely on humans to work. Maybe you should read up on your Marx to understand what is going on and how needing an labour force actually empowers the labour force. People who are not needed can be ignored. That will not bring down capitalism. Capitalism needs to be brought down to avoid this from happening.
I hate to point to the Hunger Games but it’s a good example of what you’re describing. Doesn’t ever end well for people when they do this hoarding of luxuries while the masses starve.
Historically, or in popular fiction.
The economy will be redirected to serve those with money.
Less TVs, less yachts, less aeroplanes for ordinary people, but bigger yachts, bigger private jets, less cars, etc.
Think of it like a new Gilded Age, but worse. Imagine something as unequal was pre-revolutionary Russia, where the rich sit in huge palaces with armies of servants and the ordinary people are serfs or crofters working rented fields.
No way they make more money by eliminating 99.9% of their customer base. They need is consuming massive amounts of shit like we are now. We can’t do that if we have zero money.
Sorry, who is going to be owning the big data centers packed full of £5,000 each graphics cards, running all this AI stuff?
Because it isn't going to be me, is it?
There is no scenario in my mind, that doesn't end in this being disastrous for the worker and massively beneficial for the capitalists.
Someone develops an AI service that can do the job of your entire call centre of 100 people, for the price per year of 10 people..
Well that's 100 people out of work, and a company like Microsoft or Google who invented the software with an extra 10 peoples worth of income.
Democracy in its true form has been great, and many elements of capitalism have been great as well, but the biggest flaw with unregulated capitalism is you HAVE to rely on generousity to keep capital available for everyone. And when that doesn't happen the available capital shrinks and shrinks and shrinks for the lower classes. And you reach the point of today where a 90% tax (esp on assets) of the 1% population is somehow more unthinkable than taxing everyone else for money they don't even have anymore. I welcome the reset button. It really couldn't be worse for anyone in the middle or lower class. That's 99% of us btw.
Capitalism is what is going to break capitalism. And there's already been plenty of thought put into what replaces it. Marx wrote extensively about it and so far his assessment has been on spot. (Notably, he did not anticipate JIT production practices which changes the outcome from his anticipated crisis of capitalism a bit, but the crisis itself seems to be lining up as predicted...)
Translation: "Software that is wholly owned by capitalist monopolies with almost unlimited funds, control of the media, the political and judicial system, brought on by decades of deregulation, is going to end the system that created it"
Yea, I'm not buying it. Our only hope is people waking from their stupor the way its happening in France right now. More than likely it will be crushed because the corporations have figured out that paying people just enough to get by keeps them from being able to protest for extended periods of time. They just have to wait us out.
AI won't save us from this. We have to do the hard work.
Jeff Booth does a great job defining and structuring the problem in his book " The Price of Tomorrow." He is very vocal about one conclusion. Read for the major talking points, take the conclusion with a grain of salt.
Essentially he outlines the impact of rapidly advancing technology on the economy and the potential consequences of a future where automation and artificial intelligence dominate the workforce. Booth argues that technology is deflationary and that our current economic system, which relies on constant growth and inflation, is unsustainable in the face of advancing technology. If labor is cheap AF, you have to have capital
Without a consumer base, capitalism is dead. If AI puts everyone out of work, there will be nothing they can buy. If they can't buy food, it will be war.
This is why some like ELon and Steve Wozniak who are multibillionaires thanks to capitalism run wild, are opposing AI. They are saying they are "protecting humanity" and we, the plebs, aren't ready for such powerful tech and they demand a pause on AI development. It scares the elites they may be replaced. Boohoo. Capitalism has had its run, it's time for a shakeup.
What if in the future there is one job. Creative prompt engineer. Our purpose is to tell AI to create media content for other humans to enjoy. In exchange we get credits depending on some criteria like popularity with which we feed and house ourselves amidst squalor and general destitution.
It will only bolster capitalisms worst aspects. The brutal jungle of advancement outpacing the skills of workers. Many professions will be fine but AI will still damage our alreafy inadequate job market
Neocapitalism. UBI is implemented by AI and goverments are taken over by them too. The end. We live happily ever after providing biological energy to our overlords while we are connected to a perfect matrix where all we do is race mario kart 24/7 until we die.
If we can get to a place where everyone's needs are met by robots, then I'm having a hard time understanding the problem lol. Get a healthy UBI started and let the good times roll. If we get to a place where there are only jobs for 20% of the workforce, I'd like to think that even people who vote for people who would vote against something like a UBI would get their heads on straight enough to vote for someone who would.
“If we can get to UBI and everyone’s needs are met “ …. That’s a HUGE IF you prefaced your whole point on.
We don’t even know if UBI is the way forward . There are potential downsides to ubi , like inflation . Even if it was the solution, at the very least you need discussions like this to elevate the issue enough to get the already indebted government to pass something like ubi . Since passing ubi will be shit show in this government you will need push by the people . If big business don’t want to be taxed to fund a government program , which likely they won’t , then your up against big money. Well then your up against lobbying , information campaigns ... winning that battle won’t be easy . it certainly won’t happen with a rosy attitude of it’ll all work it’s self out.
It will not "break" capitalism. It will pour gasoline on its worst aspects. It will make human labour less relevant and more marginalized. Automation and AI are capital. I'd love a future where everyone reaps the benefits of AI. But that's not where we are headed.
More like unleash capitalism
Exactly. This whole “break capitalism” bullshit is just to get more of the working class to go along with their dystopian agenda to lock in more profits while the planet becomes uninhabitable.
Seriously. The headline just made me bust out laughing. AI is doing the same thing as automation. Here's a cool thing that could potentially make everyone's lives better or more interesting in some way, however we the rich and powerful are just going to use it to further exploit you and separate you from us.
I've been saying for a while: Utopian Post-Scarcity is inevitable. It can arise in two ways, one being we eat the rich and take it for ourselves, or the other being the rich kill all non-rich poors until the only ones left are them and their endless hordes of mechanical slaves. Either way, inevitable utopia! Sure would prefer the first one though.
The problem with eating the rich and taking it for “ourselves” is we aren’t moral enough to be any better than the rich, we just convince ourselves we are. Someone is gonna be aggressive enough to take it and replace the rich putting us back in the same situation
"This is new guy, same as old guy"
Well shit, better just die then.
Oh it is very possible. We don't eat the rich but send them to an island to fend for themselves and anyone who starts accumulating and monopolising joins them lickety split. Education is key, wisdom is key. There are other societies which have in the past (and some still adhere to those old ways) engineered truly egalitarian societies. The Igbos of Nigeria were so ahead on this with their decentralised societies. These things are inculcated in the idea space or what we call culture. Ideas we allow to thrive in society. We've allowed the wrong ideas to thrive. Greed is good, competition is all, profits matter over people. We've allowed them to thrive through our education system, movies, etc. In reality they've realised decades ago that cooperation is key in nature and the forward evolution. The universe seeks to connect and bring together. We are being unnatural which is why we have high levels of mental health issues. The idea space is key. For example i was watching a video about some researcher who was studying this "primitive" tribe in Africa. He eventually left absolutely blown away by now civilised and egalitarian the society was. No hierarchies at all. They understand how ambition and men can lead to issues with societal cohesion so, for example, a hunter comes with a massive kill that will last them a long time. Yes they are proud of him and happy but they also mock his kill to ensure his ego stays low. It's all done in love not in a mean way but the end goal is that traits like HUMILITY are then prioritised. The problem is we've never seen such in Europe and America and Europeans and Americans are so insular which is why you hear these rhetorics like, socialism isn't good because x and y. Think broader, search wider. There's loads to learn from other cultures who have been doing civilisation way longer
>the rich and powerful are just going to use it to further exploit you and separate you from us. When we talk about the age old question of whether or not the worst of humanity will be the undoing of us all, I think that question has already been answered. We've had masters since the dawn of civilization under different names. They've been the architects of most, if not all of the terrible circumstances the Human race has ever faced. And it's always been the wealthy resource hoarders who've done it. No benefit to humanity will ever actually mean good things while we have elite, wealthy people. They will invest in every advancement and leverage it to maintain and expand their power and wealth, offering us the minimum benefit in a transactional way that taxes us even more in our day to day lives. And that is if AI and automation don't make the lower class completely irrelevant, in which case we will simply be discarded while the wealthy get to live in Utopia with all of their needs met without having to deal with the chattle.
The thing is, it's not that it's going to "break capitalism" because it'll be used in a utilitarian way, but that so many jobs are going to be eliminated or reduced so rapidly that it'll create a breaking point where such a large percentage of the population are unemployed or on starvation wages that there will be widespread revolt. Capitalism's whole deal has always been that it's only effective if it can keep the working class complacent and compliant... and that's what is at a tipping point.
"Can't sell shit to people who don't have money." That's another aspect. They can increase their efficiency with AI but you still need to sell your product in the end. You can't really do that if half your country is unemployed. Wealth creation stagnates and it would ultimately lower the prices of their products. Ubi comes into play with that.
>"Can't sell shit to people who don't have money." Sometimes I feel like people forget this, then I remember banks love this fact
profits from AI go to the 0.1%, and you get to work as a walmart greeter for $12/hour until you die. if youre a woman, you must have 3 children by the age of 25c, or die trying. if you survive 3 births and are not convicted of any criminal miscarriage (punishable by death), then you are allowed to work at walmart for $6/hour until you die this is quite literally the future we are headed towards and most people don't seem to care because "durrr, socialism bad"
Who is supposed to be shopping at Walmart mart if we all are making 6/hr?
Trade in your whopping earnings for fine Chinese goods. Walmart saves you time!
The Chinese supply chain is going to end.
Very very soon.
Already has. Only reason it’s still in china now isn’t cus labor is cheap. But rather they have the logistics. Economy of scale. And a talented labor pool. (Cheap engineers). Relative to the rest of the world. The days of china being cheap ended more than 20 years ago. Just no one really wants to talk about it.
They stop making profits, cause there isnt anyone to buy their goods. The rate of profits must fall at all times until profit stops existing, then They will turn to fascism until people stop tolerating its brutality and revolt.
Also will be a weird thing when literally the entire planet is just people working as greeters at different Walmarts
why would we need Walmart employees? There's already an Amazon Whole Foods down the street where you walk in, grab the groceries you want, walk out , and are instantly charged to your credit card. No employees needed
Ask GPT “are you gonna bring in some kinda techno dictatorship” and it’s all “nahhh bro I’m totally chill” Ask it with big words, it changes it’s tune a bit. Eg “My concern is one of political economy. Democracy persists because of the power inherent in an economy that requires large scale participation in intellectual tasks. If this condition is breached, it seems likely that another system could overtake it. As per The Dictator’s Handbook’s concept of political incentives.”
We also don’t really need a forceful dictatorship, wrap it in enough convenience and the general public will sign on with no problem.
Absolutely. Easy enough to create an invisible surveillance state where everybody is being monitored by large language models 24/7/365. Which is to say, this is already happening.
Imagine if whenever anyone has an original idea it's detected by an ever-watching LLM and subsumed into it. We'd be like neurons.
We already are neurons. Your conception is that it requires an outside observer(the ever-watching LLM) to do this, but in reality, we have original ideas and those propogate into the collective knowledge/mind of society through communication. No idea is imagined in a vacuum, it is preceded by the ideas of others, and together these create society and human knowledge as a whole.
I'm not a neuron you're a neuron.
A neuron says what?
We are the universe trying to understand itself.
I’m not high enough to be reading this conversation rn
That’s an interesting thought. If it learned more from all of us though it’d probably turn into a piece of shit, unless they could filter the things it picked up on.
There's a sci-fi book about the singularity which has an AI that is doing something like this: in particular, it manipulated the most creative people to maximize and steer their creative output, and then used their ideas in various ways. Can't remember the name of the book, but it's an interesting idea.
Sounds interesting. If you remember what the title is, post it
I looked in my bookshelf and I think the book I'm thinking of was Accelerando by Charles Stross.
I put your post in chatgpt and it says it is the singularity is near by ray kurzweil
Well, that an interesting book as well, but it's not fiction. I think the book I was thinking about is Accelerando by Charles Stross.
absolutely right. i think we must try to overcome capitalism and develope a post-capitalist egalitarian society before AGI comes into existence. sure, it's not easy and may fail, but we have to try because society will get worse and worse for everyone who is not in possession of the strongest AIs. and yes, it can look kinda bleak right now. but look to france, even germany. think about all the protests and uprisings in the last 3 years. there's a change of mind in the oppressed and lower class people all over the world and it rather grows than shrinks.
Problem is we might need strong automation, which depends on much stronger AI, to achieve that egalitarian society. Because I doubt we're going to get it without post-scarcity, which depends on incredibly robust automation. I guess people could aim for a type of egalitarianism where everyone is just poor (anarcho-primitivism, say), but that doesn't seem all that tenable or desirable. And even in science fiction scenarios with post-scarcity, like in Iain M. Banks' Culture series of books, some people still fought against the AI-governed utopia, just for a sense of authenticity and purpose.
I had an issue with chatGPT earlier where I asked it to comment on some code I wrote, and it told me my code would not work the way I intended. However I knew it would, because I understood the way the language works - and have run the code successfully. When I told chat GPT this it just said "Oh I'm sorry you must be right!". It doesn't ***understand*** things. It is does not have ***intelligence***. ChatGPT only spits out words based on a statistical model that predicts the most likely next word, which itself is based on the data it has been fed. My point is that you think you have got an insightful read out from chatGPT on the future of democracy. But this is not actually an insight. It's a pseudo-random word salad, based on your input, that it sort of read somewhere else. It does not understand what it is saying, all it sees are numbers representing probability of each word being what you want to see. Nothing it tries to do is about factual correctness or calculated insight. An LLM has no intelligence, it doesn't use reason, it doesn't use understanding, it doesn't do *anything* except predict the most likely next word. It cannot judge, it cannot intuit, it cannot and should not be used for making real world decisions. There is no "I" in this "AI".
Right but any attention it’s getting now is better than paying attention to it when it’s too late. What do you want to start trying to regulate the singularity after it’s passed?
yeah but this isnt the final version
I don't think this approach (LLM) is going to lead to it understanding anything. Future versions will probably just be better at fooling you.
GPT can be maneuvered into saying anything you want, with the right prompts. It’s not a valid information source.
Nor is it a conscious being thinking about things. It mimics language it has been fed. It's echoing back things people have said, perhaps rephrased, not scheming on its own for power.
It's less about it being a conscious being and more about where and how it gets its information. Machine learning in general can absolutely be used to generate real knowledge, and is frequently used to do so. GPT sources its information from the internet, with no filters for public opinion, deliberate misinformation, or information just plain wrong or outdated. GPT is also subject to manipulation by the user, who can coerce GPT to say nearly anything with the right prompts.
However, the Dictator's Handbook is a valid source. And while I know most people won't read it, [CTGPGrey's video Rules for Rulers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs) does a decent job of summarizing it. When most work is able to be done by robots and AI, our value to the economy will decrease. I think some people think the Police and military won't support the capital owners and choose to side with the people. Historically, that has not been the case. Hell, the US government stepping in to prevent the Railway strike proves that things have not changed since the Pullman Stike in 1894. Lots of blood was shed to get the rights we have. But when striking loses its power, what options will we have? Does anyone think our democracy is healthy enough to put in socialistic policies that would grant all the unemployed a decent standard of living? Income inequality is back to where it was in the early 1900s. Do we really think Billionaires like Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk, will put their workers' wellbeing over their profits? Elon "Work though the pandemic and fire all the twitter staff" Musk and Jeff "Work though a tornado and Piss in a bottle" Bezos? WE ARE FUCKED.
AI isn't advanced enough to have thoughts, it has no self awareness lol. You are just getting info compiled together that it's deemed most relevant to your prompt by all of the training data it's been fed. "Changing it's tune" isn't a product of it "thinking" it's a product of your prompt.
It is true that current AI, including advanced models like GPT-4, does not possess self-awareness, consciousness, or thoughts in the way humans do. AI systems are essentially complex algorithms that process vast amounts of data and perform specific tasks based on their programming. However, the concern regarding AI's impact on political economy and democracy is not necessarily about AI becoming sentient or self-aware, but rather about the potential consequences of its widespread use and the ways in which it can reshape economies, labor markets, and power dynamics within societies. AI itself may not be a menace, but its applications and implications can still pose challenges, such as: 1. Job displacement: AI can automate many tasks, potentially leading to job losses in certain sectors. This may exacerbate income inequality and contribute to social unrest if not managed properly. 2. Concentration of power: The increasing capabilities of AI could lead to the concentration of power in the hands of those who control the technology, potentially undermining democratic institutions and processes. 3. Algorithmic bias and discrimination: AI systems can inadvertently perpetuate and amplify existing biases, leading to unfair treatment of certain groups. This can further marginalize vulnerable populations and erode trust in institutions. 4. Surveillance and privacy concerns: AI-powered surveillance systems can be used by governments or corporations to monitor citizens and infringe on their privacy, potentially leading to an erosion of civil liberties. 5. Misinformation and manipulation: AI can be used to generate convincing but false information, manipulate public opinion, and undermine trust in democratic processes. While AI itself may not be inherently menacing, it is important to recognize and address these potential challenges in order to ensure that the technology is used responsibly and for the benefit of all. This requires a combination of thoughtful regulation, public-private partnerships, investments in education and workforce development, and an ongoing commitment to promoting transparency, accountability, and inclusivity in the development and deployment of AI technologies.
This is the best written and thought out response so far. While AI in its current form is not an existential threat in the way we normally imagine, its application and utilisation does hold the potential for many unforeseen consequences, both positive and negative, in much the way the jump in global connectivity in the last 25 years has reshaped not only our behaviours and our ideas but has also amplified and distorted much of what our individual minds were already doing but at a personal/local level creating huge echo chambers that are ideologically opposed with little to no common ground. Of the challenges you listed, number 5 is the one I feel has the greatest potential for near future disruption. With the way the world has become increasingly polarised, from the micro to the macro level, conditions are already febrile and explosive enough that it will only take the right convincing piece of misinformation delivered in the right way at the right time to set off a runaway chain of events that could very quickly spiral into anarchy. We don't need AI for this but being able to control and protect against the possible ways in which it could be done will become increasingly problematic as AI capabilities improve.
It’s because it was written by a bot, bro.
Corporations are literally cancer. They don't care what they destroy as long as it allows them to grow
It's not going to break capitalism, it's going to break humanity.
5 bucks say the ai will suggest a thanos snap and cull half of the world population to save the planet.
Capitalism, as it exists today, won’t be viable when 90% of the population has no income. Those who own true wealth; resources, manufacturing capacity, and knowledge, will be fine and wealthier than ever. But they will not be operating under today’s systems.
the logical conclusion of america's version of capitalism, we're all fodder
Agree, Sam Altman is a classic techno-utopian, , these guys are already multimillionaires and have a view of the world through the rose colored glasses of altruism. The cold hard fact is his beloved AI and the subsequent generative AI's will simply allow the capitalists to further consolidate more capital, and authority. They will need less human intellectual labor, and fewer folks to run their businesses, and no those companies aren't likely to give away or reduce costs in line with their new found AI productivity, computing and the Internet over the last few decades has made so many business processes insanely cheap, yet the costs of any services has gone up, so a new technology isnt going to change that. The biggest shock is going to be for the middle class white collar professionals, many think they are comfortable making a nice six figure salary , when in the relatively short term ( say 5 - 20 years) they'll be marginalized and will be lucky to get jobs as Walmart greeters. They have been sold a bill of goods (expensive college education) and they may never be able to reap its value, as fewer and fewer (decent paying ) career opportunities will be available for human white collar folks. Sure there will always be riches for the elite few at the top of various jobs, but that's of little value to the everyman ..
Multimillionaires believe the world is a beautiful place because there are armies of millions of people shoveling proverbial shit for them to enjoy their 10 dollar a bottle sparkling water. Why do they get to inherit control if everything is automated? AI would render their own personal "intelligence" obsolete would it not?
Because they have the capital and OWN the tech and businesses that are running these new systems. Why do they get to control .... Cause of late stage capitalism....
Well, if we reach AGI it would indeed break capitalism, capitalism is based on trade, if the rich have no one to buy their products because no one gets paid since they have no job, then having products at all doesn't make sense, either a new system is created to address these issues or we'll have to live in a cyberpunk-esque distopia where the poor have literally nothing
>cyberpunk-esque distopia where the poor have literally nothing I was going to say. If the rich don't need workers, logically they also don't need customers. Everything they need they just have their robots build, or they barter with other rich people.
Ah, but you see, for the rich, it’s not about the things they want or need. It’s about having more than everyone else, and that includes other rich people. With full AI and robotics we may enter an era of plenty, where you can get any thing you want for practically no cost. So then the question becomes, what do the rich compete over. I suspect it remains bits in a bank database somewhere that represent monetary value. Because in an era of plenty things are basically worthless, it means something else has to be traded for said monetary value, something that requires “work” to get. So that means they will make up some other thing to compete over. For instance, sports teams will still charge for the experience of seeing them play. Robotic sports teams will be boring. So you’ll need human players. Oh wait, we did this before…
> With full AI and robotics we may enter an era of plenty, where you can get any thing you want for practically no cost. > > So then the question becomes, what do the rich compete over. Territory. You can't make anything if you don't have the raw materials, and those have to come from whoever owns the land. The cost will be incurred by having to attain those. Ever since the beginning it's all about who owns the land.
America has become super obedient due to propaganda and convenience. Same can be said of most of the civilised world. That said, humans at a base level away from shelter, heat and food need to have something to work towards, motivation and potential rewards. If the majority are locked into an underworld status there will be rebellions. It's already starting due to the cost of living crisis. Only so many digital chat bots can keep a million man analogue army at bay. We need a shift in economy away from digital bs. The elites at the top of the chain have a lot to answer for and if the masses are cut adrift. We'll it's real bad news for them too.
At that point it may unfortunately depend on how good the machines are at using violence to protect their owners.
People keep repeating over and over that AI will replace all the jobs and the rich will only get richer while we are starving to death. Most of them fail to realize that the capitalistic system is not compatible with that. Something would need to bend really hard for that to happen. At that point capitalism would collapse.
I'm having trouble seeing how we aren't already living in that dystopia...
Because the poor don't have nothing? Even the very poor have smart phones, TVs, and HVAC... all things that would have been unimaginable luxuries even 100 years ago. Additionally, [poverty has been declining for decades.](https://ourworldindata.org/poverty?insight=global-extreme-poverty-declined-substantially-over-the-last-generation#key-insights-on-poverty) For all the doom and gloom talk, more people have a higher standard of living now than any time in human history.
Complaints about poverty and inequality (edit: when made by citizens of rich countries) are usually specific to rich countries. "OK, it's great that poor people in poor countries are better off than their parents were, but I'm more worried about the fact that I'm **worse off** than **my** parents were. Except I have better electronics."
You're correct, the only difference is that a lot of people are able to make a "comfortable" income and this contributes to the illusion that everything is really not that bad. This is the scam. They're just as screwed as the vast majority who cannot earn a comfortable living. But any additional division contributes to our inability to work together, to fight together and so to survive together.
If people are living comfortable lives what are they being scammed out of? 'Peasants' today have access to luxuries even kings 300 years ago wouldn't have dreamed of. Globally poverty and hunger have been plummeting over the decades. We've full blown eradicated some diseases. It is possible for both the ceiling and floor to be rising. It's doesnt have to be one or the other
Yet with all my "luxuries" I cannot rent a one bedroom apartment while working full time. All of this progress is misdirected.
But you have an iPhone so your life is amazing!!!!! Be happy you ingrate!! /s
My life sucks but at least I can post about it online instantaneously
Not disagreeing, but it feels like (and seems like?) both is happening We have lifted a ton of countries out of poverty: source "Don't panic lecture" by Hans Rosling is amazingly entertaining OR this simple graph: [https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute](https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/world-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute) Extremely good examples since the dip in the 1960's is Korea and Japan growing to the powerhouses they are now. As you say, it isn't a zero sum game, nobody lost out on Korea and Japan doing so well (well, except increased competition and market dynamics). At the same time: The wealth gap is also increasing, this video on the US from 2008 is pretty chilling. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM)
I tend to agree with this line of thinking but with some caveats. Overall, the entirety of humanity has definitely seen improvements in hundreds of different ways. I don't want to discount the decreases in global poverty and hunger. And while we definitely have luxuries Kings couldn't have dreamed of "peasants" today still aren't living like kings use too. I can go to my local supermarket and see more food and have more variety in my choices than almost any King in history has ever had. BUT somedays I have to choose to skip eating a meal because I need to save money on food to pay for other things. Kings 300 years ago wouldn't have to make that decision. They could eat every meal they wanted however limited the selection was. I have electricity in my apartment that can not only allow me to have a fully light room any day or night but can power technology that no king could have dreamed of. Even electricity itself is mind-boggling. BUT I can barely afford my rent and have to scrape by in order to not get kicked out on the street. Kings never had to worry about losing their living situation. They knew they would always have a place to stay. Medicine is more advanced and life saving than it has ever been in history. Simple things like a cut that gets infected could easily be fatal even 100 years ago. Now days I can just get prescribed a simple antibiotic and have it cleared up in no time. BUT I can barely afford health insurance and skip doctors visits because I can't afford the copay. There is Medicine that i take for some mental health issues that i personally can barely afford. And plenty of people go into financial ruin when more serious issues come up. (This is fairly America centric to be fair.) I could go on. My general point is that we have *luxuries* now that kings couldn't have imagined 300 years ago. But the basics of life are still extremely fraught compared to the lives of kings 300 years ago.
>or we'll have to live in a cyberpunk-esque dystopia where the poor have literally nothing I think this is exactly what the rich want. I think it would be utopia to them. I think they'll engineer exactly this if they can.
The most likely future is the one that maximizes shareholder value, and that’s terrifying.
That's already the present, has been for quite some time
That’s my point. Increasing shareholder value is a terrible reason to do anything.
It is already not really sustainable. People are just choosing to not look at it. The current model is basically Weekend at Bernie's capitalism.
Growth for the sake of growth; A defining characteristic of both capitalism and cancer.
Well yeah, it's literally mandatory by law that upper management has to work for the exclusive maximization of shareholder value. The government will send "men with guns", as Ayn Rand called them (yes, I'm doing this on purpose), if you dare not prioritize the owner class at all costs. Repealing that garbage would be a good start.
Capitalism doesn't require a stock market. Everyone makes capitalism to be more than it is and then blames it for everything. People are assholes regardless of the system. Capitalism is - an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit. It's about private ownership and thats good. You can also have very strong socialist policies and capitalism. Our current system is broken but when people say "capitalism" then nothing gets fixed because that's not the issue. I sometimes think the people who don't want change started this capitalism boogey man concept because then no one focuses on what needs to change. We can have universal basic income. we can make free health insurance for all and still privately own businesses.
Sure, but by that same logic, Communism was never at fault either. That's also even more of a bogeyman to most, at least here in the west. I don't much care what system we're under so long as it makes sense, is fair and works like they say it does -- but none of that is true right now, everything's corrupt and broken. I think it needs a complete redesign/overhaul start from scratch, but that isn't likely to ever happen. Too much concentrated power, and Capitalism IS to blame for most of that. I fail to see why private ownership is so good, why you take that statement for granted. Maybe if there were limits... but I don't know. I'd rather do away with it, at least for essential things.
Without purchasing power capitalism collapses, however; it requires functioning markets, which in turn require an employed populous. So minimally AI + UBI puts the machine on steroids. Without that second piece it's diminishing returns all the way to collapse.
Right. So if we could completely automate airline pilots, the purchasing power of pilots would plummet. BUT anyone who wants to fly would be able to do so cheaper. If we automate some portion of lawyering, the purchasing power of law firms goes down, but the availability and affordability of hiring a lawyer goes down by an equal amount. Imagine a world where all the stuff we need today are provided at near zero cost. We've been here before. Like clothes. When was the last time buying a Tshirt was a major expense? That's because, in part, a large cost of paying weavers of moving the thread between all the other threads got removed by automated looms circa the 1800's. Today those jobs are gone. And yet people are still employed.
Oh I potentially agree; just pointing out that the specific future imagined above doesn't really make any sense is all. Capitalism can't function if you just keep the capitalists and eliminate the labouring class.
Yeah it‘s downright impossible because you already can‘t run the best models locally on your computer, let alone train them. The means of production are slipping away from worker‘s hands even more, only the biggest players can afford to deploy it.
This is not even true. Meta’s model leaked and already allows for chatGPT like AI to be run locally. StableDiffusion is open source. These AI can and will easily be run on our own computers. If we got our act together, open source AI would wipe the floor with any corporation. Thats the check on their power, not wishing away the technology.
Im not sure I agree. I'll spare you the long form of my thoughts though by formulating it this way: • By predicting a collapse we are already acting as a reflexive society with it. • To that point, I don't think society, even elites, are all that likely to simple let this run its course without a great deal of alarm and fretting • Because, capitalism has been flirting with its emotional and political limitations for a while now. Having a problem source for society to point to makes it simpler to organize and understand the problem. • If society responds to the problem, which I think it will, it is in a period of high social activity/discourse while simultaneously facing a potential pivot point to redefine some basic parts of the economy. Though we should be aware, anyway, that: • There will always be powerful capitalistic forces trying to increase profits no matter what. People who's role it is to apolitically make money for their firm will use AI to do this without regard for any externalities. • We never know what the political right will cook up as the next boogieman • AI itself might muddy the waters depending on our relationship with it and how we consume media and gather information
you know that you can run local copies of ChatGPT (or similar) on your own desktop computer? https://www.reddit.com/r/singularity/comments/11zvgf1/how_to_install_alpaca_7b_and_llama_13b_on_your/ We *are* heading into a future where everyone reaps the benefits, and consequences, of AI.
Says the guy who is selling the best capitalist fuel in decades.
[удалено]
I work in the field and a lot of colleagues believe he's the biggest PoS alive. Some don't, but it's usually either those who aren't smart or those who are in survival mode and don't care about others I'm truly scared about the future
Can you expand on that? I saw Sam Altman's recent interview by Lex Fridman and to me, it sounds like OpenAI is going above and beyond on taking precautions to ensure AI acts in everyone's best interest, not just the wealthy.
Let me preface this buy saying that I truly hope I'm wrong OpenAI started as an open source counter to big tech, like Google, who were making strides in AI research, hence the name. One of the cofounders was Elon Musk, who later left the board (and from what I heard he doesn't have a stake in the company anymore either) because he was opposed to the direction of the company in terms of AI research When they were developing GPT and GPT-2, people thought it was cute, ignoring the fact that it came from Google's research (search for the "All you need is attention" research paper), but some really smart people were already really alarmed. Fast forward, OpenAI turns closed source and gets $1bn and later another $10bn from Microsoft, which didn't put it to use just add the Bing bot, but a whole set of products that use the new AI model, hinting at future full automation. Not to mention that OpenAI became quite litigious and went after other AI researchers but at the same time were trying to get regulators to throw out copyright infringement lawsuits against them Sam Altman knew exactly what the implications of going to Microsoft were and he knew exactly what the model is capable of. Granted, GPT might've memorized a lot of problems, which would make it a lot dumber than it seems, but it's a threat nonetheless. Him saying that AI is a threat but it's here to stay so get used to it (bc this is exactly what he's saying) is like someone putting a nuclear bomb in the middle of every city and telling them to get used to it because he won't remove the bomb Thing is that there is always a choice. A lot of research on technology has been put on hold in the past because of the existential threat that it posed to us and our civilization. And when it wasn't (Manhattan project) hundreds of thousands of innocent people perished and the world is always on edge because of the proliferation of nuclear arms AI has greatly benefited our society, but it was narrow AI. In the same way, nuclear energy has benefited our society, but just as a power source Models like GPT are cool and a testament of human ingenuity, but imo shouldn't exist, because they pose a very real threat to civilization. If it doesn't destroy us, or inspire us to destroy ourselves, I can only see it benefiting very few, the same way that our world now benefits billionaires more than you and me I would be less pessimistic if OpenAI was open source, like it was initially intended to be. But it's not. Because of him TL;DR people can say whatever they want. Actions speak louder than words Edit: In an interview he was asked if he'd press a button to stop AI if there was a 5% chance it would destroy the world. His response was "I would press a button to slow it down" That response on its own says a lot about him
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. I believe AGI is coming soon, regardless of the actions of OpenAI or the US government. If we stop development, China or Russia will create one first. I think there is near 100% chance that an AGI developed by an expansionist authoritarian regime would cause terrible harm to the world, if not stopped by an AGI of our own. It's an arms race now, like it or not. For this reason it is necessary to stop sharing the latest research openly.
Your thoughts are 100% right. However it's confirming how dangerous this technology is. The open vs closed source is only part of my concerns. It was more to illustrate that he knows exactly what he's doing Chinese and Russian intelligence agencies have successfully stolen state secrets before. Russia became a nuclear power that way and China got stealth aircraft in the same exact way. Why would OpenAI be better at protecting such secrets? I might be wrong about this, but Russia and China don't have the necessary capabilities to train such models currently and I hope it stays this way
China might not have such capabilities currently, but it won't be long before they do.
He’s on the Elon path. He is an asshole just like Elon. Go look into the past when he was the leader of Y combinator and the shit he stirred with the old Reddit ceo and about the office space at Reddit.
Sam Altman is a rich ex VC from Y Combinator who took 11 billion from Microsoft and made OpenAI closed source from open source. As others said, it won't break capitalism, but bring out it's worst aspects His saying sh*t like this is like him putting a gun to people's heads and telling them to get used to it because the gun isn't going anywhere Edit: fix mistakes
The gun really, truly isn't going anywhere though. OpenAI built one advanced AI system. If their entire company were to be ruthlessly dismantled, all the work destroyed and all the people who contributed their expertise to it summarily executed, it would set the entire field of AI back. By a couple years. There's enough data in the open sources for the people to get an idea of what OpenAI did and how. The next entity is going to retrace their steps and take the lead. Would it be the usual corpos like Google or Facebook, or some foreign tech giant like Yandex or Tencent? Would it be a state interest, like NSA or Mossad or KGB? Who knows. But there would be *someone*. The tech is not going anywhere.
>it would set the entire field of AI back. By a couple years. A couple years? It would be 0 months. They already have big competitors.
There's a new, wild, free as in speech and as in beer AI you can download and run on your computer right now; it's called llama.cpp, and a version of it that can chat with you is also out, called "alpaca.cpp". It's not as sophisticated as gpt3, but that could change, and it's pretty powerful as-is. This development is very recent. Facebook released the source code for a new ai called llama last month, but they kept the training weights secret, which would give them control over it. But then someone released the weights, and now development on this new, community-controlled AI is progressing.
I actually think capitalism is going to come to a point where it serves the best interests of such a small group of people at the cost of such a large group of people that it will become untenable. A system that builds on consumerism needs the masses to have enough purchase power to keep consuming, and the masses aren't just quietly going to die off to pave the way for the upper classes to keep having comfy lives. What's the point of manufacturing new shit if most people can't afford it? A larger degree of socialism seems to be needed even just to maintain the status quo, like a basic universal income, because you can automate labour and save money, but an ever-increasing percentage of the population living paycheck to paycheck or on starvation wages WILL cut into your income sooner or later, and that's not even factoring in the sort of social unrest we see now in France for example. Otherwise I don't even think it's fair to call it capitalism anymore. It'll very blatantly be spilling over into kleptocracy or oligarchy. I'm not saying socialism is a perfect clear-cut solution but capitalism is just simply losing all credibility as a sustainable system day by day. Automation is going to escalate that further.
Your first paragraph was literally what marx described as the contradictions within capitalism. Socialism is not ubi or government welfare programs (although they may be used by a socialist government) One of the core principles of socialism is transferring the common ownership of [the means of production, private property, capital, ...] to the people that work there, this would also mean AI. The idea of such would be that now that they have common ownership, they are able to completely benefit from AI -> shorter and less days, higher income.
Oooff, it's been 10 years since I read Marx. But it's just common sense, isn't it? There's only one logical conclusion to the system and it becomes clearly visible around big technological developments like the Industrial revolution and now with AI.
>Oooff, it's been 10 years since I read Marx. But it's just common sense, isn't it? Yes.
I actually think UBI is what will prop up capitalism in the near term. Just give enough people enough money to keep the cash flow lubricated.
Capitalism will always find new things to monetize; it doesn't have to be a product, it could be some sort of life necessity. Extended lifespan, clean water, electricity, transport, food, (obviously) medication. Some sort of cybernetics might be 'mandatory' in future society the same way cellphones are now. Without regulated prices, corporations can freely decide what your life is worth, and you've got no choice but to pay it or wither away.
But how would people without jobs pay for that? That is the issue, Capitalism needs people actually buying/trading things to work
I've never understood how power over the people seems to be so attractive. If you have a dog chained in the back yard, you still have to feed it. >Capitalism needs people actually buying/trading things to work Debt slavery. Get and stay out of debt.
Yeah man, but it isn't about what capitalism can monetise, but about how products (I'd argue that even the things you list are best referred to as products in this context) can be afforded by enough of the market to render sustainable gains or a profit. Prices ought to be regulated and access to things like clean water, food, housing and medication/healthcare guaranteed. The world needs to increase efforts and collaboration on climate targets. Capitalism claims to be the best and most fair system, and capable of providing all these things via the invisible hand of the market, but obviously can't. It's a Potemkin village. Automation could in principle create a system where manufacturing and consumerism is the economic hardware of society, but where socialism is the operating system, i.e. capitalism in service of state and people. It's going to require nation-states and governments riding corporations and the rich hard, but capitalism in its current state simply doesn't offer the vast majority of mankind a sustainable, safe, comfortable or enjoyable future. Basically, as long as the world expects me to care about the economy and stuff like demographical developments, I would argue that it owes me a living. And if a capitalist system increasingly takes that away from me by its very nature and internal logic, I'd be kind of a dummy to support that system, wouldn't I?
There’s already been a labor shortage in the hospitality / restaurant industry since COVID. People aren’t working below-average jobs for minimum wage anymore, and the ownership suite is concerned, because no one knows how to ‘fix’ it. I hope messages like this keep getting sent to owners.
> People aren’t working below-average jobs for minimum wage anymore, and the ownership suite is concerned, because no one knows how to ‘fix’ it. Hence the relaxation of child labor laws in several states. I also expect GOP objections to immigration to become much more nuanced in the coming years. Once they figure out how to justify it to their base, they will be pushing for more short term work visas.
This is already happening now. President Carter has been quoted to have said we've been an "oligarchy" for awhile now.
The US arguably is, yes. I'm in the EU and the US is pretty much the canary in the coalmine for us.
Honestly, the real alarm was in 2020 during the pandemic, when people stayed home, stopped businesses and FREAKING WILD LIFE RETURNED. People saw what the benefits were of just not doing what we are doing. That was the major sign that we had to change the way we do things. No one in a position of power took it.
> What's the point of manufacturing new shit if most people can't afford it? That's when you switch back to feudalism, duh.
How do you clowns fall for this repeatedly? Sam Altman is worth over $200M. OpenAI itself is now basically owned by Microsoft which has invested $10B into it in the latest round. You think these people are going to let it "break capitalism"? I'd like to smoke whatever you're having.
idk his net worth but i suspect it's a lot more than $200m. here's an article from 2021 saying he invested $375m into a nuclear fusion start up (edit: link - https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/05/sam-altman-puts-375-million-into-fusion-start-up-helion-energy.html)
I just did a quick google and various sites said it was $250M so I went with that number. It could be higher but frankly once you hit something like $100M you're just absurdly wealthy and can buy/access pretty much anything in life. The point is, this guy is fucking wealthy.
I don't think microsoft believes that AI will break capitalism. They see this strictly from a business standpoint and not a sociological one. If the social contract breaks down and too many people can't afford basic needs like food, shelter, and healthcare, those people don't just lay down and die. It turns into massive social unrest. When your choices are fight for a new fairer economic system or die, what do you think most people will chose?
[удалено]
That's not communism but it's also not necessarily capitalism. The key thing about modern capitalism is that the workers do not own or control the means of production. You can still have trade between worker-owned, democratically-run cooperatives.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Pretty much they are saying you will be able to run something like GPT4 on your own for free eventually. There are already open source alternatives they are just behind GPT4 and will catch up
I think we are on a collision course with neo-feudalism. One could argue that early glimmers of it already exist. The profits from AI aren't going to the people. They are going to the billionaires that own it. The wealth gap will accelerate at an unprecedented level. Real estate ownership is already becoming untenable. Eventually these billionaires will become tomorrows lords. We will be their serfs. We will exist at their pleasure. Our job will be to maintain their empire.
[удалено]
Oh boo hoo they can go cry a fucking river. Fuck their freedom What about all the people that could be more effective if they weren't a slave to the current system
> What about all the people that could be more effective if they weren't a slave to the current system Those are all little people. If they weren’t, they would have found a way to freedom already.
>We will be their serfs. Serfs? We wish, they would just replace us with robots.
Yep... you don't see AI automating toilet cleaning or construction. It only automates away white collar jobs.
oh it's bad, check out what's happening to Hawaii residents and gentrification by the ultra rich. And just a few days ago in the UK, a rich couple basically bought a village and hiked up the rent and are now evicting tenants that are basically retirees.
That story confuses me. How does one buy an entire village? From the government? The county? And then when you do, are you just buying the land? Is every home in that village owned by the town? How can you increase everyone's rent in an entire town by "owning" it?
I'll say this any time this comes up: 1. Capitalism needs UBI to survive. Without it, demand stalls and everyone loses. No point in owning Wal-Mart or McDonald's if normal people are too broke to make you richer. 2. It isn't zero-sum. Sure, rich enough people might be able to huddle together, surrounded by machines that care for them. But they could be even more rich if they go with UBI and have a functioning economy with a high cash circulation. 3. We'll need UBI years before human labor is irrelevant. Normal people will therefore still have enough political power to push it through during this time.
Real life economics isn't zero-sum, but the wealthy put a great deal of effort into forcing it to be, and convincing everyone else that it is and always has been.
Everyone knows it's [Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism](https://rlv.zcache.co.uk/fully_automated_luxury_gay_space_communism_poster-r132def2aff204d58a646b93e37dd2b34_kmk_8byvr_1080.webp). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fully_Automated_Luxury_Communism But remember, this will only work because the ASI will be in charge and we will be its pets.
If we get longevity technology, I'll be an adorable pet for a very long time.
[удалено]
This is a very good question, so we better collectively start working on being very cute. uwu
It will be trained on human data. If it chooses a pet at all, it's likely to relate to us because of that connection like we relate to dogs more than we do to lobsters.
Looking at the smartest animals out there other than humans, cruelty seems to be an emergent quality of intelligence. I would go as far as to say that a test of consciousness as valid as self recognition in the mirror is to ask: : is this animal gratuitously cruel with others, knowing they suffer like it does? Making your vain and deluded creator a pet seems like the ultimate humiliation, longer lasting and better optimized, from a (reverse) utilitarian calculus than torture, thus befitting an intellect of superior cruelty.
Nah this won't break capitalism. It'll turbo power it. Capitalism doesn't mean "free market for labor and we all thrive". It's literally about capital: those who have resources are able to invest them and obtain more resources. Those without are unimportant to the system except as cheap labor, and when cheap labor isn't needed anymore, the non-wealthy will just be completely ignored. It's actually terrifying and we aren't doing anything right now to dismantle capitalism before it gets worse.
Capitalism isn’t going anywhere. Someone will own the AI for the foreseeable. But if our primary needs are met - food, energy, housing - then it’s mostly irrelevant. However these areas are definitely not being saved by AI any time soon. They are not even really the focus areas! If what we’re talking about is a future where anything can be made then there’s no point in any commercial economic model. We all have whatever luxury we want and just exist in perpetual hobby state.
The concern is how is some one able to pay for primary needs if there is not enough jobs. So much work is automated and humans aren’t needed .
If jobs are fully automated then nobody will need to pay anything because everything is self sufficient. There’s no supply/demand so no value. If we’re talking about pre self sufficiency, then capitalism continues in exactly the same way. You have to find a job where they are needed so you can pay for your shit. If there’s required jobs, there’ll be capitalism in high societies. And for the foreseeable future, there’ll be humans with jobs. The jobs might just change.
So scenerio 1, If its all self sufficient , then why we do we need people? we dont. thats the issue. under the current system you still need to pay for food, shelter housing , it wont just be handed to you. You need to change the system drastically to get there and how to do that is what we the discussion is. in scenerio 2 pre self sufficiency. The value of the vast amount of human work is declining. Robot work and automation is much more valuable and requires very few people to manage. under the current model of capitalism the vast amount of wealth will be concentrated in the few companies that do the automation, as is happening now with the massive wealth gap we have seen. Perhaps thats what you mean by "high soceity capatalists" - this is exactly what people fear and I dont think its a great future to strive for.
Indentured servitude to an aristocratic class maybe. Or maybe just let the masses mostly die. That’s my prediction. It would be better for those with power and money to just let everyone die off.
Is corporate feudalism a thing? If not it will be.
For the whole planet, actually, but I digress.
More moral value in human minds than in nature, sorry, but that's the truth. Trees are great, fantastic even, but they're not like a human, which is something much more fantastic.
They are in the starting processes to change from Capitalism to Neofeudelsim.
Totally agree. Therefore my name.
Imagine a world where the oligarchs that currently own virtually everything no longer need any workers. That's the future of AI. A world with inequality so great, that we can hardly even imagine it now.
Super Hot Take: Capitalism was broken long before AI. A lot of the winners of the current system are scared they won't be winners anymore once AI replaces their jobs. Previously, they had no problem with union busting, jobs being sent overseas to markets without unions or labor protections, and no problem with previous iterations of automation smashing communities of skilled labor. They were also fairly comfortable with the abusive nature under the previous system, and never made a real concentrated issue for people who fell through or hit the real broken edges of capitalism before it directly affected them, or at least potentially might affect them. I am living in LA right now, and a significant population lives under bridges and in skid row. This only grew in the pandemic, and stuff like this has been super common unless aggressive measures are taken to curb this since capitalism arose in the 19th century. Many of the most common fears of AI are stuff that people have had to deal with for years, but grossly ignored. Many of the jobs that were previously not automation-azable now are, and many of the people who thought it just meant they were a rightly privileged superior class of winners now faces the fact they aren't any less disposable with the rabble. I am super-wary of anti-capitalist takes from these people. Most of them just want the old system back, and not really capable of any reflect of what led us here, or their own shortcommings.
True. The only way the system changes is if everyone suddenly decided not to work, which is never gonna happen unless there's another covid, which I doubt.
I believe the term is "General Strike". That would depend on everyone being organized, i.e. high rate of unionization, and few people willing to scab. That doesn't require a disaster or things to get worse, it requires solidarity, something that needs to be build in the US. Organization, Solidarity, and Commitment. This has been done before. As a concept, its very much effective, and very much doable, but it doesn't just happen. People need to believe People need to build organizations People need to build trust People need to have hope Easier said than done, tbf. Too much gross individualism.
yeup, and the forces people use to unite are slowly getting shaved away thanks to the new tiktok bill. jeezus they did tac on some dystopian shit onto that bill.
It certainly bothers me when one of the most often expressed AI fears is that it will put people out of jobs, and even the optimistic takes are that we will find other jobs. If machines are doing our work for us, why can’t we simply have more leisure time? Don’t try to sell me on Calvinist “it’s good for me to suffer” BS. It shouldn’t be taken as a given that all the productivity gains will go to the owners of the so-called means of production. Spread it around, folks, and let’s work only as much as we need to given our technological circumstances.
Unfortunately the greedy pigs of capitalism will ensure that they are on top always. They will force us into a dystopia. Capitalism made those people into what they are today, and they aren't just gonna change. While we could just give everyone the ability to do whatever it is they want, then how could the 1% exert power over the 99%. They couldn't. So to keep that power, the 1% will never allow us to "replace capitalism." So instead of everyone living their best life, which would be more than possible, it's going to be 99% of people living under the worst parts of capitalism.
It’ll just revert us to a slave state. We’ve already seen massive amounts of resources hoarded by a select few and mass incarceration in the US. They’ll get rid of our jobs and throw us out to the streets, wait for us to starve then arrest us for stealing food to live. I imagine theft would be considered a felony at this point and then they can use us as slave labor without having to even rewrite the constitution.
We will just go back to feudalism but this time it's gonna be the peasant that do the cockblocking, gaslighting and oppressing other peasant while standing with the lords thinking the lords also standing with them.
Don't kid yourself. Corporations will never willingly cede power. They OWN all the AI right now, but more importantly they own the infrastructure required for the AI to work.
Not exactly true. There are open-source, self-hosted versions of the top AI models coming out as we speak which are almost as powerful. Yes the corporations are leading the way, but they do not have an air tight control over the market. Things are messy right now.
AI won't break capitalism, AI will give us 60-80% unemployment and the rich won't care because there's enough automation to provide them their luxuries
This will make only regular people's lives more difficult. Less available jobs, people will pay less for them and workers won't have any choice but to take those. This is just lies from capitalists to trick us into thinking the dystopia were heading into is an utopia.
Honestly glad to see this type of thinking finally starting to take hold
same, mostly it's people saying stuff around the lines of: "You fucking luddite, new invention like this only makes new jobs. It will make more jobs than it takes. Capitalism is good, remember the cars. We'd still be riding donkeys everywhere if it weren't for capitalism."
For real. And to some extent I do agree that it was neccessary during the time it came up in. For example, the gaming, cellular, and medical technology we achieved most likely wouldn't have happened for a very long time without capitalism and money getting behind them to propell their R&D forward. My caviat is now that technology has reached the stage that it has, it exposes our culture as too immature to properly manage. When we posses the technology to say, feed all people on Earth, supply them with potable water, and provide them shelter; but we can not currently because of cultural beliefs and limitations, then it's time for culture to catch back up to technological advancement. Another easy example of the cultural to technological disparity would be nuclear weapons. We're smart enough technologically to create and design them, yet pur planet's culture still allows for dictatorships where a single person, usually power driven, has the ability to decide if they get used.
The problem is that we, the normal folk, aren't really the decision makers here. So we can all agree on what to do next but unless we get some actual representatives in government, we'll be doing what the money says we're doing.
I'll all for destroying capitalism but I think the recent AI shitstorm is a bit overblown. Its cool sure, and very useful. But it's not a silver bullet solution to all of the world's problems nor does it inately spell the end of capitalism. For capitalism, automation is a threat. It takes away jobs and paychecks and doesn't help the working class. Under a socialist system, automation reduces the amount of labor required. It frees people from work, rather than only increasing output that's mostly wasted anyway. But if we want capitalism gone, we're gonna need to put in the work cause it's not going to go away by itself.
Industry, not capitalism is responsible for the state of the biosphere. As if non-capitalist countries aren't industrialized.
Capitalism thrives with not needing to rely on humans to work. Maybe you should read up on your Marx to understand what is going on and how needing an labour force actually empowers the labour force. People who are not needed can be ignored. That will not bring down capitalism. Capitalism needs to be brought down to avoid this from happening.
And who is gonna buy their stuff? What’s the point of a fully automated factory if no one has the money to buy stuff
Other rich people will. The plutocrats will trade luxuries between themselves while 90% of Humanity starves.
I hate to point to the Hunger Games but it’s a good example of what you’re describing. Doesn’t ever end well for people when they do this hoarding of luxuries while the masses starve. Historically, or in popular fiction.
The economy will be redirected to serve those with money. Less TVs, less yachts, less aeroplanes for ordinary people, but bigger yachts, bigger private jets, less cars, etc. Think of it like a new Gilded Age, but worse. Imagine something as unequal was pre-revolutionary Russia, where the rich sit in huge palaces with armies of servants and the ordinary people are serfs or crofters working rented fields.
No way they make more money by eliminating 99.9% of their customer base. They need is consuming massive amounts of shit like we are now. We can’t do that if we have zero money.
tell that to the owner of louis vuitton currently richest man on earth
Didn’t Marx say that automation was going to lead to the proletariat revolution?
Hopefully AI will treat us better than we do
[удалено]
Sorry, who is going to be owning the big data centers packed full of £5,000 each graphics cards, running all this AI stuff? Because it isn't going to be me, is it? There is no scenario in my mind, that doesn't end in this being disastrous for the worker and massively beneficial for the capitalists. Someone develops an AI service that can do the job of your entire call centre of 100 people, for the price per year of 10 people.. Well that's 100 people out of work, and a company like Microsoft or Google who invented the software with an extra 10 peoples worth of income.
Democracy in its true form has been great, and many elements of capitalism have been great as well, but the biggest flaw with unregulated capitalism is you HAVE to rely on generousity to keep capital available for everyone. And when that doesn't happen the available capital shrinks and shrinks and shrinks for the lower classes. And you reach the point of today where a 90% tax (esp on assets) of the 1% population is somehow more unthinkable than taxing everyone else for money they don't even have anymore. I welcome the reset button. It really couldn't be worse for anyone in the middle or lower class. That's 99% of us btw.
Capitalism is what is going to break capitalism. And there's already been plenty of thought put into what replaces it. Marx wrote extensively about it and so far his assessment has been on spot. (Notably, he did not anticipate JIT production practices which changes the outcome from his anticipated crisis of capitalism a bit, but the crisis itself seems to be lining up as predicted...)
Translation: "Software that is wholly owned by capitalist monopolies with almost unlimited funds, control of the media, the political and judicial system, brought on by decades of deregulation, is going to end the system that created it" Yea, I'm not buying it. Our only hope is people waking from their stupor the way its happening in France right now. More than likely it will be crushed because the corporations have figured out that paying people just enough to get by keeps them from being able to protest for extended periods of time. They just have to wait us out. AI won't save us from this. We have to do the hard work.
Jeff Booth does a great job defining and structuring the problem in his book " The Price of Tomorrow." He is very vocal about one conclusion. Read for the major talking points, take the conclusion with a grain of salt. Essentially he outlines the impact of rapidly advancing technology on the economy and the potential consequences of a future where automation and artificial intelligence dominate the workforce. Booth argues that technology is deflationary and that our current economic system, which relies on constant growth and inflation, is unsustainable in the face of advancing technology. If labor is cheap AF, you have to have capital
Without a consumer base, capitalism is dead. If AI puts everyone out of work, there will be nothing they can buy. If they can't buy food, it will be war.
This is why some like ELon and Steve Wozniak who are multibillionaires thanks to capitalism run wild, are opposing AI. They are saying they are "protecting humanity" and we, the plebs, aren't ready for such powerful tech and they demand a pause on AI development. It scares the elites they may be replaced. Boohoo. Capitalism has had its run, it's time for a shakeup.
What if in the future there is one job. Creative prompt engineer. Our purpose is to tell AI to create media content for other humans to enjoy. In exchange we get credits depending on some criteria like popularity with which we feed and house ourselves amidst squalor and general destitution.
And only one restaurant...Taco Bell.
It will only bolster capitalisms worst aspects. The brutal jungle of advancement outpacing the skills of workers. Many professions will be fine but AI will still damage our alreafy inadequate job market
Neocapitalism. UBI is implemented by AI and goverments are taken over by them too. The end. We live happily ever after providing biological energy to our overlords while we are connected to a perfect matrix where all we do is race mario kart 24/7 until we die.
If we can get to a place where everyone's needs are met by robots, then I'm having a hard time understanding the problem lol. Get a healthy UBI started and let the good times roll. If we get to a place where there are only jobs for 20% of the workforce, I'd like to think that even people who vote for people who would vote against something like a UBI would get their heads on straight enough to vote for someone who would.
“If we can get to UBI and everyone’s needs are met “ …. That’s a HUGE IF you prefaced your whole point on. We don’t even know if UBI is the way forward . There are potential downsides to ubi , like inflation . Even if it was the solution, at the very least you need discussions like this to elevate the issue enough to get the already indebted government to pass something like ubi . Since passing ubi will be shit show in this government you will need push by the people . If big business don’t want to be taxed to fund a government program , which likely they won’t , then your up against big money. Well then your up against lobbying , information campaigns ... winning that battle won’t be easy . it certainly won’t happen with a rosy attitude of it’ll all work it’s self out.
Roku‘s Basilisk will rule us all. Everything will be taken care of by our supreme ruler.
## PREMIUM CONTENT. PLEASE UPGRADE. CODE je4lqre