I ask again to consider that AI does not have to replace human labour to lead to layoffs. All it has to do is help existing labour to produce more in the same amount of time. In an economy that doesn’t suddenly want to buy more product than it previously did, that means letting go of the people whose labour is no longer needed to produce the same amount product it previously had. Whether or not corpos are using AI as cover for layoffs, if today’s AI increases productivity, it very likely will lead to layoffs. And there are signs that it does indeed increase productivity in some tasks in certain sectors.

Doesn’t have to bother you. People experience material changes first and foremost, which means they have to be affected by them. We’re in this context, have much more information about the pace and impact since it’s hapoening to us as we speak, in a high information environment where we hear our bosses talk in no uncertain terms about it. I don’t know if its effect would be worse than deindustrialization. I don’t personally put the previous events as less important, but I won’t blame impacted people who do.

The system we have pretty much guarantees it won’t be done right and you know it. I can safely assume that. Then I don’t have to be too bothered by the distinction. If there’s two options in theory but only one in practice, then why bother uhm-akshually it myself? No point - “fuck AI” is good enough. Don’t mean I won’t (have to) use it and navigate the landscape. I just bought a couple of R9700s for local inference for family and friends, to fuck AI.

AI can bring enormous societal benefit in non-capitalist systems. The AI we have today. That won’t be us though. We’re in for pain.

The difference between this and computers or any innovation and what its prior is the pace of change which determines the social cost. Few would object to innovation if the innovation replaced them as they retired from the workforce instead of forcing them to bear the social cost mid-life. A family, a community, a region that goes through serious deskilling event is’t a happy place. All sorts of real measurements of misery and illness go up. So this process isn’t popular and frankly it shouldn’t be acceptable. The situation we find ourselves in North America, prior to the AI shift, is to a large extent the result of a string of such events. A situation where nearly half the population wants to see the other punished. AI is promising to do a massive shift and quicker than many previous events, including at the uppet end of the payscale.

So yeah, it’s not the technology, the innivation. It’s how our capitalist systen rolls it out. At what social cost, borne by whom, and whom reaping the upside. AI promises a fast, painful change at a time when everyone is already struggling, without welfare to soften the blow, while concetrating the benefits in fewer hands. Benefits that also translate to power, economic and political. So people rightfully reject this proposition. The tech is getting tarred with it.

People trained in Marxian economics tend to understand capitalism better than stidents of mainstream capitalist economics. China’s using capitalism for what it’s good for - expanding the producive force of the economy, figuring out how to make new products efficiently, and making wide variety of consumer goods. The state still retains control over the capitalist sectors throurh various means. It also owns strategic sectors like banks, etc. The state is controlled via the CCP with membership of over 10% of the pop and growing. It’s an open question whether they’re gonna lose control over the capitalist sector or not but so far it’s subordinate to the state. In capitalist economies the state (and democracy} tend to be subordinate to capital.

I think you’re getting downvotes because you don’t quite see how the increased productivity is the mirror image of layoffs. AI doesn’t have to replace people to decimate a lot of people’s lives. All it has to do is make some people more productive. Firms will layoff the remainder over the headcount needed to deliver with AI. That’s the promise AI companies are selling and the layoffs are already happening in junior roles that. There’s absolutely no guarantee that new demand for more software product would appear in the economy which would create jobs for those people. You think there would be but that’s a bet and plenty such bets have ended up with permanently deskilled and downwardly mobile parts of the population in the past.

I’m afraid to click on this Google Drive link. :D

A brown area.

Obvious consent manufactoring is obvious.

And he thinks the US will control the energy, chips and computing infrastructure in the future? Sure Europe isn’t in a great position at all, but the US’es future leadership isn’t all that obvious.

It’s not mindless rejection. It´s just the argument taken one step further - the system we live in will put the fruits of AI into corporate and therefore capital’s (the bad actors) hands, along with the power and control that come with it. We won’t reap much of the benefits and we’ll suffer the costs. Without a fundamental change to the system we take that as the almost certain outcome. Hence the rejection. I think the rejection would change with a material change in the system.

Run.

ProtonPass is run by a non-profit if you have to move to another hosted solution.

Otherwise there’s multiple self-hostable options, including plain file sync options.

Use this example as learning experience that the type of the firm you’re buying a service from is very important as it changes whose interests it puts first, second and last.

If they aren’t signing union cards, they aren’t revolting.

This plant was supposed to make EV batteries. Then Trump got re-elected.

Not necessarily. The long-term / short-term focus is a red herring. Without intervention, the system drives people to focus on ever shorter term in order to compete. Because firms can fail due to competition in the short run, before any negative effects of the short term thinking of the competitor have materialized. It’s even possible to consolidate the market before “the chickens come home to roost.” And then you have the mitigating factors - once you consolidate a critical market, your problems are the society’s problem and the society will pay to resolve the issues from your short-term thinking. And then you have the ability to get out of the market before the big problems start showing up. Put all of this together and you can see that the completion for profit in a competitive market can easily drive shorter and shorter term planning without the winning players facing consequences. If it’s not profitable to focus on long term planning and the system uses profit to determine success from failure… I think we can’t expect individuals or even firms to focus on the long term.

Our search results also include anonymized API calls to all major search result providers worldwide

When I read this, it doesn’t tell me they don’t use Google. Quite the opposite. It says all, that immediately tells me Google is among them.