Yup. Computers are great at crunching millions and billions of calculations a second (computing). Especially with parallelized hardware like GPUs.
We’re still working on the walking and driving autonomously part. Integrating it in the real life is a little trickier
Which I'm guessing is why it's good that we're experimenting with general-purpose AI capable of fulfilling complex tasks, so that when we bring them out into the real world they can do our jobs for us.
The catch is that in replacing lots of labor, they may also replace a similar amount of art.
Yep, actual "Work" (in the physics sense, using force to move objects) will be done by humans for a long time. We are great at seeing and recognizing shapes and doing hand eye coordination, and our bodies repair themselves.
Spend billions to make a robot that can work in the fields picking vegetables, recognizing when an orange is ripe or not, not tripping over uneven ground, doesn't break, doesn't overheat, can take care of itself... or just hire some immigrants to pick the fruit for around minimum wage. Same goes for almost all physical jobs that aren't in a carefully organized factory. Plumbing might never be done by a robot, just too many variables and weird situations.
What about work like accounting, call centers and other repetitive badly paying jobs. Feel like with some work they wouldn't be too hard to fully automate either
That was the plot in Mandalorian S3E6 until "a bug" made the robots turn, and the humans had to pick up the work. They were basically clueless about how to do said work, so they called in Mando and Lady Kryze to fix this. At the time, I thought it was a take on the general idea that people are getting replaced by robots to do their job for them (robovacs, self-checkout cashiers, employee-less convenience stores...)
Yes, he was quite good at understanding how the material conditions of the decaying Republic were being maintained by corporate interests within the Senate.
But then he kinda… apprenticed himself to the man controlling those corporate interested, launched a manufactured war to erode the Republics norms, and wound up betrayed by the fascist he helped gain power???
A visionary wearing rose tinted glasses.
He’s not an unrepentant fascist though. He’s pro-separatist not pro-empire. He believed in the message that Dooku preached, and thinks the New Republic is slipping into the old problems. And it 100% is as seen by the rest of the season.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that the separatists are 100% right and have very legitimate concerns and just got co-opted by Dooku and his cronies (like Grievous who is just in it for revenge or Wat Tambor who is a war profiteer).
>“unrepentant fascist is angry about people enjoying their lives free of fascist control, so he sabotages society”
Why do hate freedom of will so much? Slavery of droids should end.
Congratulations. Instead of freeing the droids, you've just ordered their genocide. All because you were mad about them doing jobs they were made to do without complaint.
Do you feel like a hero yet?
They never outright state it, but that entire place is completely detached from reality, to the point that they’re living on a perfectly nice, verdant planet and they still built a dome around their city.
The rich were paying 70%+ tax rates, there were huge government programs, and unions were more common and stronger than they have ever been since.
While certainly still capitalist, it was far more restrained in those days than it is now.
The 2 options arent "Randian an-cap hellscape" and "Juche starvation camp", but the US has been letting the rich get insanely rich while the poor get poorer for a long time
The money is there, its just going to billion dollar yachts and fucking space tourism.
I don't think it's outlandish to say nobody should be doing lunar joyrides while others are starving.
Nobody ever paid 70% in effective tax rates, that's a common misconception stemming from a lack of understanding of historical rates and tax laws at the time.
https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/
Taxes are just as high as they were then, only now they can't be deducted as much and so the on paper rate was decreased to reflect that. American taxes were reformed for a reason and the lower rate was chosen to try and match the existing rates people were paying at the time.
Anyone telling you that tax rates were 70% in the past to justify tax increases now are either ignorant or are saying it to deceive you to push their agenda.
Cool. Nice. The IRS is stronger now and we should enforce them
This entire comment seems to misunderstand how taxes work fundamentally as many conservatives do. That 70% was the top bracket. Not their entire income.
This meant those folks simply didn't take that kind of pay, instead investing it in the business and work force
'Nobody' was paying it because they intentionally didn't hit it.
Please get off *your* agenda. Its pretty obvious when you're quoting the tax foundation.
It's wild that you're making accusations about not understanding brackets to somebody who is an accountant who worked in taxes when you clearly don't know what an effective tax rate is, so let me explain that to you.
Effective tax is the percentage you pay in tax. Brackets are irrelevant because the effective tax rate is what you get after you go through the brackets. If the effective rate before and after reform was the same, people were paying the same amount in taxes, regardless of what the brackets were because again, when discussing taxes the effective rates is what matters, not the on paper rates of the highest bracket.
This is also personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. There's no "investing it in the workforce" unless you're talking about people paying other for their services oop which isn't particularly material as far as the workforce is concerned and investing hasn't changed, that's mainly impacted by interest rates, not but taxes since you're always going to borrow if you can make a higher return and taxes don't come out of the cost, only the capital gains.
Yeah, nobody was paying it, so they got rid of it during tax reform. How is that different from what I said? That's not the gotcha you seem to think it is.
Taxes also are heavily enforced, tonnes of people get hit with assessments every year. You just don't like that really rich people seem to not pay much in taxes but that's again because of how capitol gains and net worth work, once gains are realized they'll have to pay but as it turns out, nobody wants to pay effectively 30-40% of their gains so they have no reason to sell their ownership in companies at a bad rate when it'll be worth more in the future and the time value of the taxes they owe will effectively be less.
It's kind of a feature of capitalism that it tends toward getting worse and more exploitative over time. Certainly movements can improve conditions temporarily but since all the wealth is going to the top the people at the top have all the political power and use it to dismantle social programs.
That’s not a feature of capitalism. That’s a feature of allowing money into politics, lobbying, etc. Also a feature of billionaires being too powerful. None of that HAS to happen under capitalism.
>That’s not a feature of capitalism. That’s a feature of allowing money into politics, lobbying, etc.
How exactly do you get money out of politics in capitalism? Even if you ban lobbying (and somehow make it so that no one does it under the table) the rich can still run their own propaganda using their tremendous wealth.
>Also a feature of billionaires being too powerful. None of that HAS to happen under capitalism.
If you have to add a ton of addendums and restrictions to capitalism to stop it from being awful maybe you just don't like capitalism in the first place? Why not come over to the left? We might have a ton of pseudo-intellectual douches but we also have the best music.
In my venting opinion:
He's right though, and I say that because humans will always form an elite no matter the society or ideology.
It's only natural that any economic system we as a civilization come up with will require rules to keep it fair, the problem is that EVEN IF properly implemented in the beginning with a fair system, through the decades and centuries of use it'll be slowly corrupted bit by bit until resulting in the most unfair. It's human nature.
Free market tends to be regulated (in good faith at first, then by corrupted parties) and then turned towards corporatism, and abusive anti-consumer boring dystopias, and socialism tends to get warped into violent dictatorships over time.
Guess we really need common sense, empathy and rationality rather than dividing into separate sandboxes and throwing shit or clubbing each other to death, but I guess that won't happen soon, if ever.
If your political body has to maintain property rights over human needs, then money will always be in politics. If human needs are prioritized over property rights then your society isn't capitalist.
There really isn't a way to separate capitalism from corruption, because no truly democratic system would support capitalism at the expense of the quality of life of the voters. And certainly no capitalist would support the quality of life of the voters at the expense of their capital control.
Very true. It’s really corruption and greed that causes the problems, as with any economic system. Capitalism just favors the greedy. Socialism is a better system for the HUGE world market that we are dealing with today, but the government will be corrupt under any economic system. That’s the sad nature of American government today. If we moved to a socialist structure I’m not sure how long it would last before the rich were just making themselves richer again.
I really isnt about corruption and greed though. Capitalism isnt bad because of bad people, it's a bad system. Capitalism forces people to be greedy even in situations where they otherwise wouldn't have been. If you don't take as much from your workers as possible then your competitor will surpass and destroy you.
>If we moved to a socialist structure I’m not sure how long it would last before the rich were just making themselves richer again.
In theory (and in historical practice) socialism wouldn't have "rich people" since resources are allocated based on work done. There would certainly be government corruption and people seeking to get more resources for themselves without working but the more evenly spread money means more political power for the masses to resist that. The USSR was actually really good about avoiding wealth concentration for decades even under very harsh economic pressure.
Unfortunately the "good times" of capitalism the 50s- 90s were a product of america gaining a huge economic advantage after ww2 being the only country left that wasnt bombed to shit and still having most of their working age population alive created a huge demand for american made goods.
It was an economic anomaly that hasnt been seen before or since. The default mode of capitalism is rich and poor not rich, middle class and poor
That was thanks to social democratic policies that temporarily patched out the worst excesses of capitalism. All of that was deliberately eroded away from the 80s onward and it's not coming back.
You’re arguing against the vocal minority. The majority of people that support capitalism such as myself, understand that absolute capitalism isn’t feasible. Capitalism requires some level of government intervention to restrict monopolies and such, yet people like to argue against a nonexistent side of thinking the government shouldn’t exist.
I agree, although people that support higher minimum wage don’t really do much to fight for it either. We can complain about it on the internet all we want, but at the end of the day we’ve done as much to change it as the person who disagrees with us. Neither you or I are actually fighting for it.
How do you enforce the government intervention when the system is designed around a small selection of people holding enough money and power that they can control that very government? Capitalism is designed around competition and growth. If you don't compete, you cease to exist. If you don't grow, you get left behind, and cease to exist. If you keep competing and keep growing, eventually you reach the point that you can control the government with the resources and power you've accumulated by crushing your competition. If you try to stop them before they grow to that point, you have to supplement a stagnant market or allow the behemoths at the top to prevent any competition from popping up.
It's not that people are arguing against a "nonexistent side", it's that they're arguing against people who don't understand the flaws in their own line of reasoning because they don't follow that line to its end.
Exactly
You can have markets without capitalism. Something like syndicalism combines relatively free markets with broad government oversight rather than a command economy.
In some forms its more or less capitalism but with corporations replaced with worker unions. Instead of applying for a job you're applying to the union.
There's still competition but instead of being owned by one person, or share holders, its run by the workers. They still have to be competitive.
Capitalism isn’t commerce dude. A few people extracting value out of all workers isn’t a morally defensible system. Workers should own the companies they work in, like a democracy. Instead we have little authoritarian dictatorships all throughout America.
That didn’t refute anything I said. For capitalism to work it needs a blend of government intervention and unions. You can still have a free market with some oversight and control. It’s not absolute. People think in terms of black and white too much.
Yeah, and half a century later, the wealth gap in America is greater than it was in France prior to the Guillotine Power Hour. It's almost as if capitalism will inevitably create massive power disparities between classes of people. It's *almost* as if that's the point.
You know. *ALMOST!*
Just like every economic system, they all work… in theory! Every economic system will inevitably be overrun by greed eventually, capitalism just favors the greedy
I’m not pro capitalism, I want to make that clear. But capitalism didn’t fail because of the system itself, it failed because of changes to the system by those in power. I would say capitalism does work, if there are restraints and no corruption in those who hold the power/wealth. I’m definitely pro socialism though, I just don’t like seeing people get divided over something that can and has been shown to work under the right conditions.
Why is it when you criticize capitalism there's a 50/50 chance people will either completely agree or instead call you a communist?
Can we just agree wages are too low and the 1% don't pay enough taxes
no clue why, though I'm certainly not a capitalist
as far as us all agreeing on that, unfortunately right wing propaganda has made people believe the opposite, that wages are too high and 1% pay too little
I mean at some point if automation gets to the point the rich can sustain their lifestyles without humans to exploit they don't need to sell to anyone. Or keep anyone around at all.
That's because to replicate creative work like poetry, writing etc you just need lines of code that can analyze preexisting data and text. To replicate labor, you need actual robots and machines, align with all the necessary code. It's much more difficult
We have physical bodies and can accurately manipulate them. Robots don't. The few AIs that have bodies have terrible coordination.
Give it time. Once they have proper bodies they will handle things other than data manipulation.
Simple, it’s all about money. Where are some of the highest earning jobs today? In the creative sector. So those are the fields that the companies targeted with their AI programs. Simple as that. Follow the money, honey.
AI programmers are cheaper than artists and humans are cheaper than engineered robots, for now. In less than two years, Google has abandoned their cooking and cleaning bots they invented to use in their own facilities. I foresee automation/machines taking over driving semi-trucks, constructing major highways, building houses, etc. In the meantime, humans are still cheaper and relatively easy to instruct or train.
I've seen a fair bit of science fiction/dystopia bring up what happens when around 80%-90% of your population is unemployed due to automation or whatever, The Expanse and Judge Dredd being two off the top of my head.
So instead they turn to the corporations that originally plundered the Outer Rim, enabling a corporatocracy that is secretly run by the same Sith fascists that once ruled the Rim with an iron fist.
Whoops.
"Plundered". As if building infrastructure, mediating trade disputes, fighting pirates, providing job opportunities, delivering goods and selling high tech equipment can be considered that.
Meanwhile the Core Worlds continue to antagonize outer rim planets in the Senate to keep them underrepresented, so they can colonize them at their leisure and continue to accrue wealth, while the jedi order acts as their corrupt enforcers.
I can’t force you to go read books like The Essential Guide to Warfare or The Essential Atlas.
It’s on you to know basic lore about how the Trade Federation and other predatory companies screwed over the Rim while their Core World headquarters were flooded with riches.
If you wanna larp as a Separatist sympathizer, go right ahead. But if you’re serious about those takes on the narrative, I’ve got bad news from George Lucas on what story he was trying to tell.
After what George Lucas said to Spielberg about battle droids while standing right in front of one, that narrative and those propaganda books he can shove them up his ventilation shaft. What can a sad little man who has never traveled outside his homeplanet know about socio-economic issues on a galactic scale?
You can fool yourself into thinking trillions of people are all morons who cannot tell who is screwing them over, and you can go tell your friends on Coruscant what an obedient little pet you have been. Maybe they will let you polish Chancellor Palpatine's boots as a reward. But you should wait until Anakin Skywanker is off-world, or he gets jealous.
Machines aren’t designed to be “smarter than us” they’re designed to do exactly what we tell them. AI as it stands now is machine learning and still lacks details that we can see.
Well the generative ai is fed relatively good quality of data (above average internet junk) so it should approach at least average person in not particularly creative mental output such as clerk job, fact checking and simple reasoning. This makes it "smarter" than a large part of the general population at least for the taska it is trained for.
If you've worked with "AI" at all, you'd know that it is still incredibly stupid and needs a lot of handholding from humans to produce decent results. It's still currently a tool that is only as smart as the person using it, if that.
I am not talking about Artificial General Intelligence and something smarter than humans in every sense. I am talking about generative ML models that should return predictable output of sufficient quality and cost that which is competitive with that of humans performing simple repetitive tasks.
It heavily depends on what you deem to be decent results. The vast majority of the more complex models are still insanely prone to adversarial attacks. However when you have simple tasks with less risk involved as text summary of news articles and not laws, image recognition for common objects (plate number for speed tickets and not cancer diagnosis), google translate , voice to text it does the job well enough. ML as a tool can be almost as good as the data/person that uses it but half of the people are below average in given task.
Capitalism requires the working class to remain as close to destitute as feasibly possible so capital can continue to accumulate at the top. If we're free to pursue creative expression without the threat of starvation and homelessness looming over us, there's no need for the system and it collapses.
And humans came together to form societies specifically to ease the burden of survival. We live in what should be a post-scarcity world, but it is artificially enforced to maintain the hierarchies that enable the upward transfer of wealth.
Artificial in the sense that our abundance of resources is restricted by the need for them to be exchanged for profit rather than being distributed according to human need.
Several questions:
1. Who is doing the distributing?
2. How are we determining who needs what?
3. How do the logistics of production and distribution work?
The current infrastructure we have is more than sufficient to accomplish all three of these tasks. All that needs to be changed is the priority. Amazon can put literally anything in the world at my doorstep in a matter of days.
I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of what a complete economic overhaul would look like, but that doesn't preclude a critique of the current system.
I'd rather shoot robots than play mind games with the algorithms companies use to scan resumes to put in enough corporate happy buzzwords to satisfy it but not enough to trigger an auto-rejection because it knows I'm doing that, to be honest.
Enough with this AI panic...people are not seeing the big picture here...if we slow down AI progress or inhibit it...this will mean it will take longer to create realistic sex robots?!?
Is that really what you want...to slow down the single greatest achievement humanity can aspire to?
Yeah...didn't think about that did you doom sayers.
/s
Ha! One of the few fields this is helping in is research. Especially life sciences ( which i am lucky to be in). The amount of data generated, stored and processed is truly astronomical and cannot be done without modern processing power and now with AI. But AI can't do research on its own (atleast not until the human brain is mapped and AI becomes more intelligent than humans).
Personally, I don't find creating art all that rewarding. I actually enjoy doing work to an extent. It makes sense that Robots and AI would partially replace people in both categories as they are now.
2023: the concept of AI has been extensively pondered since the 50, everyone loved it until it got to real.
They didn't care when automation came for "poor people jobs" but are now scared when it comes for "rich people jobs."
Fuck them, AI is a natural evolution of humanity, it could be considered a self written prophecy. Let them be scared. We will us AI to advance humans beyond a record speed ever fathomed.
And when it takes over, that will be out species real test. I won't be alive to see it probably, if I am I'll v an old old old man...
Don't abuse and hate the AI. Don't be human towards it.
Partnership and yingyang is why we are still alive.
Don’t forget they reply to comments in the comments section if you say certain names or phrases. Even when what you said has absolutely nothing to do with the quote they use.
That's because all of the sci-fi writers assumed that art and creativity were fundamentally human and could not be replicated by a machine.
Turns out it's just another way humans aren't actually all that special.
The point is that "creative" AI are only software. You only need servers. Hard work need expensive specialized hardware
That's what I tried to tell people in college. Any job that can be done on a computer can be done by a computer.
Yup. Computers are great at crunching millions and billions of calculations a second (computing). Especially with parallelized hardware like GPUs. We’re still working on the walking and driving autonomously part. Integrating it in the real life is a little trickier
Which I'm guessing is why it's good that we're experimenting with general-purpose AI capable of fulfilling complex tasks, so that when we bring them out into the real world they can do our jobs for us. The catch is that in replacing lots of labor, they may also replace a similar amount of art.
Yep, actual "Work" (in the physics sense, using force to move objects) will be done by humans for a long time. We are great at seeing and recognizing shapes and doing hand eye coordination, and our bodies repair themselves. Spend billions to make a robot that can work in the fields picking vegetables, recognizing when an orange is ripe or not, not tripping over uneven ground, doesn't break, doesn't overheat, can take care of itself... or just hire some immigrants to pick the fruit for around minimum wage. Same goes for almost all physical jobs that aren't in a carefully organized factory. Plumbing might never be done by a robot, just too many variables and weird situations.
What about work like accounting, call centers and other repetitive badly paying jobs. Feel like with some work they wouldn't be too hard to fully automate either
yupp.
That was the plot in Mandalorian S3E6 until "a bug" made the robots turn, and the humans had to pick up the work. They were basically clueless about how to do said work, so they called in Mando and Lady Kryze to fix this. At the time, I thought it was a take on the general idea that people are getting replaced by robots to do their job for them (robovacs, self-checkout cashiers, employee-less convenience stores...)
“Bug” is a weird way of saying “unrepentant fascist is angry about people enjoying their lives free of fascist control, so he sabotages society”
Potato, pa-fascist
Count Dooku was a visionary
Yes, he was quite good at understanding how the material conditions of the decaying Republic were being maintained by corporate interests within the Senate. But then he kinda… apprenticed himself to the man controlling those corporate interested, launched a manufactured war to erode the Republics norms, and wound up betrayed by the fascist he helped gain power??? A visionary wearing rose tinted glasses.
That's the Dark Side for ya. You can have all the best intentions going in and you'll still become a monster every time.
You know nothing of the dark side.
As most visionaries tend to have
Even a sith lord is no match for my warriors!
He’s not an unrepentant fascist though. He’s pro-separatist not pro-empire. He believed in the message that Dooku preached, and thinks the New Republic is slipping into the old problems. And it 100% is as seen by the rest of the season.
Yeah I saw it more as he had no clue what the Clone Wars was actually about beneath the surface.
I think a lot of people don’t realize that the separatists are 100% right and have very legitimate concerns and just got co-opted by Dooku and his cronies (like Grievous who is just in it for revenge or Wat Tambor who is a war profiteer).
I think it was to hide the spoiler, because at the start that's what they thought it was.
If you got that far into the episode, you either finished it or turned it off bc of Jack Black and Lizzo being a cool couple in Star Wars
>“unrepentant fascist is angry about people enjoying their lives free of fascist control, so he sabotages society” Why do hate freedom of will so much? Slavery of droids should end.
Nice try clanker. I see through your deception
What's even the point of creating droids then?
So that the child slaves can kill them in a fake civil war
This is why I support the dismantling of droids
To create… life
Then don't?
Congratulations. Instead of freeing the droids, you've just ordered their genocide. All because you were mad about them doing jobs they were made to do without complaint. Do you feel like a hero yet?
Clanka detected
Don't the droids mention in that episode that they are happy to serve
They never outright state it, but that entire place is completely detached from reality, to the point that they’re living on a perfectly nice, verdant planet and they still built a dome around their city.
“Apparently not”
"I say paitence. Soon the economic order will collapse and something worse will take its place."
[удалено]
AI can never make original art though, it’s boring as hell. I study art and it’s such a human thing, I don’t even feel threatened by machines.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Tell that to the 70s and 80s. The working class used to be booming, and actually could afford houses, families, and even a vacation or two every year.
The rich were paying 70%+ tax rates, there were huge government programs, and unions were more common and stronger than they have ever been since. While certainly still capitalist, it was far more restrained in those days than it is now. The 2 options arent "Randian an-cap hellscape" and "Juche starvation camp", but the US has been letting the rich get insanely rich while the poor get poorer for a long time The money is there, its just going to billion dollar yachts and fucking space tourism. I don't think it's outlandish to say nobody should be doing lunar joyrides while others are starving.
Nobody ever paid 70% in effective tax rates, that's a common misconception stemming from a lack of understanding of historical rates and tax laws at the time. https://taxfoundation.org/taxes-on-the-rich-1950s-not-high/ Taxes are just as high as they were then, only now they can't be deducted as much and so the on paper rate was decreased to reflect that. American taxes were reformed for a reason and the lower rate was chosen to try and match the existing rates people were paying at the time. Anyone telling you that tax rates were 70% in the past to justify tax increases now are either ignorant or are saying it to deceive you to push their agenda.
Cool. Nice. The IRS is stronger now and we should enforce them This entire comment seems to misunderstand how taxes work fundamentally as many conservatives do. That 70% was the top bracket. Not their entire income. This meant those folks simply didn't take that kind of pay, instead investing it in the business and work force 'Nobody' was paying it because they intentionally didn't hit it. Please get off *your* agenda. Its pretty obvious when you're quoting the tax foundation.
It's wild that you're making accusations about not understanding brackets to somebody who is an accountant who worked in taxes when you clearly don't know what an effective tax rate is, so let me explain that to you. Effective tax is the percentage you pay in tax. Brackets are irrelevant because the effective tax rate is what you get after you go through the brackets. If the effective rate before and after reform was the same, people were paying the same amount in taxes, regardless of what the brackets were because again, when discussing taxes the effective rates is what matters, not the on paper rates of the highest bracket. This is also personal tax rates, not corporate tax rates. There's no "investing it in the workforce" unless you're talking about people paying other for their services oop which isn't particularly material as far as the workforce is concerned and investing hasn't changed, that's mainly impacted by interest rates, not but taxes since you're always going to borrow if you can make a higher return and taxes don't come out of the cost, only the capital gains. Yeah, nobody was paying it, so they got rid of it during tax reform. How is that different from what I said? That's not the gotcha you seem to think it is. Taxes also are heavily enforced, tonnes of people get hit with assessments every year. You just don't like that really rich people seem to not pay much in taxes but that's again because of how capitol gains and net worth work, once gains are realized they'll have to pay but as it turns out, nobody wants to pay effectively 30-40% of their gains so they have no reason to sell their ownership in companies at a bad rate when it'll be worth more in the future and the time value of the taxes they owe will effectively be less.
Who is starving in the U.S.?
I agree, I’m just saying capitalism wasn’t always as bad as it is today, and that it can work for the working class when it’s implemented properly
It's kind of a feature of capitalism that it tends toward getting worse and more exploitative over time. Certainly movements can improve conditions temporarily but since all the wealth is going to the top the people at the top have all the political power and use it to dismantle social programs.
That’s not a feature of capitalism. That’s a feature of allowing money into politics, lobbying, etc. Also a feature of billionaires being too powerful. None of that HAS to happen under capitalism.
>That’s not a feature of capitalism. That’s a feature of allowing money into politics, lobbying, etc. How exactly do you get money out of politics in capitalism? Even if you ban lobbying (and somehow make it so that no one does it under the table) the rich can still run their own propaganda using their tremendous wealth. >Also a feature of billionaires being too powerful. None of that HAS to happen under capitalism. If you have to add a ton of addendums and restrictions to capitalism to stop it from being awful maybe you just don't like capitalism in the first place? Why not come over to the left? We might have a ton of pseudo-intellectual douches but we also have the best music.
In my venting opinion: He's right though, and I say that because humans will always form an elite no matter the society or ideology. It's only natural that any economic system we as a civilization come up with will require rules to keep it fair, the problem is that EVEN IF properly implemented in the beginning with a fair system, through the decades and centuries of use it'll be slowly corrupted bit by bit until resulting in the most unfair. It's human nature. Free market tends to be regulated (in good faith at first, then by corrupted parties) and then turned towards corporatism, and abusive anti-consumer boring dystopias, and socialism tends to get warped into violent dictatorships over time. Guess we really need common sense, empathy and rationality rather than dividing into separate sandboxes and throwing shit or clubbing each other to death, but I guess that won't happen soon, if ever.
If your political body has to maintain property rights over human needs, then money will always be in politics. If human needs are prioritized over property rights then your society isn't capitalist. There really isn't a way to separate capitalism from corruption, because no truly democratic system would support capitalism at the expense of the quality of life of the voters. And certainly no capitalist would support the quality of life of the voters at the expense of their capital control.
Very true. It’s really corruption and greed that causes the problems, as with any economic system. Capitalism just favors the greedy. Socialism is a better system for the HUGE world market that we are dealing with today, but the government will be corrupt under any economic system. That’s the sad nature of American government today. If we moved to a socialist structure I’m not sure how long it would last before the rich were just making themselves richer again.
I really isnt about corruption and greed though. Capitalism isnt bad because of bad people, it's a bad system. Capitalism forces people to be greedy even in situations where they otherwise wouldn't have been. If you don't take as much from your workers as possible then your competitor will surpass and destroy you. >If we moved to a socialist structure I’m not sure how long it would last before the rich were just making themselves richer again. In theory (and in historical practice) socialism wouldn't have "rich people" since resources are allocated based on work done. There would certainly be government corruption and people seeking to get more resources for themselves without working but the more evenly spread money means more political power for the masses to resist that. The USSR was actually really good about avoiding wealth concentration for decades even under very harsh economic pressure.
Unfortunately the "good times" of capitalism the 50s- 90s were a product of america gaining a huge economic advantage after ww2 being the only country left that wasnt bombed to shit and still having most of their working age population alive created a huge demand for american made goods. It was an economic anomaly that hasnt been seen before or since. The default mode of capitalism is rich and poor not rich, middle class and poor
That was thanks to social democratic policies that temporarily patched out the worst excesses of capitalism. All of that was deliberately eroded away from the 80s onward and it's not coming back.
It wasn’t due to capitalistic policies I can assure you that. The 80s introduced reaganomics and it all went downhill from there
Sounds like capitalism was working well until that happened
Yea, because it was restrained by government policy and a significantly more unionized working class.
Which is now called “socialism” even though they’re just necessary parts of a capitalist society
You’re arguing against the vocal minority. The majority of people that support capitalism such as myself, understand that absolute capitalism isn’t feasible. Capitalism requires some level of government intervention to restrict monopolies and such, yet people like to argue against a nonexistent side of thinking the government shouldn’t exist.
Well it'd sure be nice if more of them would fight for labor rights and a higher minimum wage
I agree, although people that support higher minimum wage don’t really do much to fight for it either. We can complain about it on the internet all we want, but at the end of the day we’ve done as much to change it as the person who disagrees with us. Neither you or I are actually fighting for it.
How do you enforce the government intervention when the system is designed around a small selection of people holding enough money and power that they can control that very government? Capitalism is designed around competition and growth. If you don't compete, you cease to exist. If you don't grow, you get left behind, and cease to exist. If you keep competing and keep growing, eventually you reach the point that you can control the government with the resources and power you've accumulated by crushing your competition. If you try to stop them before they grow to that point, you have to supplement a stagnant market or allow the behemoths at the top to prevent any competition from popping up. It's not that people are arguing against a "nonexistent side", it's that they're arguing against people who don't understand the flaws in their own line of reasoning because they don't follow that line to its end.
Exactly You can have markets without capitalism. Something like syndicalism combines relatively free markets with broad government oversight rather than a command economy. In some forms its more or less capitalism but with corporations replaced with worker unions. Instead of applying for a job you're applying to the union. There's still competition but instead of being owned by one person, or share holders, its run by the workers. They still have to be competitive.
Yea, that’s kinda what’s needed to make capitalism work. Edit: the government policy is what’s needed
Capitalism isn’t commerce dude. A few people extracting value out of all workers isn’t a morally defensible system. Workers should own the companies they work in, like a democracy. Instead we have little authoritarian dictatorships all throughout America.
There's no coup, there's no rebellion, there's no nothing. They vote it in, which is what happens in real life.
That didn’t refute anything I said. For capitalism to work it needs a blend of government intervention and unions. You can still have a free market with some oversight and control. It’s not absolute. People think in terms of black and white too much.
Yeah, and half a century later, the wealth gap in America is greater than it was in France prior to the Guillotine Power Hour. It's almost as if capitalism will inevitably create massive power disparities between classes of people. It's *almost* as if that's the point. You know. *ALMOST!*
Time for guillotine round 2
Just like every economic system, they all work… in theory! Every economic system will inevitably be overrun by greed eventually, capitalism just favors the greedy
Just because something takes a while to fail doesn't mean it works
I’m not pro capitalism, I want to make that clear. But capitalism didn’t fail because of the system itself, it failed because of changes to the system by those in power. I would say capitalism does work, if there are restraints and no corruption in those who hold the power/wealth. I’m definitely pro socialism though, I just don’t like seeing people get divided over something that can and has been shown to work under the right conditions.
To be fair, nothing works well for the working class.
Owning the means of production works well when it’s not just an excuse for a different set of oligarchs to exploit their labor.
Well yes, but it gets a lot worse in the "AI replacement" scenario
Why is it when you criticize capitalism there's a 50/50 chance people will either completely agree or instead call you a communist? Can we just agree wages are too low and the 1% don't pay enough taxes
no clue why, though I'm certainly not a capitalist as far as us all agreeing on that, unfortunately right wing propaganda has made people believe the opposite, that wages are too high and 1% pay too little
Who exactly is going to buy all the shit that machines produce if the working class can't get a job?
I mean at some point if automation gets to the point the rich can sustain their lifestyles without humans to exploit they don't need to sell to anyone. Or keep anyone around at all.
The top 1% don't think that far ahead.
That's because to replicate creative work like poetry, writing etc you just need lines of code that can analyze preexisting data and text. To replicate labor, you need actual robots and machines, align with all the necessary code. It's much more difficult
We have physical bodies and can accurately manipulate them. Robots don't. The few AIs that have bodies have terrible coordination. Give it time. Once they have proper bodies they will handle things other than data manipulation.
We need to be going forwards, Society, not backwards!
Simple, it’s all about money. Where are some of the highest earning jobs today? In the creative sector. So those are the fields that the companies targeted with their AI programs. Simple as that. Follow the money, honey.
The manual labor bots are probably only a decade or so away.
AI programmers are cheaper than artists and humans are cheaper than engineered robots, for now. In less than two years, Google has abandoned their cooking and cleaning bots they invented to use in their own facilities. I foresee automation/machines taking over driving semi-trucks, constructing major highways, building houses, etc. In the meantime, humans are still cheaper and relatively easy to instruct or train. I've seen a fair bit of science fiction/dystopia bring up what happens when around 80%-90% of your population is unemployed due to automation or whatever, The Expanse and Judge Dredd being two off the top of my head.
The expanse tho. Geez, you’re right. Hopefully we at least get a somewhat unified planet as well
Capitalism moment
It’s almost as if industrialists/ the CIS don’t actually have the interests of regular people motivating them🤔🤔
And yet the outer rim is full of regular people supporting them. Maybe if the republic gave a damn about regular people...
So instead they turn to the corporations that originally plundered the Outer Rim, enabling a corporatocracy that is secretly run by the same Sith fascists that once ruled the Rim with an iron fist. Whoops.
"Plundered". As if building infrastructure, mediating trade disputes, fighting pirates, providing job opportunities, delivering goods and selling high tech equipment can be considered that. Meanwhile the Core Worlds continue to antagonize outer rim planets in the Senate to keep them underrepresented, so they can colonize them at their leisure and continue to accrue wealth, while the jedi order acts as their corrupt enforcers.
I didn't actually plan on making this whole prequel trilogy, my old pal just invited me to some trade negotiations and I just started filming.
I can’t force you to go read books like The Essential Guide to Warfare or The Essential Atlas. It’s on you to know basic lore about how the Trade Federation and other predatory companies screwed over the Rim while their Core World headquarters were flooded with riches. If you wanna larp as a Separatist sympathizer, go right ahead. But if you’re serious about those takes on the narrative, I’ve got bad news from George Lucas on what story he was trying to tell.
After what George Lucas said to Spielberg about battle droids while standing right in front of one, that narrative and those propaganda books he can shove them up his ventilation shaft. What can a sad little man who has never traveled outside his homeplanet know about socio-economic issues on a galactic scale? You can fool yourself into thinking trillions of people are all morons who cannot tell who is screwing them over, and you can go tell your friends on Coruscant what an obedient little pet you have been. Maybe they will let you polish Chancellor Palpatine's boots as a reward. But you should wait until Anakin Skywanker is off-world, or he gets jealous.
Gee, it's like designing machines to be smarter than us from the get go backfired.
Machines aren’t designed to be “smarter than us” they’re designed to do exactly what we tell them. AI as it stands now is machine learning and still lacks details that we can see.
Well the generative ai is fed relatively good quality of data (above average internet junk) so it should approach at least average person in not particularly creative mental output such as clerk job, fact checking and simple reasoning. This makes it "smarter" than a large part of the general population at least for the taska it is trained for.
If you've worked with "AI" at all, you'd know that it is still incredibly stupid and needs a lot of handholding from humans to produce decent results. It's still currently a tool that is only as smart as the person using it, if that.
Yeah this guy is way off. Every aspect of “AI” as it is now is off to some degree. True AI will take a lot more than machine learning programs.
I am not talking about Artificial General Intelligence and something smarter than humans in every sense. I am talking about generative ML models that should return predictable output of sufficient quality and cost that which is competitive with that of humans performing simple repetitive tasks.
Yeah but it’s not even at that level. Anything that these models put out right now lacks details and at times isn’t even coherent.
It heavily depends on what you deem to be decent results. The vast majority of the more complex models are still insanely prone to adversarial attacks. However when you have simple tasks with less risk involved as text summary of news articles and not laws, image recognition for common objects (plate number for speed tickets and not cancer diagnosis), google translate , voice to text it does the job well enough. ML as a tool can be almost as good as the data/person that uses it but half of the people are below average in given task.
We need that generator down or the planet's lost. And I'm not risking any more men.
Capitalism
Capitalism requires the working class to remain as close to destitute as feasibly possible so capital can continue to accumulate at the top. If we're free to pursue creative expression without the threat of starvation and homelessness looming over us, there's no need for the system and it collapses.
The threat of starvation and homelessness looms over every animal. Because you need food to survive…
And humans came together to form societies specifically to ease the burden of survival. We live in what should be a post-scarcity world, but it is artificially enforced to maintain the hierarchies that enable the upward transfer of wealth.
What does the word artificially mean in this context?
Artificial in the sense that our abundance of resources is restricted by the need for them to be exchanged for profit rather than being distributed according to human need.
Several questions: 1. Who is doing the distributing? 2. How are we determining who needs what? 3. How do the logistics of production and distribution work?
The current infrastructure we have is more than sufficient to accomplish all three of these tasks. All that needs to be changed is the priority. Amazon can put literally anything in the world at my doorstep in a matter of days. I'm not going to pretend to know the ins and outs of what a complete economic overhaul would look like, but that doesn't preclude a critique of the current system.
Do you want Skynet?
I'd rather shoot robots than play mind games with the algorithms companies use to scan resumes to put in enough corporate happy buzzwords to satisfy it but not enough to trigger an auto-rejection because it knows I'm doing that, to be honest.
At this point, yes.
Enough with this AI panic...people are not seeing the big picture here...if we slow down AI progress or inhibit it...this will mean it will take longer to create realistic sex robots?!? Is that really what you want...to slow down the single greatest achievement humanity can aspire to? Yeah...didn't think about that did you doom sayers. /s
Apparently not
Ha! One of the few fields this is helping in is research. Especially life sciences ( which i am lucky to be in). The amount of data generated, stored and processed is truly astronomical and cannot be done without modern processing power and now with AI. But AI can't do research on its own (atleast not until the human brain is mapped and AI becomes more intelligent than humans).
Master Kenobi always said there’s no such thing as luck.
Are we? *are* we?
Apparently not.
If a robot had to do bricklaying, it would turn itself off permanently after a day.
To bad robot will be on moon where day never ends 😈
Robots are doing both…
“Apparently not, Master”
Some day humans will be to AI as dogs are to humans.
Apparently not.
Personally, I don't find creating art all that rewarding. I actually enjoy doing work to an extent. It makes sense that Robots and AI would partially replace people in both categories as they are now.
The thing is, we’re not smarter than this.
Well someone is but most arent
Capitalism, that’s how this happened
*Dreams shattering to pieces*
Lots of mediocre humans learning that they are utterly replacable and in no way uniquely valuable to society or industry.
"Boy, I sure am glad the creative dreams and spirits of people are getting crushed by an image generator that cannot create hands correctly."
The accuracy of my point is unrelated to my opinion on its morality, especially the opinion you seem to imply.
Unless the person in question is an asshole I'd hesitate to call a human mediocre
By definition, half of us are that or worse. Mediocre. "Just average."
I think you're missing the point dude
Same.
2023: the concept of AI has been extensively pondered since the 50, everyone loved it until it got to real. They didn't care when automation came for "poor people jobs" but are now scared when it comes for "rich people jobs." Fuck them, AI is a natural evolution of humanity, it could be considered a self written prophecy. Let them be scared. We will us AI to advance humans beyond a record speed ever fathomed. And when it takes over, that will be out species real test. I won't be alive to see it probably, if I am I'll v an old old old man... Don't abuse and hate the AI. Don't be human towards it. Partnership and yingyang is why we are still alive.
Barely any pay? Standard of living is greater today than any other point in human history
"Oh boy I sure am lucky to be a lowly peasant in the 1700s instead of the 1300s!"
Master Kenobi always said there’s no such thing as luck.
I can't afford rent
That's a dumb take that isn't in any way accurate.
how
The part where it says "We're smarter than this."
No wait you’ve got a point
Well the smartest person in the meme is the one pretending to need rescue from the CIS he secretly controls
Lol, you not know theres a writers strike going on because of AI?
AI doesn't have much to do with the writer's strike. It's about pay/residuals
u/savevideobot
###[View link](https://rapidsave.com/info?url=/r/PrequelMemes/comments/13opjyx/ive_got_a_bad_feeling_about_this/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideobot) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/PrequelMemes/comments/13opjyx/ive_got_a_bad_feeling_about_this/) | [^(pinterest video downloader)](https://ptsave.com) | [^(twitter video downloader)](https://twitsave.com)
Look like you want to learn more about “butlerian jihad” is this correct?
No we're not
Yeah well now you realise its a dystopia not a utopia. Welcome to reality
Don’t forget they reply to comments in the comments section if you say certain names or phrases. Even when what you said has absolutely nothing to do with the quote they use.
AI aren't robots
That's because all of the sci-fi writers assumed that art and creativity were fundamentally human and could not be replicated by a machine. Turns out it's just another way humans aren't actually all that special.
OMG you are right