zlacker

[parent] [thread] 31 comments
1. munifi+(OP)[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:06:58
> We are entering a golden age in which all computer science problems seem to be tractable, insomuch as we can get very useful approximations of any computable function.

Alternatively, we are entering a dark age where the billionaires who control most of the world's capital will no longer need to suffer the indignity of paying wages to humans in order to generate more revenue from information products and all of the data they've hoarded over the past couple of decades.

> the real kicker is that we now have general-purpose thinking machines that can use computers and tackle just about any short digital problem.

We already have those thinking machines. They're called people. Why haven't people solved many of the world's problems already? Largely because the people who can afford to pay them to do so have chosen not to.

I don't see any evidence that the selfishness, avarice, and short-term thinking of the elites will be improved by them being able to replace their employees with a bot army.

replies(5): >>measur+91 >>Centig+92 >>denkmo+H9 >>skybri+vn >>keeda+HA
2. measur+91[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:14:51
>>munifi+(OP)
What you fail to understand Bob is that as long as we let the billionaires do what they want then we all automatically win. That's just how the system is designed to work, we can't lose as long as Musk & his buddies are at the helm.
replies(1): >>munifi+c3
3. Centig+92[view] [source] 2026-02-05 00:22:29
>>munifi+(OP)
I don't understand why you're being downvoted. This is a topic worth discussing.

Like every previous invention that improves productivity (cf. copiers, steam power, the wheel), this wave of AI is making certain forms of labor redundant, creating or further enriching a class of industrialists, and enabling individuals to become even more productive.

This could create a golden age, or a dark age -- most likely, it will create both. The industrial revolution created Dickensian London, the Luddite rebellion & ensuing massacres, and Blake's "dark satanic mills," but it also gave me my wardrobe of cool $30 band T-shirts and my beloved Amtrak train service.

Now is the time to talk about how we predict incentive structures will cause this technology to be used, and what levers we have at our disposal to tilt it toward "golden age."

replies(3): >>keybor+D4 >>beefle+i6 >>sunsun+C6
◧◩
4. munifi+c3[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:30:46
>>measur+91
Gazing up at them adoringly, mouth open, waiting for it all to trickle down on my face.
replies(1): >>measur+m4
◧◩◪
5. measur+m4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:39:10
>>munifi+c3
It's the only thing us plebeians can hope for. When all is said & done the people at the top are the only ones that can truly create wealth w/ their innovative genius. The rest of us should just shut up & follow their orders for our own good.
replies(1): >>drdaem+r9
◧◩
6. keybor+D4[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:41:17
>>Centig+92
People fought back. Who is fighting back now?

Capitalists have openly gloated in public about wanting to replace at least one profession. That was months or years ago. What are people doing in response? Discussing incentive structures?

SC coders paid hundreds of thousands a year are just letting this happen to them. “Nothing to be done about another 15K round of layoffs, onlookers say”

replies(3): >>Camper+q6 >>Andrew+ha >>zozbot+mb
◧◩
7. beefle+i6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:52:17
>>Centig+92
Unlike every previous invention that improves productivity, It is making every form of labor redundant.
replies(1): >>zozbot+M7
◧◩◪
8. Camper+q6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:53:00
>>keybor+D4
Buggy-whip makers inconsolable!
◧◩
9. sunsun+C6[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 00:54:55
>>Centig+92
Considering the usage of LLMs by many people as a sort of friend or psychologist we also get to look forward to a new form a control over people. These things earn peoples "trust" and there is no reason why it couldn't be used to sway peoples opinions. Not to mention the devious and subtle ways it can advertise to people.

Also, these productivity gains arent used to reduce working time for the same number of people, but instead to reduce the number of people needed to do the same amount of work. Working people get to see the productivity benefits via worsening material conditions.

◧◩◪
10. zozbot+M7[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:05:12
>>beefle+i6
AIUI, in most lines of work AI is being used to replace/augment pointless paper-pushing jobs. It doesn't seem to be all that useful for real, productive work.

Coding may be a limited exception, but even then the AI's job is to be basically a dumb (if sometimes knowledgeable) code monkey. You still need to do all the architecture and detailed design work if you want something maintainable at the end of the day.

replies(2): >>beefle+U8 >>munifi+qb
◧◩◪◨
11. beefle+U8[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:17:03
>>zozbot+M7
real productive work like what? What do you think all this hubub with robotics is about?

I mean, I know what you are getting at. I agree with you on the current state of the art. But advancements beyond this point threaten everyone's job. I don't see a moat for 95% of human labor.

There's no reason why you couldn't figure out an AI to assemble "the architecture and detailed design work". I mean I hope it's the case that the state of the art stays like this forever, I'm just not counting on it.

replies(1): >>zozbot+g9
◧◩◪◨⬒
12. zozbot+g9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:19:17
>>beefle+U8
Robotics is nothing new, we had robots in factories in the 1980s. The jobs of modern factory workers are mostly about attending to robots and other automated systems.

> There's no reason why you couldn't figure out an AI to assemble "the architecture and detailed design work".

I'd like to see that because it would mean that AI's have managed to stay at least somewhat coherent over longer work contexts.

The closest you get to this (AIUI) is with AI's trying to prove complex math theorems, where the proof checking system itself enforces the presence of effective large-scale structure. But that's an outside system keeping the AI on a very tight leash with immediate feedback, and not letting it go off-track.

◧◩◪◨
13. drdaem+r9[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:20:42
>>measur+m4
That would be a thing if wealth would correlate with innovation. I’m afraid the correlation is inverse in way too many cases.
replies(1): >>munifi+Bb
14. denkmo+H9[view] [source] 2026-02-05 01:23:00
>>munifi+(OP)
A labouring proletariat with bread and circuses is a distracted proletariat. Billionaires are still flesh and blood, much like Louis XVI and Charles I.
replies(1): >>Andrew+aa
◧◩
15. Andrew+aa[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:26:42
>>denkmo+H9
Are you actually doing anything in that direction or is this “tough guy on the internet?”

I see literally zero people doing the equivalent of “breaking the factories” like the luddites attempted

replies(2): >>denkmo+Ba >>tejohn+od
◧◩◪
16. Andrew+ha[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:28:08
>>keybor+D4
This is exactly it, nobody is going to do anything about it
◧◩◪
17. denkmo+Ba[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:31:13
>>Andrew+aa
We're not there yet. The luddite movement formed and acted over decades not years.

Do you not see the overwhelmingly negative response to AI produced goods and services from the average westerner?

replies(1): >>Andrew+cd
◧◩◪
18. zozbot+mb[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:36:52
>>keybor+D4
> Capitalists have openly gloated in public about wanting to replace at least one profession. That was months or years ago. What are people doing in response?

Great, let them try. They'll find out that AI makes the human SC coder more productive not less. Everyone knows that AI has little to nothing to do with the layoffs, it's just a silly excuse to give their investors better optics. Nobody wants to admit that maybe they've overhired a bit after the whole COVID mess.

◧◩◪◨
19. munifi+qb[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:37:14
>>zozbot+M7
> It doesn't seem to be all that useful for real, productive work.

Even the most pointless bullshit job accomplishes a societal function by transferring wages from a likely wealthy large corporation to a individual worker who has bills to pay.

Eliminating bullshit jobs might be good from an economic efficiency perspective, but people still gotta eat.

replies(2): >>uoaei+Tf >>Dennis+Hj
◧◩◪◨⬒
20. munifi+Bb[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:38:57
>>drdaem+r9
This comment thread is being sarcastic.
◧◩◪◨
21. Andrew+cd[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:51:45
>>denkmo+Ba
So, no then. Like I said upstream, nobody is going to anything about it.

At a certain point it’s too late.

◧◩◪
22. tejohn+od[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:53:21
>>Andrew+aa
I think we'd need a lot more suffering before we have enough people to start that kind of action. If we see 35% unemployment over the next 5 years with insufficient time to adjust, then maybe the pitchforks come out.
replies(1): >>Andrew+2e
◧◩◪◨
23. Andrew+2e[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 01:57:39
>>tejohn+od
So then we should just go slightly slower?

What if it’s over 10 years?

replies(1): >>tejohn+jp
◧◩◪◨⬒
24. uoaei+Tf[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:12:31
>>munifi+qb
The logic of American economic policy relies on a large velocity of money driven by consumer habits. It is tautological, and it is obsolete in the face of the elite trying to minimize wage expenses.
◧◩◪◨⬒
25. Dennis+Hj[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 02:46:31
>>munifi+qb
If the only point is distributing money, then the pointless bullshit job is an unnecessary complication.
replies(1): >>munifi+Lt
26. skybri+vn[view] [source] 2026-02-05 03:22:03
>>munifi+(OP)
I don't think you've read those quotes very closely? He's writing about all computer science problems. And "just about any short digital problem" is not the same as solving the world's problems.

AI ghosts can do a lot of things, but they're limited by being non-physical.

replies(1): >>munifi+At
◧◩◪◨⬒
27. tejohn+jp[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 03:34:48
>>Andrew+2e
Well, time is one aspect but we'd also need motivation and proper execution for a reasonable chance at successful adaptation. My guess is we'll coast along the boundary. I don't imagine things will move so fast as to cause the sort of general upheaval that I think you're talking about. But I do think things will move fast enough to cause significant harm on a larger scale than we've seen recently in the West.
replies(1): >>Andrew+cq
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
28. Andrew+cq[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 03:43:16
>>tejohn+jp
Yeah, I agree that’s the most likely future.
◧◩
29. munifi+At[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 04:20:19
>>skybri+vn
He does also say:

> The entire global economy is re-organizing around the scale-up of AI models.

> Software engineering is just the beginning; ...

> Air conditioning currently consumes 10% of global electricity production, while datacenter compute less than 1%. We will have rocks thinking all the time to further the interests of their owners. Every corporation with GPUs to spare will have ambient thinkers constantly re-planning deadlines, reducing tech debt, and trawling for more information that helps the business make its decisions in a dynamic world.

> Militaries will scramble every FLOP they can find to play out wargames, like rollouts in a MCTS search. What will happen when the first decisive war is won not by guns and drones, but by compute and information advantage? Stockpile your thinking tokens, for thinking begets better thinking.

So he is extending this to more than just computer science.

replies(1): >>skybri+Wx
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
30. munifi+Lt[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 04:21:36
>>Dennis+Hj
It's not unnecessary to the person who uses it to pay their bills.
◧◩◪
31. skybri+Wx[view] [source] [discussion] 2026-02-05 05:08:53
>>munifi+At
Yeah, I think that's magical thinking about how much better war planning will help.
32. keeda+HA[view] [source] 2026-02-05 05:37:02
>>munifi+(OP)
Here are my thoughts, which are not fully formed because AI is still so new. But taking this line of thought reductio ad absurdum, it becomes apparent that the elites have a critical dependency on us plebs:

Almost all of their wealth is ultimately derived from people.

The rich get richer by taking a massive cut of the economy, and the economy is basically people providing and paying for services and goods. If all the employees are replaced and can earn no money, there is no economy. Now the elite have two major problems:

a) What do they take a cut of to keep getting richer?

b) How long will they be safe when the resentment eventually boils over? (There's a reason the doomsday bunker industry is booming.)

My hunch is, after a period of turmoil, we'll end up in the usual equilibrium where the rest of the world is kept economically growing just enough to keep (a) us stable enough not to revolt and (b) them getting richer. I don't know what that looks like, could be UBI or something. But we'll figure it out because our incentives are aligned: we all want to stay alive and get richer (for varying definitions of "richer" of course.)

However, I suspect a lot will change quickly, because a ton of things that made up the old world order is going to be upended. Like, you'd need millions in funding to hire a team to launch any major software product; this ultimately kept the power in the hands of those with capital. Now a single person with an AI agent and a cloud platform can do it themselves for pocket change. This pattern will repeat across industries.

The power of capital is being disintermediated, and it's not clear what the repercussions will be.

[go to top]