10
Nate Hagens and Indy Johar (www.youtube.com)
submitted 3 weeks ago by to c/climate@slrpnk.net
5 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://dboft.com/post/14389/nate-hagens-and-indy-johar

In this conversation with Nate Hagens, Indy Johar argues that money is a claim on a future that’s being withdrawn. Climate, food, AI and conflict are now feeding each other in ways no market prices. His message to wealth holders isn’t “be kind” but “be smart” put some of your capital toward financing stability itself, the way you’d buy fire insurance. He also asks what it means to be human once machines can work and think, and points, tentatively, toward consciousness, our ability to know what we don’t know, and courage. Watch it to see the whole system at once, and to swap passive hope for ....agency.

Anyone watch/listen yet?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [S] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

(repeat as I mistakenly posted from my testing account) Anyone catch where Indy mentioned something about ... capital flowing into AI is justified by replacing labor, but that’s the cover story...The real search is for something deeper. Do you agree? And with replacing labor: This will cause so much pain and suffering... how do we justify doing that? Its like a deal with the devil?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago

    That's a fun prompt, thanks.

    I think I agree to some extent, but I think there are two parties involved: investors, and AI researchers/tech CEOs. Investors want to replace labor, or at the very least, want to own the thing that does the replacing. Nothing could be more profitable in the short term (but hugely detrimental to them in the long term). The AI researchers/tech CEOs are the dreamers who are trying to create a god and then somehow harness its abilities, or hold a mirror up to god iirc Indy's metaphor. They'll use whatever money they're handed in pursuit of that goal.

    How do we justify replacing labor? I for one don't want to work in the way I'm being forced to, so I'm fine with the idea of not working. However, income/merit/benefits must be uncoupled from work first. Forgive the following civ reference, but we're not far enough along the civics tree to handle this kind of technology. I think Indy is right that we'll need to wait for crises before people want to change. That is a very annoying trait humanity appears to have.

    Is it like a deal with the devil? I don't know, but isn't this what we always wanted?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent