Imagine this scenario:

  • All companies start producing mostly using only AI and firing people, because people have no use anymore
  • Joe spend most of his income on digital video games products
  • Joe get fired because he got replaced by AI now, since AIs are taking over most jobs
  • Joe has no income anymore
  • Joe doesn't have any more money to spend on video games
  • Companies have no more profit, because people don't have income, so people can't spend on their AI produced products

In this scenario both lose, the company adopting AI and the worker. Am I missing something? Is there any possibility besides Universal Basic Income to keep the system running and not collapsing?

top 99 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[+] 116 points 5 months ago (9 children)
  • [–] 36 points 5 months ago

    These companies are not thinking that far ahead and they don’t care about the consequences even if it hurts them too.

    Yep. We've already see that with climate change so it's not a stretch to apply it to AI.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 29 points 5 months ago* (3 children)

    The rich who benefit from this don’t care. They have enough wealth that it doesn’t matter. We could all be starving to death, fighting each other scraps of bread in the street, and they’d believe we deserve it.

    If anything, that would drive prices down so they could build their next vacation home for pennies on the dollar.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 10 points 5 months ago* (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    There's a bunch of people who work as consultants for the rich, and in the past decade they have been talking about how many rich people were getting into disaster prep. Some of them have done interviews with various news organizations. In an article I remember they said a common question was how these rich bastards could ensure their bunker staff wouldn't revolt and take over.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    It's like the ending of the Dinosaurs sitcom when everyone is going to die and Bob is talking to his boss on the phone. His boss is excited about all the money he's going to make. Bob points out they're all going to die and the boss says "well that's a fourth quarter problem"

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    This is my take.

    However, my husband has a very interesting theory. He feels like its going to go in the way of the Alien universe where there will be universal income in a way but provided by government/corporations and a controlled populace.

    Both options aren't great 😂

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 39 points 5 months ago

    This is not specific to AI. This has been slowly happening over decades, wealth is accumulating in smaller and smaller sets of people. Capitalism is cancer on humanity.

    Those big bosses just want to take everything and give nothing, whatever that means. It doesn't matter if it kills them in the end too.

    This is unsustainable, and it will get much worse before it can get better (if ever).

  • source
  • [–] 31 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    That's the entire elephant in the room of the future economy. Just don't think about it, put your head down, don't question things, and consume more short form social media slop.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 30 points 5 months ago* (2 children)

    The bourgeois will happily let the masses starve and die when unemployment soars. They don't give a fuck about us as long as their profits rise. (The great depression began in 1929 and it was almost a decade before the implementation of the new deal to provide economic relief to the masses.) They won't be bothered to give a fuck until the line stops going up. They will happily murder us if we dare strike for better working conditions

    AI isn't increasing productivity, it's being used as a way to mask headcount reductions for the sake of short term profits, even though ROI is poor.

    Furthermore, implementation of AI is increasing the intensity of the workload for people that survive headcount reductions.

    Business is a big club, and you ain't in it.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 22 points 5 months ago

    Sorry, that's three or four quarters further out than we consider in this economy.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    hint: they won’t. a flooded labor pool means the corps can pay as little as possible for the labor they do need humans for. it’s the whole point of capitalism. for a neat story about it, read “The Jungle” by Upton Sinclair.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago

    K shaped economy. They don't care if we can afford anything. Its Versailles. The peasants starve while the aristocrats move the "economy".

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Peter Frase wrote an article (and soon after a book expansion of it) called "Four Futures" in which he examines this question.

    According to Frase, the future we wind up with can be categorized into a Punnett square based on two questions: will essentials be abundant or scarce? And will they be distributed selfishly or universally?

    If we have more than we need and we give it away universally, that's Communism. If we have less than we need, but we share what we have and our burdens equally, that's Socialism.

    Now here's the two you're asking about. If we don't have a populist revolution, we wind up with one of the bad ones.

    If we have abundance, but it's hoarded, we get Rentism. You can see outlines of this already. It's where you pay for digital files that can be endlessly reproduced and are forced into subscriptions to continue using appliances despite the fact that their continued use is free to the company. This is the one you're asking about. If we reached full automation, but still charged people for everything, you'd have a version of serfdom, likely with a basic income. The income would likely be based on a social credit system in which people who show the most obedience are rewarded with money to buy things that are basically free to produce. There might be a system of artificial scarcity to force people to devote a certain number of hours each day to unnecessary work or watching advertisements to receive income.

    The last one is called Exterminism. You can read about it in the article. It's pretty self-explanatory.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago

    That was a fun read, thanks for bringing it up.

    Of course we are well on the way to exterminism. We already lose anywhere from 20-50 million people each year due to pollution. That is about a billion people in the last 40 years who have died for our collective march to greed over every other human ideal. This number will continue to accelerate.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 5 months ago

    Oh no, don't think further or you might arrive at leftist / social conclusions 🤔.

    (take with a grain of salt depending on location and understanding)

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    Yes you exterminate the now surplus population everyone in charge is a schmittian so people who aren't them is inherently violent against them to them and reducing that is an existential good have you never met a wealthy

  • source
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    You've hit the nail on the head.

    Companies pushing for AI are playing a short game, not a long game. They have not considered the consequences of this course after a short term return (which may not materialize anyway).

    The whole AI debacle is a great example of why it's bad to have engineering developments without the philosophical conversations. We need the A in STEAM to tell the E's when they're opening Pandora's Box.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Nah. Once Robotics catches up with AI and those who own everything can have whatever necessities and luxury goods they want produced without us, the bulk of humanity becomes redundant and unnecessary. They won't need us to buy or build or do anything. We'll just be cluttering up the scenery and competing for resources. It would be in their best interest for the majority of us to die off.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    Joe doesn’t have any more money to spend on video games
    Companies have no more profit, because people don’t have income, so people can’t spend on their AI produced products

    Funny thing, a Scottish fellow named Adam Smith figured that an economy where people don't have money to spend ends up stagnated and/or fucked over. Somewhat ironically, that is the piece that is most often overlooked by today's liberal economists (the kinds that are in favor or less regulation and taxes)

    Most rich assholes like the idea of lording over a bunch of dirty peasants, of feeling superior to the unwashed masses, having them offer themselves into slavery out of "free will"

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think a lot more people need to read "The Naked Sun" by Isaac Asimov for the answer to this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 19 points 5 months ago

    You're missing the fact that the people who run the AI companies literally want us all to die so they can take our money.

    They don't want other people to exist. Except as slaves to them.

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (19 children)

    People will accept lower wages to compete with AI... Up to a point... My prediction is that it's going to make the wage gap deep enough that people will have to revolt. What frightens me is what comes after, it's going to get worse before it gets better. Especially given the fact that people don't vote because of "both sides fallacies".

  • source
  • hideshow 19 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I disagree. I actually think that it's gonna get worse before it gets worse.

    Seriously though, what comes after really depends on what faction within the revolt is more dominant and has more sway. It's anyone's guess.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (15 children)

    Right, all those Democrats fighting hard to protect your jobs and put limits on AI... The two bills they are working on definitely have teeth and do anything useful at all, it's a fallacy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (14 children)

    No, it's a fallacy that not voting is the right move because both sides.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (13 children)

    Both sides are against me, I'm voting for a third almost always.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (12 children)

    Which is basically the same as not voting in places like the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (11 children)

    Yeah, you're missing the point where both sides are against me and I'm not voting for the "lesser evil" for your comfort.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (10 children)

    It has nothing to do with others comfort. Voting third party in a first past the post two party system helps the existing two parties maintain control. It is an unfortunate reality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (9 children)

    No, that's twisting of reality. My vote for X didn't help A or B as opposed to voting for A or B directly, as you want me to do.

    I don't want either party to win, because they're both evil. You insisting on voting for the "lesser evil" because their evil doesn't effect you enough is throwing me under the bus, so getting the "greater evil" is on you.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (8 children)

    Oh I see. You are basing this on feelings. I totally agree this is how you feel. When you are ready to understand why the system is broken you can start below.

    https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (7 children)

    No I'm basing it on my material condition, and Democrats are doing almost the same amount of harm to me and many others.

    You're basing it on your material condition, where you benefit more under them, and to hell with those they run over, THe hELL With ThosE tHE SYSTEM DesTroyS, i wIlL SUPPort iT as loNg AS IT WORKs For ME!

    I have no obligation to lie down on the train tracks for you because you're afraid of degrading your comfortable lifestyle, when you openly tell me I'm just a victim of a broken system you insist on participating in and not fixing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 5 months ago (6 children)

    I am sure plenty of Democratic people don't even know you. Pretending they are directly harming you is an emotional response.

    You aren't speaking from knowledge and instead speaking to your feelings. There is nothing wrong with that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago* (5 children)

    What a stupid thing to say. Their policies directly harm me, the policies you support and dismiss as "lesser evil" directly harm me and my people. It's material harm, and emotional too, but par for the course to dismiss that as well.

    As long as you're not harmed, that's the priority. I must vote blue, and if I don't I'm to blame.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    Their unconditional support for Israel and Biden's genocide in Gaza for a start, they literally lost the election over it.

    But I know, brown people aren't as important as your first world problems, so you're gonna deflect and deny, maybe callousely ask me if I'm happier with Trump?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    Please explain how this harms you directly as in a tort. I am interested as if you can prove actual harm you may have standing to sue.

    I don't want to discount your feelings because they are important and quite frankly I agree with them. I also think it is important to separate feelings from facts. Unless you can demonstrate how Democrats have personally harmed you it is just a feeling. Nothing wrong with that though.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    For me personally, I'm Palestinian. I've lost literal people. While living in America, I faced increased racism under Biden that I haven't experienced since 9/11.

    For family I have in the US, some were arrested for protesting Biden's illegal support for Israel, breaking the leahy law and bypassing Congress to send billions in weapons to materially fund His genocide, while lying about beheaded babies and proclaiming that he's a proud Zionist while having reporters literally dragged out of the press room for asking questions. Your Nazi is not better than their Nazi.

    Family and friends lost their jobs for speaking up, students were arrested and accused of antisemitism, while literal IDF soldiers were present to beat them were backed up by the police. How quickly we forget, or perhaps you never invested the time to read any articles criticizing your side.

    Outside of my personal anecdotes, are you seriously resorting to asking me to prove personal harm? You're proving my point that as long as you don't know the people being harmed it's all good. Unless you want to pretend like Obama's drone strikes on weddings or increased police funding under Biden didn't harm anyone?

    I could keep listing, but you're gonna dismiss them all and point at Trump and say "is it better now?", completely missing the point, aren't you?

    Or are you just gonna continue insisting they don't harm anyone? Because that's just sad.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Thanks for sharing, I appreciate it. I can see you have a legitimate case and your facts back up your feelings. I know what it is like to lose loved ones to violence.

    I don't mean to point out the obvious, but I am no supporter of Biden or even the US. I have spent a large chunk of my life studying human rights violations, particularly from the US, so I am probably more aware of all the ways the US has abused the world than the majority of people.

    So if you are looking for someone to play devil's advocate with I am not your man. What I will say is what has happened to the Palestinians is not unique. The Native Americans got worse treatment and they never even had the meager support that is afforded to Palestine.

    Your story must be told. If you are a US citizen then I believe you could show material harm in the form of a tort and sue the government. It is too bad that US corporations have a lock down on our media because I truly believe a story such as yours could change the hearts and minds of so many people.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    That is a problem for the next quarter's CEO to deal with

  • source
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    The economy will shift to serve a smaller number of people.

    The people who lose their income will fall into poverty, existing on charity, begging, or scrounging, or they will die. (They will nearly all die sooner than they would have if they had maintained their income)

    The CEOS and shareholders might understand this, but none of them can solve it alone, and trying to do so puts them at a disadvantage vrs their competitors.

    The productive capacity will go toward ever more elaborate and esoteric projects, like Bezos wedding, or sending Musk to Mars, or building the biggest superyact, again.

    And the majority will suffer.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    I suspect you left out a step: many will start going after people who DO have money before just dying.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 5 months ago

    I really want to be wrong but it seems a handful of humanity believes we're all doomed and none of this planet or society matters. Their greed and brazen disregard for the consequences of their actions is a result from the psychosis of greed and/or sociopathy, or they know something the rest of us don't and are trying to get theirs before the end. Like the movie Don't Look Up or Knowing.

  • source
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (9 children)

    That is the question. But you're missing one crucial element. How are the very companies employing the AI going to make money when there's no consumer to purchase their products?

  • source
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I'm sure at least some are operating under the assumption that government bailouts will be on offer (too big to fail). The industries that have received bailouts in the past are also on the AI bandwagon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    The whole system is predicated on people consuming. AI can't take over everything to the point where people can't buy stuff. Why would the government bailout a company that has no customers.

    Bailouts help the company to become profitable so they can be repaid. Again, no customers no profit no bail out.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (3 children)

    So many financial businesses these days don't really seem to have a product, just a stock price, and they make it go up and down, and bet on it, and that's all it takes to make money. None of it is real, but it contains pixels on a screen, so it exists enough to buy real products, and that's all that matters.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    So I'm having a really hard time communicating this to people and I don't know if it's because they are young and inexperienced in the way of the world or they simply lack a complete education of how economics function I don't know.

    Our entire economic system on this planet, every version of it from socialism to dictatorships to capitalism, and whatever it is they have in Denmark and Sweden, functions on one simple fundamental principle: consumption.

    The companies being traded on the stock market exist because people buy the products and services those companies provide.

    Adobe sells licenses that allow graphic designers to use its products. There is no physical product involved, only digital services, but those licenses are still what keep the business operating and allow it to be publicly traded on the stock market.

    If AI replaces the people physically working at these companies, the people creating the software and products being sold by these publicly traded corporations, then eventually there will be no consumer income left to sustain those businesses. Without consumers spending money, companies will have nothing meaningful to report to shareholders and investors, which would ultimately destabilize the entire system.

    People have to consume products and services for the economy to function. AI cannot fundamentally replace the entire workforce indefinitely because, if it does, there will eventually be nothing left to support the economic system, including the infrastructure required to sustain AI itself.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (1 child)

    Actually exchanging currency for a product is so old school. Now they just need a stock price, make an announcement, and the price goes up, and those in the know make a fortune. Nothing was sold, nothing changed, there was just an announcement, and those who know the announcement is coming, or are actually making the announcement, get to cash in. It was worth one thing yesterday, and it's worth more today, and that increase is very real money.

    There are lots of smoke and mirrors tricks to manipulate stock prices and make money going up or down, and people thinking of new ones every day. Now they're just creating their own money out of thin air.

    And none of it requires any products to be sold.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Yes. Correct. You just described the stock market. And all of those companies require a consumer to purchase good and/or services from the company that is being bought and sold.

    Those companies that you are describing have to report earnings. They have to be profitable for investors to invest.

    If a company doesn't report earnings it doesn't matter how much insider trading occurs.

    There are also other markets. Like in China and the European Union.

    In fact, the capital of finances is often times considered London of all places.

    It's just a complete lack of education in economics. It's insane.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago

    This exact scenario has been happening since the industrial revolution.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    Is there any possibility besides Universal Basic Income to keep the system running and not collapsing?

    Do you know the saying "Soylent Green is people"? Well, ...

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    Why would the owners need to keep the system running if they have all the resources and tools?

    One need not worry about the game not being able to continue if one already won.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    But they are not one, when all the resources and tools are owned by the big companies that is when they fight each other, and for that they need cheap expendable ground troops, so ask yourself "which company do I want to fight for?" The Gaggles of Google, how about Amazon's 6/7 mechanized infantry, or the SpaceX Xforx.

    Oh it's gonna all be memes and violence from then on, you will get paid in company money and live in company community's, eventually the world will be devided into roughly country shaped chunks run exclusively by a single corporation or a consortium of smaller companies.

    Gonna be just like the utopian sci-fi, you know Neromancer, Blade Runner, Cyberpunk, and my favorite Downbelow Station.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • That's not what I meant by "one", but nvm.

    Also, if we ever reach that point, I'm not fighting for any of them. And not just for moral reasons - it will be more profitable to steal from them, and since the social contract will be broken anyway...

    But I'd rather fo my best now to make sure that doesn't happen to begin with, and I thankfully live somewhere where my effort might actually might make some impact (the European Union).

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

    If AI works like tech guys say it will (of which I have my doubts) it’ll basically work like another Industrial Revolution. Back then it was supposedly a similar issue: people used to weave fabric by hand, but when the spinning jenny and electric loom came around they weren’t needed anymore so they were out of a job and turned destitute. Companies started selling the products internationally in the colonies and employed differently qualified workers to handle the new machines. So the hand weavers got replaced by loom operators and knowledge workers. If you believe the Silicon Valley class, this transition will be the same.

    The issue is that the traditional weavers stayed destitute, because they weren’t equipped for the new labour market and so a lot of them were driven into poverty and radicalisation. As always capitalists don’t really care about that though

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    I believe the French got there once and they managed to solve the issue

    I really wouldn't want to get to that point and I honestly don't really understand why the rich class just continues this course because I do believe it's playing with fire at this point

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago

    It'll just be a corprate circle jerk of companies paying each other for "products and services". People will work for food an be shelter, provided by the company you work for. I believe the kids are calling it "techno-feudalism".

  • source
  • [–] 13 points 5 months ago

    Companies have no more profit, because people don’t have income, so people can’t spend on their AI produced products

    In this scenario both lose, the company adopting AI and the worker. Am I missing something?

    The worker-consumer is no longer a source of wealth to the company since their labor no longer has value, but that doesn't mean there is nothing a company can do to try to acquire wealth. They just have to exclusively cater to the people who control that wealth. The business model of a media company might be spreading anti-democracy propaganda and collecting surveillance data for the use of the people who worry about what a desperate and starving Joe might do. Once Joe is gone they can spin narratives about why all this was the right moral choice.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago (4 children)

    I don't think the ai and data centres are for us.

    The billionaires who want to survive this upcoming apocalypse need ai to be functional in order to survive in their bunkers.

    Everyone else till then is basically free labour, training material and collateral.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    No, you aren't missing anything. You're right that some sort of basic income is inevitable (universal or not). Even if you are a raging capitalist, you still need the plebs to have SOME income to be able to purchase goods and services.

    However, for this to happen, it must be demonstrable that AI is actually causing high unemployment. Right now, while economic productivity is kinda increasing due to AI, unemployment isn't. When it happens:

    • Capitalists will advocate for BI.
    • Market socialists will advocate for BI combined with government/coop ownership over some or all means of production.
    • Socialists that prefer planned economics could advocate for an expansion of universal basic services.
    • Primitivists will advocate for bans on AI or whatever, I dunno.

    Massive unemployment is bad for everyone including the ruling class, as that leads to pitchforks, guillotines and chopped off heads.

  • source
  • [–] 6 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 child)

    We're already seeing a slow shift to more goods and services aimed at the rich and very rich. It's what you expect to see as fewer people get control of more of the money. The rich are fine with whatever number of people being out on the street, as long as they aren't one of them. The same reasoning goes for whose business will fail because the middle and working class can't sustain them anymore. As long as it isn't my business, whatever.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 5 months ago

    By the time this comes to fruition, The billionaires will have all of the money and you will be working as a slave. They don't give a fuck f you can afford to buy something or not.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    I think we tend to forget that companies are not “people” or a thinking thing. They are run by people. All the current CEOs only care about getting money to themselves. By the time things are close to collapsing, these people will have made more than enough money for themselves and pass off the CEO seats to someone else for that to be their problem.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    If you ask that in a company meeting, they'll shot you in the head. Two times, above each eyebrow, just to be sure.

    They are contractually obligated to by the investors.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    as others have stated if you've spent any time in the corporate world, especially the tech industry, you'd realize that they simply don't think that far ahead. They live in the now. They live by the quarter. beyond that there's no point in thinking about 2 to 5 years down the line. As long as they're making money now then that's all that matters.

    It's the same with billionaires and the wealthy. They can't think that far ahead, they don't need to. They don't need a retirement plan, they can stop whenever they want. But who will cook their food? produce their goods? etc? who cares they aren't thinking about that. they live in the now, quarter to quarter.

  • source
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    On top of that who's gonna keep creating the real data necessary to keep training the AI models if no one can profit from their work anymore.

    It's an ouroborous situation.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 5 months ago

    This is to a degree already a problem. Not because of AI, but because of stagnating wages and an increasing wealth gap.

    It used to be that a company designing and selling was limited by funding, but now we're increasingly seeing companies with all the money in the world who are seeing sales going down due to the simple fact that people cannot afford to buy what they're selling. The supply is there, but modern corporate effectively eradicate their own market.

  • source
  • [–] 7 points 5 months ago (3 children)

    The oligarchs will give us just enough UBI to not riot. It's going to be used as a bribe to keep them in power. That's my issue with calls for UBI; they permanently entrench class dynamics. Our only (peaceful) leverage as workers to improve our conditions is to withhold our labor. If AI actually succeeds in mass unemployment, we lose that and we'll be forever at their mercy.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    They actually want to depopulate the Earth, as we are a serious threat to them, both to the ecosystem that they need to survive, their own survival, and all the resources they want to drain dry. It will be just a few million or less elites, trading robot labor with each other.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago*

    they wont survive long in thier bunkers, if they cant PAY thier "slaves", robots is too far in the future to be super useful as MAIDS, or construction workers. they are just hoping the manosphere propaganda, conservatism is enough to stave off thier PURGE, and peter thiels obsessive SURVEILLANCE to watch any "radicals"

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›