Most Americans think AI won’t improve their lives, survey says
-
This is exactly the result. No matter how advanced AI gets, unless the singularity is realized, we will be no closer to some kind of 8-hour workweek utopia. These AI Silicon Valley fanatics are the same ones saying that basic social welfare programs are naive and un-implementable - so why would they suddenly change their entire perspective on life?
we will be no closer to some kind of 8-hour workweek utopia.
If you haven't read this, it's short and worth the time. The short work week utopia is one of two possible outcomes imagined: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
-
Maybe it’s because the American public are shortsighted idiots who don’t understand the concepts like future outcomes are based on present decisions.
-
This vision of the AI making everything easier always leaves out the part where nobody has a job as a result.
Sure you can relax on a beach, you have all the time in the world now that you are unemployed. The disconnect is mind boggling.
Universal Base Income - it's either that or just kill all the un-necessary poor people.
-
Except, no employer will allow you to use your own AI model. Just like you can't bring your own work equipment (which in many regards even is a good thing) companies will force you to use their specific type of AI for your work.
No big employer... there are plenty of smaller companies who are open to do whatever works.
-
Mayne pedantic, but:
Everyone seems to think CEOs are the problem. They are not. They report to and get broad instruction from the board. The board can fire the CEO. If you got rid of a CEO, the board will just hire a replacement.
CEOs are the figurehead, they are virtually bound by law to act sociopathically - in the interests of their shareholders over everyone else. Carl Icahn also has an interesting take on a particularly upsetting emergent property of our system of CEO selection: https://dealbreaker.com/2007/10/icahn-explains-why-are-there-so-many-idiots-running-shit
-
And if you get rid of the board, the shareholders will appointment a new one. If you somehow get rid of all the shareholders, like-minded people will slot themselves into those positions.
The problems are systemic, not individual.
Shareholders only care about the value of their shares increasing. It's a productive arrangement, up to a point, but we've gotten too good at ignoring and externalizing the human, environmental, and long term costs in pursuit of ever increasing shareholder value.
-
This is like asking tobacco farmers what their thoughts are on smoking.
Al Gore's family thought that the political tide was turning against it, so they gave up tobacco farming in the late 1980s - and focused on politics.
-
See also; the cotton gin.
The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society "needed" slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.
-
Right?! It's literally just a messenger, honestly, all I expect from it is that it's an easy and reliable way of sending messages to my contacts. Anything else is questionable.
-
Machine learning? It’s already had a huge effect, drug discovery alone is transformative.
Machine learning is just large automated optimization, something that was done for many decades before, but the hardware finally reached a power-point where the automated searches started out-performing more informed selective searches.
The same way that AlphaZero got better at chess than Deep Blue - it just steam-rollered the problem with raw power.
-
or just propped up with something like UBI.
That depends entirely on how much UBI is provided.
I envision a "simple" taxation system with UBI + flat tax. You adjust the flat tax high enough to get the government services you need (infrastructure like roads, education, police/military, and UBI), and you adjust the UBI up enough to keep the wealthy from running away with the show.
Marshall Brain envisioned an "open source" based property system that's not far off from UBI: https://marshallbrain.com/manna
-
It would still require a revolution.
I would like to believe that we could have a gradual transition without the revolution being needed, but... present political developments make revolution seem more likely.
-
Replacing people is a good thing. It means less people do more work. It means progress. It means products and services will get cheaper and more available.
Replacing people is a good thing.
Yes, and no: https://www.npr.org/2025/02/11/g-s1-47352/why-economists-got-free-trade-with-china-so-wrong
-
The cotton gin has been used as an argument for why slavery finally became unacceptable. Until then society "needed" slaves to do the work, but with the cotton gin and other automations the costs of slavery started becoming higher than the value.
My understanding is that the cotton gin led to more slavery as cotton production became more profitable. The machine could process cotton but not pick it, so more hands were needed for field work.
Wiki:
The invention of the cotton gin caused massive growth in the production of cotton in the United States, concentrated mostly in the South. Cotton production expanded from 750,000 bales in 1830 to 2.85 million bales in 1850. As a result, the region became even more dependent on plantations that used black slave labor, with plantation agriculture becoming the largest sector of its economy.[35] While it took a single laborer about ten hours to separate a single pound of fiber from the seeds, a team of two or three slaves using a cotton gin could produce around fifty pounds of cotton in just one day.[36] The number of slaves rose in concert with the increase in cotton production, increasing from around 700,000 in 1790 to around 3.2 million in 1850."
-
This is collateral damage of societal progress. This is a phenomenon as old as humanity. You can't fight it. And it has brought us to where we are now. From cavemen to space explorers.
Oh hey, it's the Nazi apologist. Big shock you don't give a fuck about other people's lives.
-
Maybe it’s because the American public are shortsighted idiots who don’t understand the concepts like future outcomes are based on present decisions.
-
Maybe that's because they're using AI to replace people, and the AI does a worse job.
Meanwhile, the people are also out of work.
Lose - Lose.
-
Maybe that's because they're using AI to replace people, and the AI does a worse job.
Meanwhile, the people are also out of work.
Lose - Lose.
Even if you're not "out of work", your work becomes more chaotic and less fulfilling in the name of productivity.
When I started 20 years ago, you could round out a long day with a few hours of mindless data entry or whatever. Not anymore.
A few years ago I could talk to people or maybe even write a nice email communicating a complex topic. Now chatGPT writes the email and I check it.
It's just shit honestly. I'd rather weave baskets and die at 40 years old of a tooth infection than spend an additional 30 years wallowing in self loathing and despair.
-
Everyone gains from progress. We've had the same discussion over and over again. When the first sewing machines came along, when the steam engine was invented, when the internet became a thing. Some people will lose their job every time progress is made. But being against progress for that reason is just stupid.
-
Oh hey, it's the Nazi apologist. Big shock you don't give a fuck about other people's lives.
