> But I think current AI (not where it might be in a few months or years) is absolutely amazing for disadvantaged people. Access to someone who's average is so freaking cool if you don't already have it. Used correctly it's a free math tutor, a free editor for any papers you write, a free advice nurse.
Interestingly, I think AI, if its biggest boosters are correct, will end up being an absolute disaster for disadvantaged people.
The fact is that the vast majority of people in the current world are able to survive by selling their labor. If AI makes it so that, say, 50% of the world's population is no longer able to survive by selling their labor, that leads to massive serfdom, not some sort of Star Trek utopia.
And the thing that is shocking to me is that I haven't seen any (like, absolutely zero) credible explanation from AI boosters of how this dystopian end state is avoidable. I've either heard misdirection (e.g. yes, I agree AI is amazing at what it can do, but that doesn't explain how people will eat if they don't have jobs), vague handwavy-ness, or "kumbaya talk" about stuff like basic income that seems to completely ignore human nature.
I would absolutely love to be convinced I'm wrong, but that would need to start with at least something approaching a rational argument as to how the benefits of AI will be more equally distributed, and I have yet to hear that.
Interestingly, I think AI, if its biggest boosters are correct, will end up being an absolute disaster for disadvantaged people.
The fact is that the vast majority of people in the current world are able to survive by selling their labor. If AI makes it so that, say, 50% of the world's population is no longer able to survive by selling their labor, that leads to massive serfdom, not some sort of Star Trek utopia.
And the thing that is shocking to me is that I haven't seen any (like, absolutely zero) credible explanation from AI boosters of how this dystopian end state is avoidable. I've either heard misdirection (e.g. yes, I agree AI is amazing at what it can do, but that doesn't explain how people will eat if they don't have jobs), vague handwavy-ness, or "kumbaya talk" about stuff like basic income that seems to completely ignore human nature.
I would absolutely love to be convinced I'm wrong, but that would need to start with at least something approaching a rational argument as to how the benefits of AI will be more equally distributed, and I have yet to hear that.