Comment by simianwords

Comment by simianwords 2 days ago

54 replies

>So let's all just give zero fucks about our moral values and just multiply monetary ones.

You are misconstruing the original point. They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government. There are a few people who might exaggerate these moral issues for self service but they wouldn't matter in the long term.

That is not to suggest there are absolutely no legitimate moral problems with AI but they will pale in comparison to what the market needs.

If AI can make things 1000x more efficient, humanity will collectively agree in one way or the other to ignore or work around the "moral hazards" for the greater good.

You can start by explaining what your specific moral value is that goes against AI use? It might bring to clarity whether these values are that important at all to begin with.

vkou 2 days ago

> If AI can make things 1000x more efficient,

Is that the promise of the faustian bargain we're signing?

Once the ink is dry, should I expect to be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment, or be spending $20/year on healthcare? Or be working only an hour a week?

  • ovi256 2 days ago

    While humans have historically mildly reduced their working time to today's 40h workweek, their consumption has gone up enormously, and whole new categories of consumption were opened. So my prediction is while you'll never live in a 900,000sqft apartment (unless we get O'Neill cylinders from our budding space industry) you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week

    • rightbyte 2 days ago

      40h is probably up from pre-industrial times.

      Edit: There is some research covering work time estimates for different ages.

      • satvikpendem 16 hours ago

        Let's kill this myth that people were lounging around before the Industrial Revolution. Serfs for example were working both their own land as well as their lord's land, as well as doing domestic duties in the middle. They really didn't have as much free time as we do today, plus their work was way more backbreaking, literally, than most's cushy sedentary office jobs.

      • infecto 2 days ago

        We could probably argue to the end of time about the qualitative quality of life between then and now. In general a metric of consumption and time spent gathering that consumption has gotten better over time.

        • johnnyanmac 2 days ago

          I don't think a general sentiment matters much here when the important necessitate are out of reach. The hierarchy of needs is outdated, but the inversion of it is very concerning.

          We can live without a flat screen TV (which has gotten dirt cheap). We can't live without a decent house. Or worse, while we can live in some 500 sq ft shack we can't truly "live" if there's no other public amenities to gather and socialize without nickel-and-diming us.

      • fastball 2 days ago

        What was all this free time spent doing in the pre-industrial era?

    • johnnyanmac 2 days ago

      >you'll probably consume a lot more, while still working a full week

      There's more to cosume than 50 years ago, but I don't see that trend continuing. We shifted phone bills to cell phone bills and added internet bills and a myriad of subscriptions. But that's really it. everything was "turn one time into subscrition".

      I don't see what will fundamentally shift that current consumption for the next 20-30 years. Just more conversion of ownership to renting. In entertainment we're already seeing revolts against this as piracy surges. I don't know how we're going to "consume a lot more" in this case.

    • wizzwizz4 2 days ago

      I don't want to "consume a lot more". I want to work less, and for the work I do to be valuable, and to be able to spend my remaining time on other valuable things.

      • Kerrick 2 days ago

        You can consume a lot less on a surprisingly small salary, at least in the U.S.

        But it requires giving up things a lot of people don't want to, because consuming less once you are used to consuming more sucks. Here is a list of things people can cut from their life that are part of the "consumption has gone up" and "new categories of consumption were opened" that ovi256 was talking about:

        - One can give up cell phones, headphones/earbuds, mobile phone plans, mobile data plans, tablets, ereaders, and paid apps/services. That can save $100/mo in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 20 years ago.

        - One can give up laptops, desktops, gaming consoles, internet service, and paid apps/services. That can save another $100/months in bills and amortized hardware. These were a luxury 30 years ago.

        - One can give up imported produce and year-round availability of fresh foods. Depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save almost nothing, or up to hundreds of dollars every month. This was a luxury 50 years ago.

        - One can give up restaurant, take-out, and home pre-packaged foods. Again depending on your family size and eating habits, that could save nothing-to-hundreds every month. This was a luxury 70 years ago.

        - One can give up car ownership, car rentals, car insurance, car maintenance, and gasoline. In urban areas, walking and public transit are much cheaper options. In rural areas, walking, bicycling, and getting rides from shuttle services and/or friends are much cheaper options. That could save over a thousand dollars a month per 15,000 miles. This was a luxury 80 years ago.

        I could keep going, but by this point I've likely suggested cutting something you now consider necessary consumption. If you thought one "can't just give that up nowadays," I'm not saying you're right or wrong. I'm just hoping you acknowledge that what people consider optional consumption has changed, which means people consume a lot more.

      • infecto 2 days ago

        So you are agreeing with the parent? If consumption has gone up a lot and input hours has gone down or stayed flat, that means you are able to work less.

      • satvikpendem 2 days ago

        Save up and then FIRE; retire early by moving to a lower cost of living area.

      • simianwords 2 days ago

        you can consume as much as an average person from 1950's by working just a few days a week.

    • amrocha 2 days ago

      That sounds like a nightmare. Let’s sell out a generation so that we can consume more. Wow.

      • johnnyanmac 2 days ago

        Boomers in a nutshell. Do a bunch of stuff to keep from building more housing to prop up housing prices (which is much of their net worth), and then spend until you're forced to spend the last bit to keep yourselves alive.

        Then the hospital takes the house to pay off the rest of the debts. Everybody wins!

  • arthurfirst 2 days ago

    They signed it for you as there will be 1000x less workers needed so they didn't need to ask anymore.

  • neutronicus 2 days ago

    You will probably be dead.

    But _somebody_ will be living in a 900,000 sq ft apartment and working an hour a week, and the concept of money will be defunct.

johnnyanmac 2 days ago

>They are simply suggesting that the moral qualms of using AI are simply not that high - neither to vast majority of consumers, neither to the government.

And I believe they (and I) are suggesting that this is just a bad faith spin on the market, if you look at actual AI confidence and sentiment and don't ignore it as "ehh just the internet whining". Consumers having less money to spend doesn't mean they are adopting AI en masse, nor are happy about it.

I don't think using the 2025 US government for a moral compass is helping your case either.

>If AI can make things 1000x more efficient

Exhibit A. My observations suggest that consumers are beyond tired of talking about the "what ifs" while they struggle to afford rent or get a job in this economy, right now. All the current gains are for corporate billionaires, why would they think that suddenly changes here and now?