Drewelite

joined 1 year ago
[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (5 children)

And how do you kill the ideology? By having the most successful voice of it ultimately accomplish nothing and die as a sad old man.

There's a reason his rhetoric has been: "The election was stolen!" Because that feeling is powerful, that they were right on the cusp of doing something great, if only the enemy hadn't poisoned it. It's got the right mix of victimization and hope that really motivates a movement. You'll get that 10x now that he's victimized. And you'd get it 20x if he's martyred.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 months ago (7 children)

They're still waving the Confederate flag. What makes you think bullets will kill this ideology in round 2?

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

With all respect, your argument has a pretty obvious emotional valence. You don't care if the result is 1:1, you care that it happened in a way that makes you uncomfortable. Art can be an outlet for self expression and no one is taking that away. What's it to you if I enjoy asking an AI for art?

The fact of the matter is, capitalism has never been a good place for artists who want to follow their dream. If that's something you want, then I'd suggest supporting the end of all work for money that automation provides. Then people can truly work on whatever they care about all day and not have to worry about feeding themselves.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 9 points 4 months ago (14 children)

No better fuel for an extremist ideology then having a martyr. Trump isn't the problem, it's the millions who listen to him.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 4 months ago

Yeah, Trump's first presidency showed that he was a moron. He's not the dangerous part. The dangerous part are the millions that worship him. Assassination, or worse, attempted assassination, is a surefire way to make sure that ideology never dies.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 4 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The Right Thing™️ means a great many different things to a great many different people. Law is a way of funneling the most functional of these things into rules that most can agree with and live by. This requires a sacrifice of living not by your own ideology, but by one best for the whole, in exchange for a safe and functional society.

When The Right Way™️ starts catering to the interests of a few, the society becomes less safe and functional for the majority of its occupants. Thus making compliance and participation in its rules a bum deal for the populous. We obey by choice to get safety and security. When people stop feeling like society is fulfilling it's end of the bargain, they revolt. So the question is, at what point do you feel like you're being fleeced?

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 13 points 4 months ago

How could this be?

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Totally get where you're coming from. Corporate greed seems like the boogie man behind capitalism. It's easy to understand: make line go up. But I'm afraid the dark parts of capitalism are spookier than that. They don't just want money. If that were the case they'd sell all those expensive corporate offices and let people be more productive at home.

They want people to lord over, they want the power to surveil them. To make them do team building exercises. They call themselves a family. They take team pictures with the CEO smiling in front. People think of them as heartless machines. But machines would try and make people happy, that's when they work the best. No, they're happy to have offices full of people twiddling their thumbs, they're narcissists. Their whole incentive to climb the ladder is to be standing on someone else's head.

Who are you king of, if there's only robots around you?

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I think it's important to consider these elements and try to mitigate them as we move forward. But they'll never be completely fixed.

If anything has the power to collapse capitalism, it's AI automation. Capitalism is all about keeping people working for the benefit of those above with the threat of not getting what you need to survive. That threat is predicated by there not being enough to go around.

Once we're able to make an enormous surplus without the labor of the common man; the basis of capitalism begins to crumble. I fear that if we give corporations time, they'll try and make the world run on AI WITHOUT anyone losing jobs. That terrifies me more, because people will accept the status quo but lose the only power they ever had in capitalism: The combined value of their labor. A strike doesn't work so well if your whole job is pushing a button to make AI do it.

I think the beginning of AI will be painful for the reasons we both have outlined. But I believe that's growing pains towards a better future. Giving corps time to boil the frog won't be good. Keeping the corps fighting each other to be the first by pushing this tech forward is the quickest way for them to create their own obsolescence.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 3 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah, because it's good stuff to point out and think on... But ultimately inconsequential as the previous comment points out. The world is getting AI eventually, the question is do we want to be the first ones with the keys?

All the same arguments could have been made about the internet. Inb4 someone makes the incredibly likewarm take that the internet was a mistake. It was inevitable, if we had "pumped-the-brakes" on it we wouldn't have found some clean way to implement the internet where no one gets hurt. Someone who wasn't concerned about ethics would have got there first to set the standard.

Actually a better analogy for AI might be the nuclear bomb. If we slow down someone else will get their first. Silicone Valley doesn't have the best track record with ethics. But call me crazy, I'd rather them figure it out before China or Russia. Because they sure as shit ain't using their brakes.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com -1 points 4 months ago

This is sort of where I get confused about people pissed at Taylor Swift for having a private jet. Like I totally understand that some of the trips have been shown to be unnecessary and I agree. But how many sports teams and equipment do we transport for greater carbon emissions to bring joy to a fraction as many people? Like think about an American football game, world cup game, Olympics, F1 race, Golf tournament... hell even Burning Man? I feel like it's just low hanging fruit for her critics to stir up shit.

[–] Drewelite@lemmynsfw.com 1 points 4 months ago

It's still ideas the group agrees with. The idea is: that we all disagree with this idea. It's subtle, until you look at the same story on CNN vs Fox. Two bubbles discussing the same issue with two VERY different emotional valences.

To put it another way: the discussion of these ideas that are oppositional to the community, is not with the intention of seriously considering them. It's with the intention of dismissing them in a group act of catharsis. It maintains the bubble and safely dispatches an idea that threatened to burst it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›