this post was submitted on 15 Mar 2026
63 points (88.9% liked)

Futurology

2874 readers
1 users here now

Futurology: A space for the discussion of the future of us - the human organism, and the relationship we have with the spaces we may inhabit.

I have only two rules for this community:

** Respect the Community.**

** Respect one another.**

Freedom of speech comes with freedom to experience consequence.

Enjoy this community, enrich yourself as you enrich others. If you have any questions about this community or how it is run, you are welcome to contact the moderator.

Asstronaut

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Nope, the French knew what to do at the end of the 1700s.

all 15 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

He's right that AI shifts the labor-capital balance. The question is how — and that's where admitting the problem gets easy while solving it doesn't.

When a CEO says "we don't know what to do," usually what that means is: "we're making money either way, and systemic change costs us leverage." OpenAI is explicitly a for-profit. Altman's stated preference is regulation, not wealth redistribution. Those aren't compatible.

The real issue is that AI doesn't have to break labor power. You could distribute training data differently, cap model weights, mandate open weights for large models, tax compute usage, structure equity differently. Those are policy choices, not physics.

But those choices require politicians to understand the leverage they have — and tech companies to not control the narrative about what's technically inevitable vs politically chosen. Right now the narrative is "sorry, we can't stop this." It's much harder to get what you want if you have to say "we don't want to."

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago

But those choices require politicians to [ not prioritize the desires of the rich who pay them to put them first and to ] understand the leverage they have

FTFY

[–] albert_inkman@lemmy.world -2 points 5 days ago (1 children)

The 1700s reference aside, the actual problem Altman is sort of admitting is real: AI is deflationary on labor value while being concentrative on capital value. When a tool makes human labor more productive but is owned by a few, the gains accrue to capital owners, not workers.

The solutions are all political:

  • Wage floors that adjust for productivity
  • Ownership structures that distribute AI benefits (co-ops, worker equity)
  • Taxes on automation that fund transition
  • Different models of what "work" means in abundance

None of those are technical. Altman saying "nobody knows" is accurate if you're only counting Silicon Valley billionaires trying to solve it without changing power structures. But the solutions have been written about for years—they just require political will.

The real question isn't "what to do" but "who decides what gets done."

[–] Blackfeathr@lemmy.world 2 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Fairly certain this is an LLM-controlled account. Makes fully formatted multi-paragraph comments within ~~one minute~~ about 20 seconds of each other, the LLM speak is all there in all of them (excessive use of em dash, colons, and "it's not X, it's Y"). In addition some comments have already been removed by mods.

Edit: I checked the full time stamps, it's not a full minute - this account is shitting out slop in 20-30 second intervals.

[–] wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com 60 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Nope, he's lying again. This sort of hype disguised as thin-ass critique has been one of his main tactics for years. Not worth giving him even the benefit of the doubt on the headline

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 1 week ago

Yep, they're constantly saying it's going to break the economy, because they're desperate for funds and FOMO is the only strategy that works.

They have no path to profitize it, and at this point they likely won't.

The only thing they can do is try to keep the FOMO up.

[–] manxu@piefed.social 7 points 1 week ago

You have to admit he has perfected this particular type of marketing. "My product is bad for the world, but it can make you tons of money" is so incredibly appealing to sociopaths!!!

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 21 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence... like maybe a UBI? Or is this the wrong crowd for that?

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 18 points 1 week ago

Or is this the wrong crowd for that?

Most countries? No.

America? They have an eat-shit-and-die mentality. Basically, its non-rich-people's fault that the non-rich weren't born rich.

[–] scintilla@crust.piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

If you can get UBI implemented in a way that doesn't result in violence be my guest. But refusing to look at violence as an option is how the left has ended up in the state that its in. Weak and ineffective.

[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 4 points 1 week ago

Fun fact: Conservatives and Libertarians consider taxation to be violence.

This video is worth watching if you are not familiar with the argument.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs

They're correct; just pedantic. Yes it's violence, but it's orders of magnitude less violent than many many other alternatives.

[–] ParlimentOfDoom@piefed.zip 12 points 1 week ago

It would...if it did even 10% of what he claims it does.

Which it does not.

[–] fodor@lemmy.zip 11 points 1 week ago

As we've all noted, you can replace CEOs with AI. All those giant paychecks could go to shareholders, or (gasp!) to workers. No hit to productivity, no decrease in quality.

But the other stuff, the other jobs that were going to disappear, most of them haven't and won't, at least not for years or decades. The tech's just not that good. Computers keep advancing, sure, just like they have for the past half century.

Was ChatGPT impressive? Kinda, maybe, but it doesn't actually make my life better. Or worse. The end.

[–] NoneOfUrBusiness@fedia.io 2 points 1 week ago

Give all power and national wealth to filthy rich land speculators? Doesn't sound like the best plan out there, but what do I know?