StopTech @ StopTech @lemmy.today

Posts

230

Comments

228

Joined

4 mo. ago

Moderating

---

Voting gives the system an appearance of consent and legitimacy. Mass non-compliance is the answer.

A lot of what I said also has machines doing the job better than humans. Copying books and message bearing for example.

I don't understand your concept of surplus value. Wouldn't making profit count as creating surplus value? People can make profit using purely automated production. Or what about turning raw materials into useful products for yourself or to sell to others? Isn't that creating surplus value?

humans on the other hand are paid just so much as the capitalist can get away with without them revolting

That sounds just like the fact machines are given just as much as they require to do their job without breaking. I don't see the difference. The businessman could decorate his machines and give them more breaks and oil changes than they need, but he doesn't so therefore he is now getting "surplus value" compared to if he had done those things.

No. I'm not convinced China is worse than the US in terms of developing anti-human technologies and people living in China can't boycott China. The point is to get the people in every significant country (including China) to oppose these technologies so strongly that they aren't able to be developed anywhere. The Chinese military has to employ Chinese people to make its weapons, but if 80% of the population is opposed to these weapons existing and even the foundation of modern technology on which they are built then that is going to be difficult. Even if they were able to only employ those who are fine with WMDs the public's opposition to modern technology would be a problem for the government maintaining control while developing those weapons and forcing modern technology on the people as a means of controlling them.

They work for others. It would be helpful to know in what way they aren't working for you. And did you try this one? https://zbbb278hfll091.bitchute.com/KmVnLpFsCzAq/jmhFAjqbxnQ.mp4 (49 minutes in)

The alternative is a global end to anti-human technology.

Literally read the article.

Most jobs in history have already been automated, so I don't think it's an exaggeration. Farming has been automated, clothes making has been automated, copying books has been automated, message bearing has been automated, translation has been automated, art creation has been automated, article writing has been automated. Not all of these to the same standard, but the point stands.

The rest of your comment didn't make any sense to me. Machines aren't exploitable? They work for free, they just need energy, which costs much less than what human workers require. If they were conscious then we definitely would say they are exploited all the time.

So something can't be called an x unless it meets every definition of x? I don't think that's how definitions work.

The Bitchute link should work. Here's one directly to the mp4: https://zbbb278hfll091.bitchute.com/KmVnLpFsCzAq/jmhFAjqbxnQ.mp4. Again, it's about 49 minutes in that talks about the Europol report.

a son or daughter of human parents

Moore's law is one example but hardly the only one

Yes, and the AI threat is also worse than everything mentioned in this article. The quote from the researcher at the very start is apt and should be taken 100% seriously.

You have no parents?

I agree there will still be some things that people can do that they find enjoyment in. But look at how people use their free time today. Do people who like gardening spend more time gardening or on non-productive things like watching TV/YouTube/TikTok? Do people who like playing musical instruments but don't do it for work spend more time doing that or watching TV/YouTube/TikTok? What about people who like painting? Only a fairly small percentage of people do gardening, play music or paint, yet most people watch TV/YouTube/TikTok. Because passive (non-productive) pastimes are more attractive than active ones. Yet it's passive pastimes that make people depressed and feel like their life is meaningless (at least when they are used for more than a couple of hours per day). In the future these can be even more attractive with virtual reality and involvement of the other senses, including sexual stimulation.

I expect if people no longer have to work then even people who continue to have passionate hobbies will not want to spend more than 50% of their time awake on them. And since they will no longer have to prepare any food, clean the house, manage finances or do anything, the remaining 8 hours of their day (assuming they don't sleep excessively - also bad for mental health) will be on purely passive pastimes. And currently people spending less than half this time on social media are already depressed.

Technically everyone is a child so all marriage is child marriage. Abuse of language can be dangerous, children.

But I don't understand yours in light of what I have explained.

I don't see what the contradiction is in what I said there and my other comment.

In a world where everything is done better and easier by machines I have a hard time imagining people wanting to spend years of their life learning how to program, how to paint, how to make furniture, how to do science and so on. Hardly anyone makes complicated software in assembly code now that we have higher level programming languages. Hardly any farmers don't use machinery. Hardly anyone mills grain by hand. People in developed countries don't wash their clothes by hand. People don't do things that we can now automate. Those things that everyone used to do now feel like way too much hard work. So I don't understand why you would think people would still break their backs to do productive things when others are getting better results by asking a robot to do it.

even if we get to that point technologically

We're pretty much already there. We have robots. They have AI. Most jobs aren't that complicated - a good proportion could probably be replaced by robots with small improvements in dexterity, predictability and human interaction. Robots just need to become cheaper to make and run which market competition, mass production and nuclear power will gleefully enable.

capitalists have no workers to steal surplus value from

They don't need to get value from human workers, they can get that from robots. Money is only a means to goods and services. Robots can make the goods and provide the services. Lower class people won't be needed at all. Even the purchases can mainly be done by the wealthy and businesses. Lower class people will not only be uneccessary but entirely non-beneficial to this economy. The only reason those in power might have to keep them around is to inflate their egos by making them prostrate in exchange for their UBI.

No I'm not. Here's a good explanation of how technological progress has been accelerating. You could also look up the law of accelerating returns.

Interesting thanks!