• slazer2au@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    220
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    That seems like a Q3 issue for 2026 let’s put the conversation off till then.

    /s

    • jballs@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Q3 2026 will come around and the AI will report that revenues are down. The CEO will respond the only way they know, by ordering that costs be cut by laying off employees. The AI will report there is no one left to lay off but the CEO.

      Fade to black and credits roll.

    • MissJinx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      20
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      The thing is, for AI to work we still need hardware, houses, food etc. Yes a lot of jobs will change but other new type of jobs will come.

      Remember at the end of the day AI can’t do CPR

  • TheFeatureCreature@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    170
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Capitalism is all about short-term profit. These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

    Further proof of this: Climate change.

    • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      4 months ago

      Funny thing is that capitalism accidentaly solves global warming same way as it created it - turns out renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, and the greed machine ensures the transition to more cost efficient energy sources

      • Pelicanen@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        The problem is that the previous accumulation of capital has centralized a lot of power in actors who have a financial incentive to stop renewables. If we could hit a big reset on everything then yes, I think renewables would win, but we’re dealing with a lot of very rich, very powerful people who really want us to keep being dependent on them.

        • abbadon420@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          They are only slowing us down though. They really cannot stop the change, because solar power is simply cheaper than oil. Once governments stop subsidizing oil, the big oil companies will be done for if they haven’t innovated by than. That is also one of the reasons why they are slowing us down, so they can buy more time to innovate and remain on top with a new, green business model.

          I hope all the big oil bosses get locked up for crimes against humanity, but I think they’ll just change their business model into something green and exploit us in some different way.

          This is why they say “they’re too big to fail”.

          • kingthrillgore@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            4 months ago

            Everywhere except countries that have subsidized non-renewables which means they’ll become dumber and polluted and regress. And these countries (the US, specifically) have nuclear weapons and a lot of authoritative policy power.

      • abbadon420@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        This is not “capitalism accidentally solves climate change”. This is the effort of many people pushing for more development in green energy until it was able to be produced at a cost efficient way. From there, capitalism took over, as intended. For green energy to be be feasible, we needed it to get picked up by the capitalist machine, because the capitalist machine has all the power and infrastructure in place to make it into a succes.

        I predict that the same thing will happen with large capacity, small size home batteries once they become economically feasible. They are on the brink of becoming profitable and once they do, they will become a huge success and help reduce energy waste.

        Same thing goes for fusion, but we’re a long way off making that economically viable.

        • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          This is the effort of many people pushing for more development in green energy until it was able to be produced at a cost efficient way

          I think this oversimplifies it a lot. There were a lot of different actors involved - I’m sure a lot of development was coming both from the semiconductor industry, and from state funded research, but in the end, the greed machine (aka capitalism) takes care of further researching and scaling it to the global level.

          Also it’s not like there wasn’t any money in that business years ago - even back then solar was commonly used as a remote power source in mobile applications (calculators, camping and so on). Also NASA, but this was purely state funded

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        turns out renewables are cheaper than fossil fuel, and the greed machine ensures the transition to more cost efficient energy sources

        Cool, when is that going to start happening? Because I only see a handful of electric cars and I see a whole ton of coal power plants.

    • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      These sorts of long-term questions and concerns are not things shareholders and investors think or care about.

      Well that’s not true at all. The vast majority of investors are on it for the long term.

    • Empricorn@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      Did you mean to say shareholder and corporate management? Investment itself (especially diversified) is completely about long-term performance.

  • Damage@feddit.it
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    57
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Pathogens don’t really think of what will happen after the body they’re abusing dies

    • Ragnarok314159@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      They kind of do. (I am so sorry, not trying to be that guy).

      Look at HIV. The original strain is horribly deadly, but the strains that have evolved within the last decade are much more tame. It’s because the virus that kills its host doesn’t get to spread - Zombie outbreaks excluded here.

      The flu is the same way. New strains always emerge, but they are usually not fatal to most even without a vaccine.

  • morphballganon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Don’t think of people having money as an on-off switch. It’s a gradual shift, and it’s already started, before AI was a thing. AI is just another tool to increase the wealth gap, like inflation, poor education, eroding of human rights etc.

  • someguy3@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    Capitalism doesn’t look that far ahead.

    I agree it’s going to be problem. It’s already happened when we exported manufacturing jobs to China. Most of what was left was retail which didn’t pay as much but we struggled along (in part because of cheap products from China). I think that’s why trinkets are cheap but the core of living (housing and now food) is relatively more expensive. So the older people see all the trinkets (things that used to be expensive but are now cheap) and don’t understand how life is more expensive.

  • maynarkh@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    The rich. Companies will stop targeting products to wider and wider swathes of people, just like nobody caters to the homeless now.

    • SkyNTP@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      4 months ago

      This doesn’t sound sustainable at all. A billionaire only needs so much gasoline, food, medicine, TVs…

      Collapse of entire industries will happen way before we even get a chance to see industries reinvent themselves to cater to billionaires. Don’t believe me? Just look at what happened to the economy during the pandemic.

      • maynarkh@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        4 months ago

        Yeah of course industries will collapse. 100 car factories will close, 5 superyacht factories will open, tying up the same amount of productivity. Owned by the same guy.

        There will be tons of spacecraft launchpads, private jet hangars, etc.

        And wars of course.

  • EABOD25@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    4 months ago

    I’m an optimist, so I’ll believe one day we’ll have a utopian society like in Star Trek. I ask politely you don’t criticize me too harshly

    • ZephrC@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      4 months ago

      Hey, that’s a reasonable thing to hope. The flip side, of course, is that I’m hoping I don’t have to live through Star Trek’s idea of how the 21st century goes. They definitely got all of the details wrong, but I’m afraid the vibes are matching a little too well.

      • Infynis@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        4 months ago

        Hey, we’ve still got 2 months to the Bell Riots, and DeSantis was talking about putting all the homeless people in Florida on an island

    • bobs_monkey@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      While I agree, I’m skeptical that we’ll see any meaningful advance toward that end in our lifetimes.

      • sunzu@kbin.run
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        4 months ago

        It will get a lot worse before it gets any better

        The hand has been played and trend has been set, I don’t see anything coming close to a reversal, short of gereatric nepo babies dying off but their replacements don’t look any better…

        Sucks to suck

              • sunzu@kbin.run
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                4 months ago

                Hoping for something like that without taking direction action today is naive.

                Direct action won’t fix shit unless critical mass does it, so also got to spread the word about the fuckening we are enduring, most people are really not aware of the conditions on the ground beyond their personal experiences.

    • abbadon420@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      I think it’s as relistic a future as the complete destruction of mankind, but your point of view makes life a lot more enjoyable. Here’s a nice quote to back it up:

      “There is nothing like a dream to create the future” - Victor Hugo

  • marcos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    4 months ago

    AI owners will.

    And if you then go around wandering “oh, but not every AI builds something those few people want”, “that’s way too few people to fill a market”, or “and what about all the rest?”… Maybe you should read Keynes, because that would not be the first time this kind of buying-power change happens, and yes, it always suck a lot for everybody (even for the rich people).

  • sundray@lemmus.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    As stated, the companies that push AI aren’t concerned with the long-term consequences. But if you want to know how the individuals who run those companies personally feel, do a search for billionaire doomsday preppers.

    TL;DR: They’ve got a vision for the future. We’re not in it.

    • deafboy@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      4 months ago

      All kinds of people fatasize about the end of times. From the losely asociated groups of rednecks, to the religious cults. The rich just has a better budget for their hobbies, and their toys are more visible. Which, paradoxicaly, disqualifies them from the prepping game.

      Number one rule about the secret bunker is not telling anyone about the secret bunker.

      • sundray@lemmus.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        rednecks, to the religious cults

        I see your point, but usually those groups don’t have the ability to accelerate the arrival of the end times, whereas the billionaires might.

  • howrar@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    4 months ago

    Why would we need anyone to buy things? Remember that money is an abstraction for resources. If you can do everything with AI, then you already have all the resources you need. Whether or not someone else needs what you produce is irrelevant when you already have access to everything you could want.

    • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeaaaah, the issue there is that, that is completely incompatible with our current system of capitalism. If we do not take deliberate steps to transform the system, it will collapse.

      • Deceptichum@quokk.au
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        Good. The system is fucked.

        Let it collapse and we can work on a new system without hundreds of years of entrenched rich elites deciding it.

        • NιƙƙιDιɱҽʂ@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          Instead of collapsing like a phoenix and birthing a new better world, it will cause death, suffering, and turn us into some sort of fucked up techno fuedalism worse than we are now.

          I understand the nihilism, but we need to take the broken pieces we have now and reshape them into something better, not throw them out hoping things become better for no reason. They won’t.

          • Deceptichum@quokk.au
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            4 months ago

            There is literally death, suffering, and we’re heading towards some sort of fucked up techno feudalism today. Like we don’t need a revolution for that, that’s the path we’re currently heading towards without one.

            Revolution isn’t pretty but just as when we overthrew monarchs, the end result and saving of future lives justifies it.

      • Thorny_Insight@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        It’s no less compatible with capitalism than any other economic system. The idea that humans are no longer needed to do any kind of work is an issue the world has never faced before.

        • sparkle@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          Cymraeg
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I mean… it’s pretty compatible with leftist ideologies. Especially a moneyless form of socialism/communism

  • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    The vanishingly small amount of people that will be unfathomably rich in a privatized post-scarcity economy will give us just enough in UBI to make sure we can buy our Mountain Dew verification cans. And without the ability to withhold our labor as a class, we’ll have no peaceful avenue to improve our conditions.

    • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Why are you obsessed around wealth of other people? You should be more concerned about your own income rather than some super wealthy CEO

      • soratoyuki@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because my labor creates their super wealth, and because they’re destroying the planet to maintain it.

      • Ech@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        4 months ago

        Because, as OP points out, wealth disparity is a zero-sum game. Being concerned about the super wealthy is being concerned about our own income.

        • BlackLaZoR@kbin.run
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          4 months ago

          wealth disparity is a zero-sum game

          Except it’s not. That wealth isn’t cash in some bank account, in most cases it’s a stock in companies these people built from scratch - Bezos made Amazon, Gates Microsoft, Buffet Berkshire Hathaway and so on

          The wealth of super rich is allocated in places that produce goods and services

  • Dagwood222@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Look at empires of the past.

    Things were so bad in Dickens’ London that living in sewers to live off whatever scraps you could find was an actual occupation.

    Wealth creates its own reality.

  • markr@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    4 months ago

    Everyone will be working multiple shitty service jobs that robots are not cost effective to automate. Our miserable wages will be just sufficient to keep the wheels on the cart from falling off.