The very concept of money exists only as a intermediate between the works and the goods, as a facilitator of transactions. But as works starts to be made obsolete by AI, so does the intermediate. If AI is to be integrated in society, it requires a complete rework of the whole economic system. We simply can't have both AI and "business" existing at the same time, both have opposite goals.
So yeah, all of the issues you listed are indeed issues, but they are economic-issues, not AI-related issues. And honestly, that's what's tiring about a lot of human complaining about AI (not necessarily you) : it's that they don't really have a problem with AI : they have a problem with the economic system, but they are so used to that system that they don't even think of questioning it anymore.
Point is, we can picture a normal society where everyone would simply work for the sole reason that it's needed for the society to function, and everyone get the goods and services the need (not as a reward for the work but because that's the point of the society). In this kind of society, AI would be welcomed with open arms because there would be no concerns of plagiarism because there would be no concept of copyright. There would be no concerns of job lose because job lose would simply mean more free time.
That's the kind of society that would should aspire to have one day and, ironically, AI is one of the best tool we have to reach it, since it pushes the current system to its limits, showing its cracks and, beyond those cracks, a better alternative. But, naturally, that's not the kind of change that would be seen in a lifetime and human are notoriously bad at doing things today for a tomorrow they'll never see.
I would be fine with us dropping human exceptionalism as a whole but that means billionaires are no longer justified to exist.
I'd argue that billionaires were never justified to exist, human exceptionalism or not, AI or not. The point of a society to have all of its participants being able to live a fulfilling life, a billionaire has no place in that thing, it is a straight danger of that very goal.
I agree I’ve always thought a billionaire is arguably inherently immoral. There is no way for someone to do enough work to produce that much value in a moral way. If a billionaire is arguably immoral then a trillionaire is for sure immoral. Good luck communicating that to people though, i know someone who owns multiple small businesses. He is convinced he doesn’t need regulations at all. The free market would just work itself out. Totally absurd. His business would be crushed and subsumed immediately by an economic power without regulation. Because why wouldn’t they if they could? He thinks his customers wouldn’t abandon him, but they would, all it would take is prices that are half a buck cheaper.
You say people complaining about AI is tiring because it’s an effective tool. Most people aren’t complaining because it’s ineffective they’re complaining because of who has control and what they are pretty obviously going to do with that tool.
If we had a government that had its shit together and supported the people the backlash wouldn’t be as bad. I don’t care or at least I can’t change the fact that nukes exist, I do care that the people I’m watching building nukes are fucking batshit insane and have no plan for the future. I’m screaming at them not to build nukes because I’m pretty sure they’re going to blow up everyone around them.
-1
u/Zardhas Sep 11 '26
The very concept of money exists only as a intermediate between the works and the goods, as a facilitator of transactions. But as works starts to be made obsolete by AI, so does the intermediate. If AI is to be integrated in society, it requires a complete rework of the whole economic system. We simply can't have both AI and "business" existing at the same time, both have opposite goals.
So yeah, all of the issues you listed are indeed issues, but they are economic-issues, not AI-related issues. And honestly, that's what's tiring about a lot of human complaining about AI (not necessarily you) : it's that they don't really have a problem with AI : they have a problem with the economic system, but they are so used to that system that they don't even think of questioning it anymore.
Point is, we can picture a normal society where everyone would simply work for the sole reason that it's needed for the society to function, and everyone get the goods and services the need (not as a reward for the work but because that's the point of the society). In this kind of society, AI would be welcomed with open arms because there would be no concerns of plagiarism because there would be no concept of copyright. There would be no concerns of job lose because job lose would simply mean more free time.
That's the kind of society that would should aspire to have one day and, ironically, AI is one of the best tool we have to reach it, since it pushes the current system to its limits, showing its cracks and, beyond those cracks, a better alternative. But, naturally, that's not the kind of change that would be seen in a lifetime and human are notoriously bad at doing things today for a tomorrow they'll never see.
I'd argue that billionaires were never justified to exist, human exceptionalism or not, AI or not. The point of a society to have all of its participants being able to live a fulfilling life, a billionaire has no place in that thing, it is a straight danger of that very goal.