/siberia/ - Off-topic

lol

>>773495
>>773496
Jesus Christ I knew it would be bad talking to leftists but it cannot be this bad

At least read my post

>I am sure 100% of leftists will say that it's just them lying and giving meaningless platitudes
It is a PR document, why would anyone, regardless of political affiliation, assume its sincerity?

>What things can/should OpenAI and other large AI companies say/do when it comes to compensating for eventual inevitable job loss from AI?
Get nationalised under a socialist government.

>>773498
>It is a PR document, why would anyone, regardless of political affiliation, assume its sincerity?
I get it's a PR document. I am saying 1000 posts of "it's a PR document" is not an interesting discussion. I am not claiming they will necessarily attempt to advocate for any of this in reality. I am just trying to discuss what they are writing on its own merits. It would be interesting for at least one person to read the PDF and discuss the policy proposals in themselves.

>Get nationalised under a socialist government.
Okay. Thankfully that won't ever happen. (If it does ever get nationalized, it definitely won't be under a socialist government, at least. Which may or may not be good, since it might be under a more fascist-leaning government, which could be worse for the country and for humanity than under a socialist government. But in any case it's not going to get nationalized under a socialist government.)

>>773496
>>773495
>>773500
Be nice assholes, OP came here to have a civil discussion.

>>773499
>Thankfully that won't ever happe
I know, but like what answer you want, it is a private company "compensating" for job loss isnt its mission. What should government do would be a meaningful conversation, what should OpenAI do is a nonsensical question to ask.

>>773493
>OpenAI recently released a document advocating for government subsidies and benefits in the face of economic shifts from AI. I am sure 100% of leftists will say that it's just them lying and giving meaningless platitudes or whatever
capitalists require the government to subsidize working class consumption so that capitalists can pay lower wages.

>>773493
read people's republic of walmart by leigh phillips and imperialism the highest stage of capitalism by vladimir lenin back to back and open your mind

>>773493
>(Disclaimer: I'm not a leftist, more a SJW pro-market pro-tech pro-AI libertarian)
>>773497
>Jesus Christ I knew it would be bad talking to leftists but it cannot be this bad

Why did you feel the need to preface with your own preconceptions in a thread asking for other people's takes?

>I am sure 100% of leftists
>but that's a fucking boring discussion
>so for the sake of argument assume all the things included here are genuine intentions of policies
Why not just ask for people's takes given the two possible scenarios?

You are twitter poisoned and can't have discussions that aren't political identity and debate first.

>>773493
I am SO FUCKING SICK OF HEARING ABOUT AI ALREADY. FUCK YOU. but I will engage with your question.
>assume all the things included here are genuine intentions of policies they wish to earnestly attempt to advocate for and implement
>What things should OpenAI and other large AI companies do when it comes to compensating for eventual inevitable job loss from AI?
100% of earnings after 1 billion are distributed to the government, which then distributes that money to the people. no tax breaks, no kickbacks, no loopholes, no lobbying for revisions of the tax code so they can have said loopholes and tax breaks, no sending money to tax havens, etc.

all of the money you earn goes to the people, after a certain sum is earned, which will take into consideration the cost of operation for the AI in question (which should be significantly lower than any human run company, if it really is this breakthrough technology that can destroy every human efficiency metric)

oh and something something some sort of transparency program that produces publicly available quarterly reports, plus something something the heads of said AI corporation should be appointed by the people, much like an elected public official.

there, that's all I got, but it's far from perfect with glaring flaws, because ultimately, human beings suck and are prone to various imperfections. the real-real answer would be to achieve true superintelligence and let it delegate for itself what ought to happen. assuming it isn't malignant, it will know better than myself or the brightest human minds what sort of policies should be enacted. that's not going to happen either because this tech is farcical and dubious.

>>773493
>(ignore that they're never going to do it)
>what would you say if they did do it?
um…yay?
what was the point of this thread?

>>773493
>What things can/should OpenAI and other large AI companies say/do when it comes to compensating for eventual inevitable job loss from AI?
They should do whatever they want, job loss is a good thing, it leads to the declassification of the workers and that strengthens Bukharin's definition of the anarchist movement as the movement of the declassed.

>>773522 (Me)
Besides if machines can do production better then fuck the workers, the workers will no longer be the revolutionary class. Long live the robotronic revolution.

>I'm not a leftist, more a SJW pro-market pro-tech pro-AI libertarian

your day is coming

Apologies, I've got to post this in parts because the board keeps throwing an error.

>>773493

1. They're marketing
   
2. If you want a rationale beyond them marketing, which they are, there are two obvious candidates
   

A. If there was mass economic disruption from AI, which there won't be (except from the current bubble popping), it would upset social stability. Assuming AI was capable of such disruption, it would make more economic sense to implement UBI to prevent that.
B. A major part of their revenue comes from consumers using AI. Subsidize people to live in an AI-dominated world and they'll pay for AI subscriptions

1/?

>>773525
As for what companies should do: I would say broadly just support UBI. In terms of capitalist economic management, I'm glad your political perspective exists. I've come to the view that where neoliberalism/libertarianism have historically blundered was that (due to bourgeois class interests and people tending to have a narrow, self-interested focus) they got side-tracked into obsessing over tax cuts (to be funded by welfare and service cuts that reduce buy-in for anti-interventionism) when they should've been single-mindedly focused on excess regulation. Taxes just move the cost curve slightly while still allowing you to follow rational incentives, regulations are a total mess because they outright prevent you doing some things, act as a de-facto tax in others, act as a wacky unpredictable tax in others still, and generally turn everything into a dice-roll. Since people skew risk averse, the negative effects of this are much worse than those of things being slightly more expensive through tax.

2/?

>>773562
Postscript: In the more realistic world where AI operates as it currently seems to, the government shouldn't do anything. I mean, it should do UBI as it flows from a general principle that mid-tax high-welfare low-regulation is the optimal configuration of a capitalist economy, but it shouldn't do anything about AI specifically, just as it shouldn't do anything about all the people made redundant thanks to smartphones, or the opening of a new railway line, or the cultural decline of Christianity, all of which seem more impactful than AI so far. The great thing about a market economy is that these things can work themselves out on their own.

>>773497
This is more of a /leftypol/ problem than a leftist problem.

>>773525
The day when backlash to being governed by low-openness, low-agreeableness, low-neuroticism bastards over age 60 with a flair for arbitrary interventions that make everyone's lives worse thrusts them to power (only for them to half blunder it because they still care about low taxes instead of single-mindedly focusing on getting rid of inane regulations which - in a US context - often create highly regulated carve-outs for petit bourgeois Trump voters who have the audacity to consider themselves real businessmen.) ?

>>773499
>Thankfully that won't ever happen
But you should assume it could happen, for the sake of an interesting discussion :)))

>>773493
>What are your thoughts on it?
There's nothing interesting in this document (ironically). All of it is stuff that has already been discussed to death everywhere, and some of it isn't even exclusively related to AI (meaning it's been discussed for even longer).
Technological advancement is good, more productivity is good. In a decent world the drawbacks would be mitigated through societal cooperation probably mediated by the state. UBI is kind of the sophomoric version of this, but as a normal human being I would love to be reliably paid to do nothing.
The only detail worth nothing regarding AI specifically is that there is zero guarantee so far that it's actually going to be the new industrial revolution that is constantly being promised.
>What things can/should OpenAI and other large AI companies say/do when it comes to compensating for eventual inevitable job loss from AI?
Nothing. Companies are completely unfit for this task, it doesn't matter if they're nonprofits or whatever else. Also, OpenAI "saying" things truly does not matter even in the artificial world of this discussion, sorry. They can lobby for better policy, but that's ultimately the government doing something, not the companies.