upvote

points

by bluefirebrand14 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby sofixa14 hours ago|
[-]
> So I wonder if you just think you will be one of the few who benefit at the expense of others

It's not a zero sum game, IMO. It will benefit some, be neutral for others, negative for others.

For instance, improved productivity could be good (and doesn't have to result in layoffs, Jevon's paradox will come into play, IMO, with increased demand). Easier/better/faster scientific research could be good too. Not everyone would benefit from those, but not everyone has to for it to be generally good.

Autonomous AI-powered drone swarms could be bad, or could result in a Mutually Assured Destruction stalemate.

reply
upvoteby bluefirebrand9 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
> improved productivity could be good (and doesn't have to result in layoffs

It already has resulted in layoffs and one of the weakest job markets we've seen in ages

Executives could not have used it as an excuse for layoffs faster, they practically tripped over themselves trying to use it as an excuse to lay people off

reply
upvoteby AndrewKemendo12 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
>It's not a zero sum game, IMO. It will benefit some, be neutral for others, negative for others.

This is literally a description of a zero sum game

reply
upvoteby sofixa11 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
No, a zero sum game would require for the "winners" to take it from the "losers", and there is a limited amount to go around. If there is a majority of "winners" by expanding, some neutral, some negative, that is not a zero sum game.
reply
upvoteby AndrewKemendo10 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> No, a zero sum game would require for the "winners" to take it from the "losers"

You’re so close to getting it and I’m rooting for you

reply