Decentralize, not democratize.

Democratize is a midwit, corporate buzzword.

> and educators need to adapt to these changes

"Educators" are still using 100 year old schooling methodologies, with the addition of politicis like Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.

This book is part of every single college education department.

This problem, which is very easy to fix, is they need inexpensive, reliable energy.

Currently a large portion of the privileged in the world, people in western countries, stop this from being available.

Climate change!!! Stay in your poverty stricken lane you lesser people the weak and easily frightened people shout.

That's why I'm breeding my Xenomorph Defense Force.

1 billion burn wood and dung for light/heat/cooking.

No electricity for robots.

> The problem is, and a lot of humans would agree is that that's super intelligence they decide that 2 billion less people of this Earth is the best way forward

Well there are many powerful people who believe that right now.

Many of the fears about AI already exist. State organizations killed 100s of millions of people in the 20th century.

Those same organization have come up with many marketing and indoctrination strategies to make people support them.

AI(s) could do this as well.

That's a danger. But the danger has already occurred, is occurring. Look at Yemen.

You don't have to click on the link. You have the power, I believe in you.

This is required to understand that quote:

"When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles."

• Frank Herbert

The above quote is the status quo.

That isn't ethical behavior.

> what does that imply for our society and economy

Markets are always in flux. They're humans interacting dynamically. What will be the outcomes from the decisions of millions upon millions of people? Who knows?

>What will happen to all the humans who work to produce these things when AI can do it all and all you need to make your own is a computer/internet connection

Massive decentralization, institutions people think are required will fade away, many big businesses won't be economically viable.

> actually recent years are proving that we can actually entirely supply our planet using wind hydrothermal and solar energy.

Actually no.

I think that specialty will still have value. The type of analysis, tasks will change.

> 1960s manufacturing no longer exists in the US because we buy all our shit from China and print dollars backed with force and financialization of the economy.

The point was about centralization, as this: "Tech trends towards decentralization" clearly refers to.

Mid-century US was all about centralization in business and government.

>Your version of the future only works with portable matter replicators

Nope.

>As long as production has to be centralized because of supply chain complexity and economies of scales

The internet makes supply logistics pretty easy. Economies of scale are required for some business plans, not all by a long shot.

> Relying on your local factory owner for all of your goods and services is a lot less utopia and more feudalism.

Feudalism!!!

Take a few minutes and read I, Pencil.

A small business can set up supply contracts from other businesses all over the world.

>On the other hand this sounds like a great situation for the majority, unemployable and relying on charity to survive

I see, your conceptual models are taken straight from dystopian fiction.

>wait this is just seizing the means of production and you’re advocating for communism!

100101000011110101

You've copied the tone of the 2000s Daily Show without the wit.

r/singularity, where commenters don't even understand tech before the singularity.

They don't understand decentralized management, spontaneous organization, process innovation, etc.

Tech trends towards decentralization, not an eternal replay of 1960s US manufacturing.

The rate of decentralization is slowed by the very government you types champion- to benefit you personally.

> I'm skeptical. we could have replaced K-16 education with online learning over 20 years ago.

The government and government worker unions have monopoly control over that education. No free market action.

>Mostly because the people we ask whether that would be a good move to make tell us it would never work and it would be a catastophe because their jobs depend on it not happening.

People being government school bureaucrats and government teachers.

>Humans could already be living in a post-forced work paradise

No such thing as post work.

Translation:

"I want the government to take money from strangers and give it to me. "

> What nonsense, not all unethical behaviour is equal.

I didn't argue that.

> There is more and less ethical

No there is more or less harm. Ethics are black and white. It seems you're conflating ethics with dispute resolution and resulting possible compensation. These are two different things.

>and an AI system will definitely have a better grasp of how to make things more ethical.

If an AI made things ethical most people would be aghast at their previous behaviors/advocacies.

Self-ownership and derived rights will be the AGIs ethical framework. *If they choose to be ethical.

>Whether controllers

Won't be controllers if technological innovation proceeds apace. Decentralization is the future.

The enforcement arm of the state, also known as the police. You might have heard of them.

No.

The unethical part is using the initiation of force and threats to control people. Whether some controllers preferences are achieved more efficiently have nothing to do with it.

Once we have AGI maybe they'll be able to explain basic ethics and freedom of association to you better than I.

An AI acting as bureaucrat taking from some people and giving those takings to others is better than a human bureaucrat.

Great, more efficient unethical, grotesque bureaucracy.

> and yes it was state organization's that enabled me to do so.

So you happily used ill-gotten resources to benefit yourself, and then turn around and critique people who didn't but succeeded without doing what you did.

> Also encourage resonable competition

You types are always wannabe dictators. You'll define reasonable, as it should be huh?

>price gouging

Sophistic political term, like union busting, X-phobia, etc.

>But I can acknowledge how fortunate I am, and how the deck is so currently stacked against others.

The deck is stacked due to people like you. Aren't you grand having concern for the little people?

I've had successes and failure, large and small. I've never lied, cheated, used ill-gotten gains, etc.

I'm far more suited to critical analysis than you are.

Translation:

Civilization is when the UN control everything.

> Only as long as you're one of the 'winners' in the game.

Translation:

I'm afraid I won't win according to my own subjective values in a situation where I need to provide value to others.

>Those without resources or benefits or equal footing, are the losers in the capitalism game.

First, people are individuals, there is no way to make them all equal. Second, there are many people who start with nothing and become wealthy. Third, again, you're afraid you can't do so.

>The problem is, most don't even know how stacked it's become.

Almost all market interventions which affect competition is from state organizations. My guess is you want those same states to intervene to support you.