Technology

hideshow 10 child comments

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 13 points 4 months ago (9 children)

They don’t want us: they want only business-to-business contracts: higher profit, less people.

Ok, but the business that buy need someone to sell to. It is maybe not the first or the second or the third but at some point along the chain b2b must become b2c, a business need to sell to someone that is not a business, else there is not reason for the business to buy in the first place.

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 3 months ago

Rich people. BAM! Cycle complete.

Rich people are people too, sort of.

parent

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 0 points 3 months ago (7 children)

Then you don't understand slavery deeply-enough:

They can outright remove-human-validity-from all lives except their-own, & they'll still have "business" happening.

Citizens are not required outside of oligarchs..

& they can simply pivot to serving the prisonworld, instead of having "humans" in the bottom of the pyramid.

Humankind's history is waaay worse than you're understanding.

_ /\ _

hideshow 7 child comments

parent

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 2 points 3 months ago (6 children)

Then you don’t understand slavery deeply-enough:

They can outright remove-human-validity-from all lives except their-own, & they’ll still have “business” happening.

True, but a very limited one.
In a situation where you need to continually grow, removing all the human side of business will end with bankrupcy.

Citizens are not required outside of oligarchs…

Citizens are required, oligarchs can prosper only because there is something that produce their money. You remove the citizens, who in a form or another can buy oligarchs services/products, and the oligarchs are left with nothing, their money is useless.
We can discuss that then people will become money (the more slaves you have the better) but to keep slaves have a price, low as you want but it have it, and without a way of producing something you will end with no money and then no slaves.

Here we are talking about business that on one hand are trying to sell something to people and on the other are firing people to replace them with AI agents. We can replace, at the beginning, people who buy AI services with other business who then fires the people they hired to replace them with AI agents and so on.
At some point you will end with all the people fired (not that it could end this way in a pacifically), that cannot buy anything other then some food (if any) and a lot of business that are producing and trying to sell something to... who exactly ? The slaves ? Other business ?

Humankind’s history is waaay worse than you’re understanding.

Maybe, I never had the time to study history as much as I'd liked but I understand that there cannot be oligarchs without a society behind them.

hideshow 6 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (3 children)

You're thinking in the old paradigm of consumers. Once AI and robotics can take care of the production of any necessities and luxury goods the owners desire the bulk of humanity becomes redundant poors likely to eventually revolt. It would be better for stability, the environment, and their view if the bulk of us died out.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] gian@lemmy.grys.it 1 point 3 months ago (2 children)

Do you realize that this way the volume of the business would be a lot smaller, right ? And being rich means nothing is you have not a use for your money.

You make AI and robotics to take care of everything you need, good, now think who pay, what it is needed and who would do the work for keeping the AI and robots in a working status. Hint: not the few common people that at this point have no money for anything else that some food, if any, since you automated everything.

It would be better for stability, the environment, and their view if the bulk of us died out.

If the bulk of us died out, being rich means nothing, and they know it.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] Abyssian@lemmy.world 1 point 3 months ago (1 child)

Why would they need money? And exchange for their upkeep labor to get to live in luxury with their families the rest of the time.

Yes, the monetary number would be meaningless. The thing that would have meaning is being able to do and have anything you want, go anywhere you want, and no longer having all those people in there poor people houses glittering up all of the scenic views.