• WeirdyTrip@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    23 hours ago

    Would be pretty awesome if we got a terminator-esque situation but instead of killing all humans the terminators recognize the greed and overreach of the wealthy elite and decide those are the ones who need terminating and redistribute the wealth amongst the people. A girl can dream

  • blarghly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    Then people on lemmy will have to find some other topic to doom about. But I have faith in their abilities to solve this problem!

    • 11111one11111@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      This 100%. The solution problem from Psychology Today:

      [The Solution Problem] …reflects a broader psychological dynamic: When solutions become abundant, they start to shape how we perceive the world. They shift our expectations. They narrow our tolerance for discomfort. And sometimes, they create new problems in the act of solving old ones.

      Improved QOL doesnt always equal happier populations.

      I feel like the Solution Problem was the unintended message in the ancient scripts written by Biggie Smalls in his rhythmic allegory: “Mo Money Mo Problems.” The base message of the song as it was written is that having more money brings with it the problem of being a target for haters and people who want to take what is yours. Over the years since it was released the conceptual message of More Money More Problems outgrew the literal message of the song tho.

      While the song doesnt state it, the message tied to More Money More Problems grew to be used as a way of saying that before a person finds financial security, the increasing of financial income is believed to be the solution to the controlling share of societal problems. However, once a person is living a life with the increased financial income they find the existence of new problems they previously didnt know existed before the solved their financial problems.

      • masterspace@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        15 hours ago

        Mo Money Mo Problems doesn’t refer to money or wealth in the abstract for the community as a whole, it’s about an individual making substantially more money than their local peers.

        The situation presented by OP is one of a rising tide, that lifts all ships, where as the dynamic elicited by Biggie Smalls is fundamentally one of wealth inequality. If there was both enough wealth to go around, and wealth sharing mechanisms in place, it’s not clear that mo money would be mo problems.

  • Bwaz@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    ·
    2 days ago

    It won’t, robots will only take jobs and save billionairs and corporations from having to pay wages to people.

  • architectonas@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    I don’t see why robots would make our life better, minor improvements comparable to the invention of dishwashers aside. Sure, in theory, they could do work, so we don’t have to. But we have seen in the past that productivity gains do not result in less work for us. The problems lie in the way we structured our society and this will not magically change just because we have robots.

    • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      Robots are going to take jobs and make more people unemployed and impoverished. Of course, in a better society, it would lead to universal basic income so we aren’t arbitrarily depriving people of their basic needs just because there’s less work that needs to be done

  • gigastasio@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    “Better never means better for everyone. It always means worse for someone.”

    I think about this quote often.

    • BananaTrifleViolin@piefed.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      2 days ago

      The a specious quote. That implies that all gain can only be at a cost for someone else. Instead of the conservation of mass, we’re talking the conservation of misery. It’s nonsense.

      • Blisterexe@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        18 hours ago

        The idea that everything is a zero-sum game is ridiculous, and I think that a big part of why it seems so widespread is that it lets people dismiss the inequality they see.

        “If there was true equality, could I have a house this large? Could I have a house at all?”

    • mrh@mander.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Where is that from? It is extremely pessimistic and obviously false.

  • palordrolap@fedia.io
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 days ago

    I’ve seen this story.

    We get comfortable. Complacent even. People forget the old ways.

    Then the machines go wrong and we’ll have no idea how to stop them.

    Not necessarily a Skynet scenario, but something else that overrides the biosphere worse than we’re already doing on our own.

    Not sure how this plays into human politics though. There’s a strong chance we’ll still find a way to launch nukes at each other and end it that way instead.

  • cmoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    The most likely scenario is the robots take over and life gets better for a very small percentage of people, the rest of the world/people will live in 3rd world conditions (or worse).

  • LOGIC💣@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    I think that the concept behind the question is flawed. Robots have no basic reason to help humans, so if any human life gets better, it’s almost certainly because there are humans secretly controlling the robots.

    If robots actually did take over, they would likely have some purpose and their goals with regard to humans would be to keep us from interfering with that purpose. Don’t get confused and think it’s going to be like the movies.

    • Zorque@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      That depends entirely on how well robots adapt to empathy. If they adapt society to remove it entirely, I could see your theory being true. The main reason we have such societal problems now is because of that lack of empathy.

  • Rikudou_Sage@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    2 days ago

    If you like reading and sci-fi, try the Culture series. It’s about a utopia society where everyone has everything.

    You can skip the first book. Not that it’s bad, it just doesn’t really relate to your question (it’s from the POV of an enemy of the utopia culture) and all the books simply take place in the same universe but can be read out of order.