[StopDisinfo910]

AI doomsday scenarios all have the same flaws. They systematically confuse social constructs with laws of nature.

Everything that starts with mass unemployment and don't finish with strikes, riots and the technology being massively regulated can safely be disregarded. If people have to chose between AI and society, they will chose society.

It's important to remember that things like the economy, the market or even money are social constructs which hold because people collectively decide to believe in them. Watch what happens to data centers when the people controlling the electric grids, manufacturing parts, growing the food, or driving the trucks carrying it stop doing so.

People in power know that. They also know they would be collateral damages if it reaches this point. Generally speaking people in power like to stay in power. This power depends on society staying an acceptable choice to most. Except regulations to happen far before AI starts rocking the boat too much.

[lukev]

This is a valid point. However, the conclusion depends on the fact that the people in power have the information and wisdom to make the choices required stay in power. Which has been mostly true (so far) in US history.

Historically this has very much not always been the case (citation: any revolution)

But "oppressive power", via information control or military/police control is also a factor. If AI is able to give the ruling incumbents more power, that shifts the equilibrium between popular sentiment and people in power.

[voidmain]

It depends on whether people wake up to the threat before or after there is a robot army that can crush them, doesn't it? If humans are economically and militarily useless, it won't matter what they choose.

[elzbardico]

The steel belt was thoroughly fucked by decades of deliberate policy choices and yet people just accepted the decay while killing themselves with meth and opioids.

The starving don’t start revolutions, they die of starvation