Are you talking about violent revolution?

Some disorganized thoughts:

1. The professional classes are so unused to violence, they'll probably undermine the chances of violent revolution (e.g. reflexively supporting gun control, seeing such voilence through the lens "school shootings" and other crime, and being likely to report it, etc.).

2. The professional class is losing a lot of its economic power. The time for solidarity and non-violent action way 5 years ago, but the "happy to play along" professionals (e.g. libertarian software engineers) botched their best opportunities. From here on out it will be harder.

3. As all of this is happening, technology is helping to undermining the ability of the masses to do anything about it: IRL community declining, people getting mesmerized and isolated by social media, AI-enabled surveillance, AI-enabled astroturfing and propaganda, autonomous AI weapons, etc.

4. Even if what you say is true, the clock is ticking. Wait a generation and the "former professional class" will be gone as a distinct thing, and their kids will join an undifferentiated mass of poor who have normalized and internalized their circumstances, as they have no first-hand experience of better times.

> ...

> If you think of this field as a historic accident, and the current shift is a very unfortunate reset - it's a little less dystopian.

No it's more dystopian. The "historical accident" was a little respite, where some workers could be comfortable and well off. They had a little market power to take the edge off their exploitation.

Now that market power is taken away, and they can enjoy the poverty they were always "meant" to have.

> In the long run, if it didn't affect me immediately, I don't mind a society that values "keeping restrooms clean" a little bit more and "talking to computers good" a little bit less.

Come on. Society isn't going to value "keeping restrooms clean." The people doing that will continue to be poorly paid and disrespected. It's just the opportunities to do something better will be taken away, so there will be more labor available for that kind of work.

I think you're confused. The true upper class isn't going anywhere, those are the people so rich they don't need to work (and if they do "work," it's tending their empire). They'll keep getting richer.

The "downward mobility" you're talking about the upper middle class and middle class. People who need to work, but can live comfortably on their wages. This is really about flattening the working class into its poorer levels (and kicking away the ladders the people in those levels could use to lead a more comfortable life, no more getting a college degree and graduating from the factory floor to the office).

It's about increasing inequality and creating an unbridgeable chasm between the poor and rich.

> ...

> But even after controlling for AI-exposure, O*NET tasks from occupations with larger wage bills are significantly overrepresented among benchmark prompts:

So, in short: they want AI to take the good jobs. AI is not coming for jobs with tasks like "gather and empty trash" or "service, clean, or supply restrooms," or "mix water and detergents or acids in containers to prepare cleaning solutions according to specifications." We software engineers and lawyers would be smart to start retraining (and adjusting our living standards) now!

And this points to one of the ways AI will help improve society and living standards for all: we'll have cleaner, better-maintained bathrooms, as labor one wasted on engaging intellectual tasks is redirected towards menial, low-pay tasks that still need a human touch.

Reason to be optimistic, amirite?

There was a NY Times article a while back that talked about why Gen Z is so into gambling: they feel the system is so rigged against them that traditional strategies to get safety and security (e.g. get a good job, save, buy a house, etc.) don't work anymore. So they either give up (and focus on short-term consumption) or throw their money at long shots like gambling and crypto, hoping for a jackpot.

> The pessimistic view is that these marketplaces are just another cause of wealth inequality, they will always extract more wealth than they generate, and there is no place for them in a balanced, healthy economy.

That is the truth. They don't generate any wealth, they exist to take a cut on people transferring money unproductively.

What do you mean? I posted the minimum amount to explain an unfamiliar term. I wasn't going to quote the whole article.

> So the term became a misnomer.

What's your point? Shilling doesn't have to be combative.

> The 50 Cent Party, also known as the 50 Cent Army or wumao (/ˈwuːmaʊ/; from Chinese: 五毛; lit. 'five dimes'), are Chinese government employees posting online comments to divert public attention or promote positive sentiment.

> ...

> The name "50 Cent Party" is derived from claims that government hired commentators are reportedly paid RMB¥0.50 (5 jiao) for every post in order to shape public opinion in ways favorable towards Chinese Communist Party (CCP) policies.[1][5][6]

So basically paid shills.

I'm not even sure if a fighter pilot could. The passenger compartment of the "Rocket" model is probably packed full of tanks and other equipment, to deliver total of a few seconds of flight time. Doing anything in the air would probably require such precise timing no person could do manually, and it probably can't even be done automatically outside very controlled conditions.

IMHO, we should be structuring society to provide maximum opportunity and remuneration for creative, engaging professions. Instead we have capitalism.

> The "free to pursue more important things" is a hand-wavy statement that doesn't talk at all about what those people should be doing to provide for themselves after wages plummet. The hyperbole is drawing attention to the ridiculousness, not making a comment about there not being a rec soccer league or something.

Exactly, "free to pursue more important things" is a pleasant-sounding way to say "It's not my problem, fuck off an die for all I care."

It's would be hard for them to maintain the kind of techo-optimism they had in their early years, without sounding delusional, given what we've learned since.

> I'm reminded of this video from Bowling for Columbine, where they stroll around South Central LA, and realize its pleasant and nothing crazy is happening.

You might have a point, but:

1. A citation to a partisan propagandist shouldn't convince anyone.

2. The segment seems to rest on the fallacious assumption that dangerous areas can never be pleasant and will continuously have something "crazy" happening. I mean, there are literal warzones where you could probably manage to film a five minute stroll through some pleasant meadow (due to lulls in the fighting).

I think the truth is that it's just hard to get a true impression of a place without actually spending a lot of time there.