except no, that's probably not whats going to happen, unless you want to explain to me why there have been voices calling for gruesome stuff to happen to the unproductive for the past 20 years ;)

https://www.yahoo.com/news/where-j-d-vance-gets-100000608.ht...

> In 2008, a software developer in San Francisco named Curtis Yarvin, writing under a pseudonym, proposed a horrific solution for people he deemed "not productive": "convert them into biodiesel, which can help power the Muni buses."

it's just not going to be you or me who is going to be within that group of ordinary humans.

i think a more rational argument would claim that this isn't about demonizing people who create, it's about societal inequality. i don't think mark zuckerberg, elon musk or larry page and sergey brin got demonized for creating their products in the first 10-15 years after launch, it's what happened after, the accumulation of wealth, the extension of power, that get's any rational person believing in a free market socialist economy nervous.

> Pretending that the people leveraging that capital are somehow guilty of an original sin just by leveraging capital markets, which is really what these screeds against anyone holding controlling interests in companies they were instrumental in creating, seem to be about, leads down a terrible path.

do you think that they should still be forced to leverage their capital within democratic boundaries? because from what i've heard most founders carry significant power due to their wealth and share increasingly anti-libertarian values, to secure their wealth.

if those democratic boundaries prove to be innovation stiffling, fair, that is definitely an issue, but wouldn't it make sense to argue to then try to adjust those boundaries from within the democratic framework?

one could also make the claim that one popular strategy for securing the gains of a succesful innovation is regulatory capture - a strategy that is increasingly employed by large companies to close of markets and secure market monopolies or duopolies.

in a sense, they are stifling innovation themselves by closing a market to competitors, via instrumentalizing what they usually critize: regulation, no?

it's like you said, these can coexist, but from my perception it's as if these billionaires don't want them to coexist.

and im not thinking about regulatory drama involving diesel generators for AI datacenters or anything specific, just the mere power accumulation and general radical tendencies you find with these ultra wealthy interest groups.

When billionaires say "think about the trillions of people that will benefit from AI" and some notion of living in a post scarcity world, they are talking about _their_ descendants, not yours.

"doing shit fast and good enough" seems to be a much better fitness function here

Also isn't Jerry Seinfeld a billionaire? Completely detached from reality.

It's honestly insane that they think this.

They really don't understand that they're building something they cannot possibly control, if it turns out to be what they're envisioning.

Like what about performance optimization or security analysis? Shouldn't AI be the CAD of coding tools? Idk.

On a website where we frequently talk about disruptive business models, this whole attitude kinda stinks.