I notice how Marc doesn’t spend any time talking about the distribution of technology’s upside. All signs point to a natural consequence being more severe wealth accrual to the top, which makes sense since a technology fundamentally gives the operator/owner power without having to convince (i.e. pay) other humans to help them out.
Each new technological advancement seems to be more marginally valuable to the top of our society than to the bottom, and that delta seems to be growing over time not shrinking. I suspect “lower level” innovations in the value chain would be different, e.g. agriculture or energy, but let’s be honest about what actually consumes most of our industry’s talent and capital (as allocated by very very few unelected billionaires).
Even if absolute quality of life/prosperity increases, the delta itself is a really, really serious destabilizing force. In fact we know that people can live stably and happily in fairly destitute conditions, not that that should be the goal.
Each new technological advancement seems to be more marginally valuable to the top of our society than to the bottom, and that delta seems to be growing over time not shrinking. I suspect “lower level” innovations in the value chain would be different, e.g. agriculture or energy, but let’s be honest about what actually consumes most of our industry’s talent and capital (as allocated by very very few unelected billionaires).
Even if absolute quality of life/prosperity increases, the delta itself is a really, really serious destabilizing force. In fact we know that people can live stably and happily in fairly destitute conditions, not that that should be the goal.