annoniem

@Hex@kolektiva.social (Manufacturing) robots don't require compensation for labor, unlike human laborers; so there practically would no longer be cost associated with production. Currently we seem to be at the stage, in which human laborers build and train systems that are likely to replace them. So you first build the robots and then pull the rug.

@Hex@kolektiva.social I think there's few (relevant) players in the supply chain, that aren't actively exploring to further automate their operation. I feel like consumers are being gaslighted into reducing their footprint (ironically by buying "solutions" from the industry), as to compensate for the industry's ever broadening footprint. All while resulting into consumers becoming dependent on a single source of energy, and modern technology utilizing it, having eroded away most autonomy and privacy.

@Hex@kolektiva.social If both the means of production and labor (through autonomous systems) are controlled by corporations, society will solely depend upon them. Pair this with AI-monitored surveillance (the most broadly applied use of AI): able to trace rioters to the place they originated from; and I think you have most incentives in place to avoid said riots. Interrupt the initiators, and you prevent a movement from snowballing out of control; or simply beat it down with AI-powered robots (yes, really...).

@jollyrogue@social.tulsa.ok.us If this were to become reality, one could ultimately risk losing their live, or more realistically (taking surface-level ethics into consideration), risk losing privileges according to a social credit score. And given robot enforcers wouldn't require compensation, there would be relatively little cost associated with the "army": used as an absolute last resort. If citizens express thoughts through digital platforms, you can adjust or manufacture consent, based on that input.