Elon Musk has spent the last few weeks outlining a future with Optimus — one that will "eliminate" poverty, work, and require a universal income.

Indulge me for the coming delusion, but if we ignore who this is, forget all the reasons we know that we can’t trust him, and allow ourselves just a few moments to hope that we could live in such a world.

A world where manual labor is no longer needed, where people can just exist as large mammals are meant to exist. Robots will handle it all and we can just do as we please… and the robots are going to be plentiful because once enough of the process of making a robot becomes automated, the cost of it will go to zero. But to get there it is going to require a ton of money… these robots are going to be way too expensive for people to actually buy them, so investors and governments will help out. The investors will eventually lose everything, but that will put us on the way to having everything we need to be created through completely automated systems.

Of course, there will still be jobs for those who really want them - or more likely, who want them and are good at them - or even more likely, who knows the right people… but if we can get our basic needs taken care of it night not fully end poverty but it would be a step in the right direction.

But, alas… It’s Musk saying it so it’s only to further enrich himself and won’t actually happen.

      • NotMyOldRedditName@lemmy.worldEnglish
        11·
        3 hours ago

        I still think there’s a difference.

        When people talk about wielding money like power, its more along the lines of

        • if you don’t do what I say, I’ll destroy you by doing XYZ.
        • you better change your laws or I can fuck shit up in some way.
        • I can break the law because you can’t fucking touch me.
        • Your example: the power to command other people to do your bidding.

        For Twitter he actually used his wealth as actual money to buy something you would buy with money.

        He did get power from it yes, but I still think there’s a distinction when talking about wiedling it as power vs using money as money.

        • Credibly_Human@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          9 minutes ago

          Gotta say this difference seems very arbitrary. He bought a company, and platform. Both direct how people spend their time. A platform is obvious but a company, he directs what the people who work there work on. Its definitely a match to somewhere far past where money buys you things.

        • MangoCats@feddit.itEnglish
          1·
          1 hour ago

          There’s all kinds of power and influence of people through the press is a very traditional kind of indirect power for people to wield. When I talk about money as power it definitely includes the power to influence how people think and vote and act without putting an actual gun to their heads. Twitter is the new TV and TV was the new radio and the radio was the new newspaper… All kinds of wealthy and powerful people in the past sought control of the press, not only for their own desires, but also as a bargaining chip with other people with power: “do this for me and I’ll make you look good on my platform…”