Fair enough. But the changes that have created the most wealth have tended to benefit a larger fraction of people (though definitely not benefit them equally). The more wealth is generated the cheaper it is to pay off losers.
Positive sum games still involve a lot of zero sum moves! Just because the pie is growing doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter who gets more of the pie. If you are a company CEO in a growing industry, you will end up taking adversarial moves against lots of people. You will sue people, you will fire your employees, you will take away profit from your competitors if you succeed, and so on.
Fair enough. But the changes that have created the most wealth have tended to benefit a larger fraction of people (though definitely not benefit them equally). The more wealth is generated the cheaper it is to pay off losers.
Positive sum games still involve a lot of zero sum moves! Just because the pie is growing doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter who gets more of the pie. If you are a company CEO in a growing industry, you will end up taking adversarial moves against lots of people. You will sue people, you will fire your employees, you will take away profit from your competitors if you succeed, and so on.
I agree. But that doesn’t necessitate that any particular person is going to lose in absolute terms.
In some hypothetical game theory puzzle sure. In the real world it does necessitate it with like >95% probability.
And here we are talking about positive sum stuff like growing a business.
Pause AI movement is explicitly a zero sum political battle.