No, why?

If people still want other people to do things for them, accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented. We don't have to un-invent it. But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.

If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade. The magical AIs, or whatever it is that someone has dreamt up that they think will eliminate the need to hire people, will provide instead. You only need people to buy things from you if you need to buy things from them as well.

▲

em-bee 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

whatever [...] they think will eliminate the need to hire people, will provide instead

the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others. if that doesn't work, then they won't do it. so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition. because that is hat will happen if we keep going as we are. less and less labor is needed, and the focus is on getting the money from those who still have an income while the rest are pushed into poverty.

i do not believe we will be able to make this kind of transition without a serious push in moral education. this can only work if we change our attitude towards those who can't find work.

personally though i do not believe we will ever need to eliminate work. there are so many worthwhile things we could do. i rather envision a future where the majority of jobs are in education, healthcare and research, almost everything else can mostly be automated. i believe humanity would benefit immensely if we took advantage of all of human potential instead of letting people stay at home.

▲

9rx 6 days ago | parent [-]

> the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others.

That might be your problem, but isn't the problem being discussed.

> so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition.

The question is, from the perspective of what is being discussed, who cares? "I got mine" applies.

> less and less labor is needed

If those with the magical AI no longer need labor, it is more likely, as counterintuitive as it may seem, to lead to more and more labor! How? Well, if those with the magical AI no longer need people to work for them, they'll simply disappear from the economy. Which means everyone else without the magical AI will be the economy, and labor is what they most have to offer, so that is what they will trade.

▲

staunton 6 days ago | parent [-]

> labor is what they most have to offer, so that is what they will trade

What will they eat? Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on?

	▲	9rx 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		> What will they eat? Each other, at least for a while. > Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on? Labor will be used to develop technologies to provide food without land.

▲

danans 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> ... accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented

> But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.

Relevant as what? Serfs and accountants? Even short of that scenario, there is a big concern if the primary technology of redistribution (jobs) becomes far more scarce.

> If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade.

People will still need raw materials and resources, and those are not evenly geographically distributed.

▲

pjmlp 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Time to fight for fertile land then.

▲

assword 6 days ago | parent [-]

[flagged]

	▲	rvz 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Once we see them running into their bunkers and moats, that is how you know "AGI" has truly been achieved.