| |
| ▲ | OgsyedIE 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | The investment thesis in AI is that the decline in consumer spending in the other sectors of the economy won't matter when the consumers cease to be a significant participant in the economy in the near term: that moving investment away from the activity in agriculture, transportation, goods and services, etc., is rational because those sectors are soon to be obsolete when their customers buying power and long term capacity to produce buying power is sucked away. Think of the promise of AGI as a promise of billions of tireless immigrants with PhDs who outcompete the other ethnicities in the labor market. It's the same reason people stopped investing in Detroit-based things years ahead of the industry pullout. | | |
| ▲ | bequanna 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | I’m not sure I follow. So, are you saying that wealth will become completely concentrated at the top and the rest of us are obsolete, out of work and broke? That seems unlikely. What is the point of an economy if there is no one who is actually able to consume? | | |
| ▲ | haizhung 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | It’s more likely than you think. In fact, this was true for almost the entirety of human history. The last 100 years, where the common person is NOT in destitute poverty, is the exception to the rule. | |
| ▲ | OgsyedIE 8 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | There will not be no one who is able to consume. The investment thesis is that the investment classes' servant robot armies will be doing trillions of USD of consumption, mostly in metals, munitions, chips, etc. I don't agree with the thesis, but that is what the thesis is. | |
| ▲ | int_19h 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | The ones who own the robots will be doing the consumption. Of course, this all implies that the rest of us will just sit and starve quietly. Somehow I don't think that's likely. | | |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, we need entertainment, potato chips, some drugs and the mandated degree of access to contraceptives. I'm sure OpenAI can calculate the optimal levels of each. |
| |
| ▲ | intended 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Mixing two things up. A point for the economy. The mechanics of trade. Or the objective outcomes vs subjective goals. It is entirely possible for an economy to land up in an equilibrium point that works for a small set of people and not for the majority. The point of the economy is a subjective societal thing, achieved via laws, regulation and enforcement of those rules. | |
| ▲ | cal_dent 8 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | more importantly, good luck to any country that has to deal with an environment full of huge swathes of people festering with the anger and nihilism that comes from going from something to nothing...not for me |
|
|
|
