Let’s take AGI to its inevitable raw conclusion. Not by the definition (ab)used by clueless VCs screaming about abundance, but by what is already happening using the worst case:

The abundance of mass layoffs and job displacement due to funding and building of AI systems is the true definition of AGI.

We might as well get there faster instead of delaying it. You have already seen Oracle and Block attributing their layoffs to AI so it is happening right now.

So why delay any further and just get it over with.

▲

doesnt_know 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Get where faster? Get what over with?

Aren’t you talking about destroying livelihoods? Pushing people into poverty and/or homelessness? What is the benefit exactly?

▲

Closi 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I guess the argument would go that a new economic model will be required at that stage.

There isn't much point in having people do jobs they don't like which are trivial to automate just for money, but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down.

> What is the benefit exactly?

Well one benefit would be international competitiveness. The country that does it slowest will be the country doing more work for less output.

	▲	phoronixrly an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		> but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do This assumes that for example a person who has been an artist for 20 years, can easily enough switch professions to a machinist, and the only reason for them not to do it is because the economy has no need for another machinist. An insane way to think. This is not how humans work. Let me see any HN dweller go from their cushy home office to butchering animals for meat on 12-hour shifts for example... Oh and btw, no safety net to give you food, housing and healthcare while you learn the new craft!
	▲	palmotea 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		> I guess the argument would go that a new economic model will be required at that stage. > ...but at the point where there isn't enough economically useful things for everyone to do, the current system falls down. Not necessarily. To quote the Bobs from Office Space: "He won't be receiving a paycheck anymore, so it will just work itself out naturally." No need to change, just let the plebs die out.
	▲	samrus 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		The paper is suggesting such a new economic model. Do you have a another proposal?

▲

SilentM68 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Exactly!

As of now, there is no benefit to regular working people. Perhaps in the future, great abundance will occur, but as of now, there will only be job loss, fear, neo-luddism, and blame.

Believe me when I say that I know people, some close to me, that are experiencing fear due to automated systems being installed and tested where they work. They are essentially witnessing start of their automated replacement robot workforce.

Whatever is planned in terms of AI being used to help people needs to happen, sooner rather than later, because all I am seeing is chaos in the horizon.

(⧘⟃⨅⟄⧘)≋≋≋⦻

▲

542458 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I am thoughoughly unconvinced that the “AI-based layoffs” are actually caused by AI displacing workers and aren’t just regular layoffs caused by other factors with a smokescreen of “Actually we’re laying people off because we’re doing really well, please don’t dump your stock”.

▲

mullingitover 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The article is saying that the solution here isn’t to just throw up our hands and commit suicide as a nation, it’s to simply tax the AI, punishing the negative externality.

Seems like the obvious answer to the prisoner’s dilemma problem where everyone wants to lay off their workforce, but expects that they’ll be the only ones to get this bright idea.

	▲	542458 3 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		What’s a bit hard for me to rationalize here is why are market shifts considered a negative externality here? We didn’t tax moulding machines because they reduced the demand for sculptors. Don’t get me wrong, I think the end goal of “Tax those who can pay for it to build a social safety net” is reasonable, I just don’t buy the “negative externalities” argument.
	▲	friendzis 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> it’s to simply tax the AI, punishing the negative externality. That "simply" is working overtime here.