> At least with LLMs we can glimpse an escape route to that which generations of humans have strived for - a world in which the labor required of each human to lead a flourishing life approaches zero.

Let me fix that for you: A world in the the value of the labor of each human approaches zero.

▲

echelon 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The value will tend towards infinity [1] because we can keep building more data centers. This will allow us to apply tokens to solving every problem we can conceive.

The cost will tend towards zero because competition is intense and there appear to be zero moats and ample improvements from every direction.

If these systems have low costs, that means they will be usable by the broad population and that their utility will be widely accessible.

Industrialization led to iPhone, PlayStation, Spotify, and Waymo.

AI will lead to personal chefs, contractors, assistants, drivers, tutors, climbing partners, ...

AI will lead to people making their own PlayStation games, their own music and streaming services (I already have), their own custom smartphones (a future personal project - vibe hardware). And your robot will drive you cross country on vacation while you sleep in the car.

[1] Not actually infinity because earth [2] has finite resources, but the S-curve will look like it for awhile.

[2] Until the robots leave earth, anyway

▲

TeMPOraL 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> but the S-curve will look like it for awhile.

Yeah, S-curve should be classified as fallacy, because it rarely covers what people argue it does.

Economic and technological growth is a stack of S-curves, where one very specific facet may hit limits and taper off, only for equivalent, complementary or alternative facet to take off in its place. Added up, there's no sign of the exponent stopping any time soon, not until hitting real limits, or (probably more likely) some general catastrophy that shuts down human civilization.

▲

idbnstra 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[2] this is why we need georgism, i.e. shifting taxes to finite resources like land, minerals, etc.

▲

jplusequalt 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

>AI will lead to personal chefs, contractors, assistants, drivers, tutors, climbing partners, ...

You need to show how having X more data centers is somehow going to translate into affordable, highly advanced robots in the immediate future.

There are hard problems about robotics we don't yet know how to solve. Not to mention, who the fuck is going to buy them if AI takes their jobs?

▲

echelon 15 minutes ago | parent [-]

You think people are going to stop watching celebrities and influencers just because there are AIs and robots?

Do you think people will stop dating, trying to impress mates, buying luxury, etc.? Neither candlelight dinner to a robot no a Dior manufactured by robots have the same allure. There's a huge industry around this.

Sports aren't going to go away. Huge industry.

People aren't going to stop making art. I know a ton of artists who have embraced AI that are doing even bolder work using the tools. (I was a filmmaker pre-AI, and I know a lot of people in this field.)

People aren't going to stop traveling. And consuming. And eating human food and consuming human experiences.

There are going to be all new kinds of businesses and opportunities that spring up. OpenAI and Anthropic are not going to be the only two employees. They won't be staffed by only agents.

	▲	jplusequalt 11 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The economy cannot just transition over night, or even within a few years, to quickly absorb a labor shock the size you're describing. Also, you have not addressed how we're going suddenly to develop the robots required for your future. >and consuming human experiences. Consumption requires money. If AI is going to massively impact employment, that reduces the amount of people in the economy capable of consuming these "human experiences".

▲

godwinson__4-8 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Right, and the consequence is going to be, what?

Humans with zero economic value can still vote. They can still mass. They will still have needs. Really the script here writes itself. The historical precedents bound the problem rather well. As always, radical social change will not occur until a wide swath of the population is aligned. In this case, due to their broad economic devaluation.

It would be easier if today's knowledge workers stopped deluding themselves into thinking that their standards of living will maintain. Your acknowledgement of the necessary predicate to change is, in that respect, progress in itself. There is little reason why we cannot accelerate the timing of broad consensus if more people so readily came to that conclusion - and resisted the temptation to then find the answer instead in nostalgia about the past.

▲

AlexeyBrin 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You assume there will still be free elections and democracy. There is also the possibility that the form of government will change into something else.

▲

yoz-y 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

We are not deluding ourselves that we will maintain our standard of living. If the boss’ dream of replacing all workers by AI that does their job poorly but cheaply will be realized. We will go to the gutter with the rest of the economically worthless people.

There are many of them today, their needs are not met (but could be, the production output is largely there, but captured) and their political views don’t matter because the votes are captured by populists. I’m sure the powers that are will find a way to go around educated people voting.

▲

godwinson__4-8 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I still see a lot of denialism.

It is easy to ignore the misallocation of output and the private greed when generally people are still doing fairly well.

As the denials give way, the politics will change. You may be right such moments will be hijacked and hope extinguished. That's why we should all aim to think about these problems in the most robust way, so we can all contribute to the coming efforts.

Cynicism about the future is easy, but should be resisted. Perhaps ironically, I find hope in your acknowledgement of your own imminent devaluation.

▲

jaybeavers 3 hours ago | parent [-]

“I find hope in your acknowledgment of your own imminent devaluation.”

Gave me a chuckle. I think this is my personal ‘best sentence of the year’.

Great way to summarize how we will likely look back on 2026.

	▲	qarl 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Well... it's true, right? People can't help themselves when they don't believe they're being exploited.

▲

2frrrr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Correct.

Humans are animals. We have rules to keep humans in check but that’s it.

The wealthy do not care nor need to care. They will justify it as ‘you lot were too weak to organise and stop us’ and there is an element of truth to that.