| |
| ▲ | siavosh 6 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | If AI leads to an era of abundance, then the economic system has to change. The system it transitions to and what that transition looks like will need to be fought for, and I imagine it’ll be done better in some places than others. Yet I think the parallel existential question of meaning in this world is one that is inherently optimistic. Humans decide meaning, it is not something imposed on us or taken away by the existence of something else. | | |
| ▲ | augment_me 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | How do you think this will work? Do you think the whole of the rest of the world, about 7 billion people, will agree to give up on wanting to reach the western life standard that is currently consuming 4 Earth's of resources every year? Will all rich people in all countries collectively agree to be moved into tiny apts same size and give up their luxuries? If not, how do you define who gets what? Who gets to live in the fancy house, etc? | |
| ▲ | breuleux 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I don't think "abundance" is a stable state. There are always ways to use more resources and more energy, so no matter how much we have, it will never be "enough" -- abundance is just a transition state where a population or system has not yet figured out how to grind the surplus. The faster the progress, the shorter I would expect these periods to be. | |
| ▲ | greesil 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Right now that looks like a bunch of rich edgelords and us as serfs | |
| ▲ | robotpepi 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > If AI leads to an era of abundance, then the economic system has to change. This is beyond naive. |
| |
| ▲ | delis-thumbs-7e 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | We could feed the whole population of the world if we decided to, we definitely have enough production[1]. If we pretend AI-assisted automation can do most work - which still currently is an highly dubious claim - we could just provide food and shelter for free to everyone, if we so desired. It would require quite a lot of restructuring and dietary changes, but it is possible. [1]https://online.ucpress.edu/elementa/article/doi/10.1525/elem... | | |
| ▲ | int_19h an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | You're right that we could already feed everyone with a different distribution of produced wealth. That part is not something that AI will change (although it would raise the resulting standard of living). What it does change is the basic equation underlying capitalism as an economic system: a few people concentrate capital in their hands, but capital by itself is useless without labor, so they have to hire workers to produce something useful with all that capital that they own. The workers get a shit sandwich, comparatively speaking (given the amount of wealth they generate), but they do get something out of it. The system is stable overall because, while a better arrangement is possible, most people - even low-wage workers - have too much to lose to riot. With AI that can do most work, the capital no longer needs labor. People who own all the robots can just have them produce whatever they need. Everybody else is then "economically redundant", and the whole system collapses because people aren't going to sit around and starve because there are no longer jobs to be had - and at this point they have nothing left to lose and everything to gain by rebelling and taking over the capital. | |
| ▲ | anon-3988 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | If this is true, you would think that companies would be opening shops in the middle of (some shithole country) so they can make money (or someone else would grab it). But they don’t, why is that? | | |
| ▲ | traes 5 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | Because the shithole countries are poor and rife with violence that is hostile to operating a profitable company? Obviously? | | |
| ▲ | bruce511 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Referring to countries as "shithole countries" does not help in understanding the current dynamic between rich and poor nations. So perhaps it is helpful to understand what that is, without the pejoratives. Firstly, each country is different. So the relationship between say the USA and Mexico is different to the relationship between the USA and say Ethiopia. By "richness" we might also be better off thinking as less "spare cash" and more "standard of living". Which includes food, housing etc but also security, safety etc. In truth much of the US "richness" depends on other nations. If there was no Latin labor the US would have a fresh produce problem. Indeed the very premise of DJT is that the US has a trade deficit with just about everyone. Much of US "richness" is thus dependent on the "poorness" of others. Yes automation, cheaper energy, AI can reduce the labor content of goods and make them universally cheaper. Yes I believe in a future where the overall standard of living increases. But it would be a mistake to believe the US is "leading" US there. The US achieved its current position at the barrel of a gun, and uses the military (and threat of military) to interfere with countries and regions either overtly or covertly. The entire premise of the cold war (outside of western europe) was premised on interventions to resist countries switching their political model to something the locals preferred. And yes, maybe the locals preferred wrong. But the US didn't promote democracy, they promoted "willingness to keep supplying us". Countries which were leaning away from the US had to be punished. (Shah in Iran, Vietnam etc.) I could go on, but I'll stop there. Suffice to say that an equitable standard of living is not in the (current) interest of most US citizens. |
| |
| ▲ | delis-thumbs-7e 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Shithole country? You mean US: https://www.msfoodnet.org/about-us/hunger/ The companies do not do this, because equal distribution of resources is poison to capitalism. The world where everyone are fed, and their basic needs - shelter, medication etc. - are taken care of, does not have trillionaires. Possibly not even billionaires. It is not profitable to give people humane standards of living. You work a lot harder when you see the homeless on the street on your way to work. |
|
| |
| ▲ | inopinatus 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Money will become unnecessary. The future Anthro Park will no doubt provide a safe enclosure, feeding at regular intervals, and an enriching environment for you and your fellow semi-evolved simians. | |
| ▲ | RealityVoid 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | The current approach to resource distribution worked so far. When it stops working because we have too much abundance, we'll settle on another one. That doesn't mean the transition will be smooth. It doesn't mean that certain classes won't be worse off. I can certainly imagine programmers being among the losers. And there certainly are futures where we slide in dystopia. So let's try building the good futures. Alea iacta est. |
|
