| > but why would someone toil to create a new algorithm to solve a problem if someone else is just going to steal it in hours? I think it goes deeper than that, in that the AI era will eventually force us to rethink how we value each other. It used to be economic scarcity: I provide a service that very few people can provide, therefore I make a lot of money (supply and demand.) Now we're moving to a place where most anybody can do anything, so our value system needs to evolve, as well. Instead of valuing scarcity, perhaps we should value personal creativity and self-expression. Kind of like paying money for a concert, or for someone's personal painting, even though you can listen online, or you can just have AI generate the same painting. It comes more from wanting to support people than to supply scarcity-based demand. I think this idea makes many peoples' eyes roll, but IMO that's a testament to where we are today as a society. Most interactions get reduced to just business transactions without the humanity in it, and that's where our problems come from. |
| |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 15 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > if AI and robots end up replacing most jobs The only way AI and robots end up replacing most jobs is if they can do them for less money than people can. Which in turn means that those things become less expensive, since that's the thing causing suppliers to do it. So there are really three possibilities here. First, we get robots that can e.g. build houses and housing scarcity goes down, so now you don't need to make much money to afford rent. Second, robots still can't build housing, so then you get a job building housing and have a job. Or third, robots still can't build housing but we have a bunch of rent-seeking incumbents that won't allow you to get a job doing that either, because they're trying to keep rents high or artificially limit the supply of trade labor. It's the third one that really screws you and is the one that we need to prevent. | | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > so then you get a job building housing and have a job Let's say 50% of all jobs are lost. What would that kind of oversupply do to pay rates and working conditions in the remaining sectors? | |
| ▲ | deadbabe 15 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don’t want a house built by people who are just trying to get a paycheck because they got laid off from their cushy office jobs. | | |
| ▲ | diomedes 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | as opposed to the current people building houses who are doing it because they just love building houses so much | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | No it's fine, we don't have to require anyone to buy a house built by people who are "just trying to get a paycheck". As long as nobody is stopping them from building houses for the people who do want them. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | baranul 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Oh, think it will/can be worse than that. The collapse of the present system can mean all out genocidal wars, either by eugenic and deranged humans doing it to themselves or true AGI and its robots removing human interference with its goals and Earth's resources. As for the AGI and robot part, various oligarchs are talking about manufacturing millions to even billions of robots. Combined that with billions of AI agents in massive data centers all over the world. A possible new artificial life form that can do what humans do (if not vastly better) and at comparable numbers or mass. | |
| ▲ | spwa4 20 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | You only have to look at the current situation in China to see that the problem is not capitalism, or communism, at least not by itself: https://www.wsj.com/world/china-economy-gen-z-f9058941 https://www.economist.com/china/2019/11/14/homelessness-has-... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si2zT-wCs3c We all know that "real" communist societies like North Korea are worse, much, much worse. In fact within China how bad this is varies enormously. If you're in a "rope village" somewhere deep inland, having the finest house in the entire city is arguably worse than homelessness in Beijing, but the party won't let you leave except as homeless, because you're allocated a "Household" (Hukou) and you aren't allowed to leave. And, of course, half the problem is the very structure of the communist party itself: local officials hide the problem, because if they don't, they'll be purged or at the very least won't see promotions, ever. Which means that the police will be using violence to hide the problem rather than fix it. AI can provide incredible wealth, or immeasurable misery, in both capitalist and communist societies. That is not what makes the difference, that is just how political parties like to frame themselves and so the argument why you should choose "left" or "right". Capitalism and private home ownership can certainly provide housing, but if you go too far or not far enough in private ownership and "protecting capital" they won't. And communism can certainly fix homelessness (the Soviets did, for example), except nowadays they just won't. AI will provide more tools for people with capital, which primarily will be the government. Whether that solves, say, homelessness is a choice, in either system. | | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 18 hours ago | parent [-] | | You missed the point and went on a tangent about random countries today. I don't claim to have a solution for what comes after but it is certain that capitalism will collapse if we ever see significant job loss due to AI and robotics. | | |
| ▲ | WalterBright 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > it is certain that capitalism will collapse if we ever see significant job loss due to AI and robotics. The Luddites said the same thing. | | |
| ▲ | TeMPOraL 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | FWIW, they were right. Society may have ended up better off in the end, but the Luddites - the actual individuals affected by the transition, and their families and their children - were absolutely screwed for life. | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | You may want to read past the headline when it comes to luddites. That's exactly what I'm talking about. | |
| ▲ | imtringued 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Luddites = Angry unemployed people who got proven wrong by being brutally murdered. |
| |
| ▲ | spwa4 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Nope. 1) Capitalism has historically been proven to work with 90% unemployment, unlike communism. Of course that would represent an enormous loss compared to today but it would not be enough to collapse it. 2) The same would happen to communism. Talk to someone from China and ask what their government will do when they can run the economy on 90% less people. The answer I've gotten is that they already know: after all the division between CCP/state jobs (which includes all state companies) and "normal" jobs already works like that. Then it was mentioned that there's a reason that people have committed murders for CCP jobs ... I don't understand what you're complaining about. Yes, the US and Europe are capitalist, BUT there is more than enough room in the law for communist communities. Some of those existed for decades, and some still exist. If you truly believe communism is better, why not just join one of those instead of dragging everyone along with you? | | |
| ▲ | dns_snek 21 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > Capitalism has historically been proven to work with 90% unemployment What an extraordinary claim. Elaborate. > Of course that would represent an enormous loss compared to today but it would not be enough to collapse it. Betting against a revolution in such a scenario is bold. > Talk to someone from China China is capitalist, not communist. > If you truly believe communism is better, why not just join one of those instead of dragging everyone along with you Where did I say that? That's a nonsense argument for various reasons but it's not the point of this discussion so I'll skip it. The Great depression saw 25% unemployment and that was just a temporary upset, try 50% and rising over time. How long are you willing to go hungry supporting capitalism in that environment, and why? The food is right there, fully automated, the only reason you're not getting it is because you refuse to work in the mines 14 hours a day to get it. Capitalism will survive for a while but people will eventually revolt. | | |
| ▲ | spwa4 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > China is capitalist, not communist. Oh right I'm so sorry. There is no true communism anywhere on the planet, nor has there ever been and therefore your precious ideal cannot be judged. Of course, if any of it were to actually be implemented, it would rapidly evolve into "real" communism (as in existing in the real world as opposed to in theory), and it would resume destroying lives like every other real communism has always done ... But your precious ideal really is perfect (as in I don't want to argue about the ideal communism, a figment of people's imagination, because it's about as relevant as the very intricate arguing online on the politics of "magic for all ponies", the political slogan of the famous show) But of course you want to argue the ideal since it's really about just using the power of the state to get you a free playstation and a big apartment in the center of a perfect city. Reality is that if such a thing were attempted, playstations would rapidly cease to exist, big apartments would be reserved for party "business" (and mistresses), and the city would be about as perfect as moscow was in the 1970s. |
|
|
|
|
|
