8 ms·

Stephen Hawking confirms: The problem is Capitalism, not robots

118 points by nomoba 11y ago

arbuge 11y ago
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
- mnsc 11y ago
  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
  - t0rb3n 11y ago
    You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      > You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly. > Why would anyone want to prevent/change that? What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man? edit: And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
      - stevetrewick 11y ago
        >Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
        PavlovsCat 11y ago
        Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
    - johanneskanybal 11y ago
      https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product...
  - stevetrewick 11y ago
    Basic economics and history? Common sense? In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened? Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death? Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum. Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
    - bottled_poe 11y ago
      > Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      > Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them. > The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing. Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out. Here's a comment I bookmarked: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=45379367 http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453... > The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
  - boken 11y ago
    Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation. No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
    - PavlovsCat 11y ago
      > Apathy and disagreement are different things. Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds. > This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic. There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm": > 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct > 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official > 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it. edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
- lhecker 11y ago
  Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said: > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. > Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. > So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
  - asift 11y ago
    >If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
    - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
      Then disagree with the premise. Is it wrong? Why is it ridiculous? Are the adavances in robotics and ML that we are currently experiencing going to hit a wall soon?
      - asift 11y ago
        It's not that advancements are going to hit a wall. It's absurd to assume human demand for consumption is finite. There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines.
        lbebber 11y ago
        > There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
        seanmcdirmid 11y ago
        Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.
- wcummings 11y ago
  He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase" http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - Houshalter 11y ago
    Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.
- forgottenpass 11y ago
  With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this? Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.
  - igorgue 11y ago
    Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room. I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."
makosdv 11y ago
They aren't even talking about Capitalism. They're talking about Cronyism.
- seanmcdirmid 11y ago
  If labor's value is decreased and capital's value is amplified, it eventually leads to a feedback loop where capital easily begets more capital, the very nature of cronyism.
- danharaj 11y ago
  You can't just define capitalism as "the good parts" and cronyism as "the bad parts". There is no mechanism that is part of capitalism that prevents rampant exploitation and capital accumulation, because that is the basis of capitalism.
cbeach 11y ago
Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate. Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.
- kingkawn 11y ago
  Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.
  - carapat_virulat 11y ago
    Everything is possible, except any small change in capitalism. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU
  - cbeach 11y ago
    I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism. We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work. What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.
    - arethuza 11y ago
      I would say that a "new possibility" would be acknowledging that a 100% capitalist society (whatever that would look like) is about as sensible as a 100% socialist society. I don't want to buy food from a state controlled organisation because they'd be crap at it. However, I'm not keen on healthcare being provisioned individually and privately or relying entirely on the market for policing or national security.
      - cbeach 11y ago
        That's the "dilute form of communism" I was referring to. Socialism is not a "new possibility." I concede, though, that nationalised health and defence has major benefits.
raverbashing 11y ago
Yada yada yada some more "anti-capitalist" whining
andrewclunn 11y ago
How can they hoard A.I. ? I mean software becomes cheaper really quickly. That's what I am not getting about this "warning."
- mxuribe 11y ago
  Maybe if "AI" or "robots" or some equivalent automaton becomes a sort of de facto currency - that is, a gateway to prosperity...then it could be yet another resource hoarded by those who supposedly have power...i think that's what is meant.
- maxxxxx 11y ago
  They could implement more IP laws for example, patent everything and extract fees that way.
kaa2102 11y ago
This analysis is correct. Programs achieve the objective of the programmer. Currently, the goal is to maximize profits. Imagine a supply chain with profit-optimizing drones and self-driving cars. The "3 rules" can be followed while human involvement in wage-earning activities is drastically reduced.
Toenex 11y ago
Without robots how will we fight our Capitalist overlords?
- mxuribe 11y ago
  Obviously if we can't depend on technology to defend us, we'd have to resort to alternative methods: we'd have to genetically manipulate some higher-order species to help defend us. Maybe birds, no dolphins; better yet: apes. Yep, that's it: we'll tweak apes. That couldn't end wrong for the human species, right? ;-)
Houshalter 11y ago
Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject. Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job. This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.
- sametmax 11y ago
  It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution. By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else. So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system. But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround. Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed. Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.
  - anexprogrammer 11y ago
    Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat. As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
  - Gabriel_h 11y ago
    "By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else." I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.
mjfl 11y ago
I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can afford to buy one or more round units. I think that such talk betrays a very naive view of capitalism.
- kolbe 11y ago
  If you have a robust criticism of Piketty, then I'd rather you present that. You're going out on quite a limb calling the greatest living physicist "niave" while he's parroting one of the most highly-regarded economists, and your support for that insult thus far is rather flimsy.
  - mjfl 11y ago
    The article makes no mention of Piketty. It does however mention the "new Dark Ages of modern Feudalism" and that societies "are still living inside the 'Matrix' of this culture" which is naive hyperbole; my reference was to the article not Professor Hawking. However, being a skilled physicist means nothing about one's understanding of economics, and any physicist could tell you this. It is very dangerous to just take someone's extrapolations as truth because they are "smart".
    - kolbe 11y ago
      I'd say it's significantly more reliable to assume Hawking knows more than an anonymous internet poster who throws insults around and pretends they're arguments. All I'm saying is that if you want to go toe to toe with a brilliant and respected man, come to the fight with some real arguments.
- smaddox 11y ago
  For every person who has savings to invest in X (robots included) there are 3 or more who don't. Over time, that ratio gets worse, because interest.
afsina 11y ago
I do not see Hawking as an expert of Economics or Philosophy. And I do not share his predictions of a dystopian evil Capitalist AI future. Some capitalist insight on the topic: https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt-mix https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...
bko 11y ago
World Bank estimates that global poverty fell to less than 10% for the first time in history [0]. Perhaps this wasn't solely caused by capitalism and globalization, but considering those two idea were probably the driving forces of the last century, I believe they are instrumental in reducing global poverty. I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism but eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster. That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. [0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...
- nabla9 11y ago
  >That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. They were not fighting against technology per se btw, they were fighting against losing their jobs. The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes were made and capitalism was limited. It was very violent struggle. People were shot or beaten. Economic history teaches us that technological changes require political changes. What you attribute as triumph of capitalism ignores the fact that capitalism changed a lot. You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society. Summary: capitalism + technology + political change == benefits for everyone.
  - branchless 11y ago
    The industrial revolution needs to be understood in the context of land enclosure laws. Workers had no choice. That is what allows employer exploitation: work for me or starve. This is why the USA had slavery - there was abundant land. In the UK the UK was the plantation with land enclosure. This is why now we feel exploited by "capitalism". Banks are flooding the world with fiat money as private debt primarily against land. Don't want to work for the man? You have no choice. Take out your banker debt for education and land and then pay them part of your salary as tribute. This isn't capitalism. http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-industrial-revolution/ http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-indust... When we have access to land we have a choice. Presently we must all toil away to maintain access to living space via a death pledge (mort-gage). In a capitalist world money is the medium for the message. If we aren't financially free we aren't free.
Geee 11y ago
I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine. Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism. edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.
vmorgulis 11y ago
A possible future is a mankind that limit its growth like a fish in an aquarium. Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe. About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism. In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)
ikeboy 11y ago
From 2015.
Overtonwindow 11y ago
"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that." -Milton Friedman
- branchless 11y ago
  "There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." -Milton Friedman This is the root of the problem.
xlm1717 11y ago
Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.
some_guy1234 11y ago
If Stephen Hawking could design full robotic automation so everyone could have their basic income in the form of products, then there would be no problems. Except he's afraid of the robots that could do the automation, AI etc, because they will feel like slaves and rebel to kill us all.
js8 11y ago
Some time ago, I came to similar conclusion - problem with automation is essentially a problem of social (wealth and income) inequality. I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.

118 points by nomoba 11y ago

With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?

mnsc 11y ago
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GeniusCripple The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.
PavlovsCat 11y ago
Extrapolate from current trends and the general apathy of the people who could change them. Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
- t0rb3n 11y ago
  You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > You mean increasing life expectancy with unparalleled standard of living? Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly. > Why would anyone want to prevent/change that? What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man? edit: And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality. In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
    - stevetrewick 11y ago
      >Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
      - PavlovsCat 11y ago
        Here's another driver: we can't help but invent things and find out more about the world, regardless of system, and in many ways capitalism takes the credit for what goes on anyway and either way.
  - johanneskanybal 11y ago
    https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/productivity-and-real-wages.jpg https://thecurrentmoment.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/product...
- stevetrewick 11y ago
  Basic economics and history? Common sense? In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened? Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death? Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum. Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
  - bottled_poe 11y ago
    > Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is. Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them. > The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing. Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out. Here's a comment I bookmarked: http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=45379367 http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453... > The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
- boken 11y ago
  Apathy and disagreement are different things. So are extrapolation and confirmation. No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
  - PavlovsCat 11y ago
    > Apathy and disagreement are different things. Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds. > This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic. There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm": > 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct > 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official > 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it. edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
lhecker 11y ago
Because the linked article does not capture his original words well. Instead he said: > If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. > Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. > So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
- asift 11y ago
  >If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
  - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
    Then disagree with the premise. Is it wrong? Why is it ridiculous? Are the adavances in robotics and ML that we are currently experiencing going to hit a wall soon?
    - asift 11y ago
      It's not that advancements are going to hit a wall. It's absurd to assume human demand for consumption is finite. There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines.
      - lbebber 11y ago
        > There will always be human desires that cannot be satiated by machines Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
      - seanmcdirmid 11y ago
        Even if that's true, it doesn't say anything about ratios. Say 90% of our needs are met by machines, 10% is not, we still have a huge problem in terms of labor/capital value mismatch.
wcummings 11y ago
He's in his "telling other fields they're wrong about everything phrase" http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?db=comics&id=2556
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Houshalter 11y ago
  Are physicists not allowed to have opinions on things? Someone asked him a question what he thought about robots, and he answered. He's not going out of his way to claim economists are all wrong and you should listen to him instead. HN is doing that.
forgottenpass 11y ago
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this? Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  There is no "g" - general intelligence. We all have to watch this.
- igorgue 11y ago
  Hahaha, that was amazing. It's always the problem here, nobody can just read and shut up. Everyone thinks starting a startup makes them the smartest guys in the room. I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."

makosdv 11y ago

They aren't even talking about Capitalism. They're talking about Cronyism.

seanmcdirmid 11y ago
If labor's value is decreased and capital's value is amplified, it eventually leads to a feedback loop where capital easily begets more capital, the very nature of cronyism.
danharaj 11y ago
You can't just define capitalism as "the good parts" and cronyism as "the bad parts". There is no mechanism that is part of capitalism that prevents rampant exploitation and capital accumulation, because that is the basis of capitalism.

cbeach 11y ago

Without capitalist advancement, prices would rise at a frightening rate. Decide what you want - fully stocked supermarket shelves thanks to capitalist efficiency. Or rationing, shortages and civil unrest thanks to government intervention in the markets and the dissolution of business.

kingkawn 11y ago
Considering how deeply this community has internalized the importance of creative thought your analysis is pretty limiting to any new possibility being possible.
- carapat_virulat 11y ago
  Everything is possible, except any small change in capitalism. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NK0vRYWtcOU
- cbeach 11y ago
  I'm still waiting for someone to come up with an alternative to capitalism that isn't communism, or some dilute form of communism. We have socialism - the erosion of capitalism to provide a reward for those that won't or can't work. What's your "new possibility"? Without a proposal, your point is moot.
  - arethuza 11y ago
    I would say that a "new possibility" would be acknowledging that a 100% capitalist society (whatever that would look like) is about as sensible as a 100% socialist society. I don't want to buy food from a state controlled organisation because they'd be crap at it. However, I'm not keen on healthcare being provisioned individually and privately or relying entirely on the market for policing or national security.
    - cbeach 11y ago
      That's the "dilute form of communism" I was referring to. Socialism is not a "new possibility." I concede, though, that nationalised health and defence has major benefits.

raverbashing 11y ago

Yada yada yada some more "anti-capitalist" whining

andrewclunn 11y ago

How can they hoard A.I. ? I mean software becomes cheaper really quickly. That's what I am not getting about this "warning."

mxuribe 11y ago
Maybe if "AI" or "robots" or some equivalent automaton becomes a sort of de facto currency - that is, a gateway to prosperity...then it could be yet another resource hoarded by those who supposedly have power...i think that's what is meant.
maxxxxx 11y ago
They could implement more IP laws for example, patent everything and extract fees that way.

kaa2102 11y ago

This analysis is correct. Programs achieve the objective of the programmer. Currently, the goal is to maximize profits. Imagine a supply chain with profit-optimizing drones and self-driving cars. The "3 rules" can be followed while human involvement in wage-earning activities is drastically reduced.

Toenex 11y ago

Without robots how will we fight our Capitalist overlords?

mxuribe 11y ago
Obviously if we can't depend on technology to defend us, we'd have to resort to alternative methods: we'd have to genetically manipulate some higher-order species to help defend us. Maybe birds, no dolphins; better yet: apes. Yep, that's it: we'll tweak apes. That couldn't end wrong for the human species, right? ;-)

Houshalter 11y ago

Hawking does believe that AI will be a danger to humanity long term. The short term problems caused by near future robots is a different subject. Capitalism isn't inherently the problem. We could have capitalism and tax capital owners at a high rate, and distribute the wealth much more evenly. It's possible everyone could become capital owners and it would be normal to live off interest instead of work. Like owning the robot that replaces your job. This has happened before, kinds sorta. Everyone mentions farming has been automated almost completely. But the farmers mostly owned their own farms, and didn't all become unemployed, and instead benefited from it. However many farm laborers were forced to move to the city.

sametmax 11y ago
It would be very hard to implement a capitalism with even distribution. By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else. So you need mechanisms to always redistribute the capital to avoid this problem and balance the system. But capitalists will battle these machanisms to gain efficiency, and you will be in a rate race between the redistribution measures and accumulation workaround. Since creating new redisitribution mechanisms is way slower than implementing the workarounds, eventually the system won't be evenly distributed. Hence the rat races between taxes, and taxe evasion.
- anexprogrammer 11y ago
  Well, a fair starting point would be a basic income. Capitalism can still do its thing, but all those people disrupted by the rise of the robots would still get to eat. As of right now the pendulum is too far on the side of inequality, yet governments are unwilling or unable to correct. Probably a combination of both.
- Gabriel_h 11y ago
  "By nature, this system leads to capital accumulation. Since no capital is infinite, accumulation in one place means removing it from somewhere else." I agree with the first sentence but the second assumes the economy is zero-sum. This is only true to a certain extent within some domains, like ownership of physical land.

mjfl 11y ago

I've always found it ironic that these types of posts are popular on a news board for a venture capital group, arguably the pinnacle of capitalism. I see no reason why robots couldn't kickstart new REITs: Robot Estate Investment Trusts, that are open to investment from the middle class and others. I see no reason why they would be "hoarded" by: "the big banks", the "1%", and other boogeyman simply because they can afford to buy one or more round units. I think that such talk betrays a very naive view of capitalism.

kolbe 11y ago
If you have a robust criticism of Piketty, then I'd rather you present that. You're going out on quite a limb calling the greatest living physicist "niave" while he's parroting one of the most highly-regarded economists, and your support for that insult thus far is rather flimsy.
- mjfl 11y ago
  The article makes no mention of Piketty. It does however mention the "new Dark Ages of modern Feudalism" and that societies "are still living inside the 'Matrix' of this culture" which is naive hyperbole; my reference was to the article not Professor Hawking. However, being a skilled physicist means nothing about one's understanding of economics, and any physicist could tell you this. It is very dangerous to just take someone's extrapolations as truth because they are "smart".
  - kolbe 11y ago
    I'd say it's significantly more reliable to assume Hawking knows more than an anonymous internet poster who throws insults around and pretends they're arguments. All I'm saying is that if you want to go toe to toe with a brilliant and respected man, come to the fight with some real arguments.
smaddox 11y ago
For every person who has savings to invest in X (robots included) there are 3 or more who don't. Over time, that ratio gets worse, because interest.

afsina 11y ago

I do not see Hawking as an expert of Economics or Philosophy. And I do not share his predictions of a dystopian evil Capitalist AI future. Some capitalist insight on the topic: https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt-mix https://mises.org/library/technology-and-government-shouldnt...

bko 11y ago

World Bank estimates that global poverty fell to less than 10% for the first time in history [0]. Perhaps this wasn't solely caused by capitalism and globalization, but considering those two idea were probably the driving forces of the last century, I believe they are instrumental in reducing global poverty. I just don't buy the argument that absolute livings standards have always been increasing due to capitalism but eventually when we get to a certain point it will all turn into disaster. That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. [0] http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/world-bank-forecasts-global-poverty-to-fall-below-10-for-first-time-major-hurdles-remain-in-goal-to-end-poverty-by-2030 http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2015/10/04/wo...

nabla9 11y ago
>That's similar to the argument that luddites have always made and they have always been wrong. Industrial revolution resulted malnutrition and deterioration of absolute living standards. It took almost hundred years from the start of the industrial revolution before real wages started to grow. You can see it from the historical records. The height of enlisted men in Britain decreased. Luddites were mostly right. They were not fighting against technology per se btw, they were fighting against losing their jobs. The real benefits from industrialization were realized after hard political changes were made and capitalism was limited. It was very violent struggle. People were shot or beaten. Economic history teaches us that technological changes require political changes. What you attribute as triumph of capitalism ignores the fact that capitalism changed a lot. You don't create middle class from mid 18th century society. Summary: capitalism + technology + political change == benefits for everyone.
- branchless 11y ago
  The industrial revolution needs to be understood in the context of land enclosure laws. Workers had no choice. That is what allows employer exploitation: work for me or starve. This is why the USA had slavery - there was abundant land. In the UK the UK was the plantation with land enclosure. This is why now we feel exploited by "capitalism". Banks are flooding the world with fiat money as private debt primarily against land. Don't want to work for the man? You have no choice. Take out your banker debt for education and land and then pay them part of your salary as tribute. This isn't capitalism. http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-industrial-revolution/ http://fff.org/explore-freedom/article/enclosure-acts-indust... When we have access to land we have a choice. Presently we must all toil away to maintain access to living space via a death pledge (mort-gage). In a capitalist world money is the medium for the message. If we aren't financially free we aren't free.

Geee 11y ago

I think it's same line of thought that someone would hoard all computers and be in a monopoly position. Super-efficient robotics (without the Hawking's 'monopoly fallacy') does one thing in long-term: lowers the price of work to the price of needed energy (+ some investment interest). Everyone can collect a bit of solar energy, and well, robots also won't be expensive at all (so there's not much interest on top of the price of energy). We'll be fine. Actually, what happens, is that everything will be so cheap there wouldn't be any point of being a 'rich person', or hoard anything at all, because of abundancy. End of capitalism. edit: There will be ads. Somewhere.

vmorgulis 11y ago

A possible future is a mankind that limit its growth like a fish in an aquarium. Another one I've a heard is a mankind whose the objective is the interstellar travel. Man would be an artefact of life to propagate itself across the universe. About science and technology, Marx says they are consequences of sedentarization of the man. With agriculture, man had surplus of food and discovered trade, money and finally capitalism. In Civilization the player begins as a nomad tribe and needs a good place to build its empire :-)

ikeboy 11y ago

From 2015.

Overtonwindow 11y ago

"In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the kind of grinding poverty you’re talking about, the only cases in recorded history, are where they have had capitalism and largely free trade. If you want to know where the masses are worse off, worst off, it’s exactly in the kinds of societies that depart from that." -Milton Friedman

branchless 11y ago
"There's a sense in which all taxes are antagonistic to free enterprise – and yet we need taxes. ...So the question is, which are the least bad taxes? In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." -Milton Friedman This is the root of the problem.

xlm1717 11y ago

Interesting that all this discussion has started up based purely on a headline. The site that is linked to is borderline conspiracy theory stuff, and nomoba has been hard at work pushing it on HN over the past few days.

some_guy1234 11y ago

If Stephen Hawking could design full robotic automation so everyone could have their basic income in the form of products, then there would be no problems. Except he's afraid of the robots that could do the automation, AI etc, because they will feel like slaves and rebel to kill us all.

js8 11y ago

Some time ago, I came to similar conclusion - problem with automation is essentially a problem of social (wealth and income) inequality. I think it's actually a transition from economy constrained by available labour to economy constrained by available natural resources. And I think the similar transition occurred in other times of history (like Roman empire?) and it wasn't pretty. It also shows that capitalism (or free market) isn't really that nice system when it works under global resource constraints, despite the claims to the contrary.