3 ms·

>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

by 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.
ethbro 11y ago
I don't see that as a ridiculous premise: far enough in the future, it's almost inevitable.
johanneskanybal 11y ago
It's only ridiculous because you think in absolutes. To a large extent this has already happened.
- saulrh 11y ago
  Exactly. As a demonstration, compare our current production situation to the production situation as of, I don't know, a thousand years ago. It used to be the case that 90% or more of the population was dedicated to food production. Right now, something like 2% of the population is dedicated to food production. By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.
  - asift 11y ago
    >By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need. Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
    - SimpleXYZ 11y ago
      Not really. Machines don't care if you instruct them to build a Ferrari or a Toyota. There's no difference in robot labor. After that, all that's left is resources, and sending robots to mine outer space isn't a deal-beaker either. AI + Space = everything we need Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.
    - alanwatts 11y ago
      >And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities. >Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. -Lame Deer
dmichulke 11y ago
In parent's defense, I believe that needs are endless and there is always a tiny motion that can be rationalized away or a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it (think iphone a decade back). Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something. And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need. Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"
- golemotron 11y ago
  I think you're right and as long as the discussion is about inequality rather than poverty there won't be a solution. Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status. Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.
- tomp 11y ago
  > a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it > machines produce everything we need There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it. On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter but so much of it goes wasted every year. So poverty is not a problem of production but of distribution.
    - tomp 11y ago

by 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.

ethbro 11y ago

I don't see that as a ridiculous premise: far enough in the future, it's almost inevitable.

johanneskanybal 11y ago

It's only ridiculous because you think in absolutes. To a large extent this has already happened.

saulrh 11y ago
Exactly. As a demonstration, compare our current production situation to the production situation as of, I don't know, a thousand years ago. It used to be the case that 90% or more of the population was dedicated to food production. Right now, something like 2% of the population is dedicated to food production. By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need.
- asift 11y ago
  >By their standards, we've got machines producing everything we need. Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
  - SimpleXYZ 11y ago
    Not really. Machines don't care if you instruct them to build a Ferrari or a Toyota. There's no difference in robot labor. After that, all that's left is resources, and sending robots to mine outer space isn't a deal-beaker either. AI + Space = everything we need Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.
  - alanwatts 11y ago
    >And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities. >Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society. -Lame Deer

dmichulke 11y ago

In parent's defense, I believe that needs are endless and there is always a tiny motion that can be rationalized away or a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it (think iphone a decade back). Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something. And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need. Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"

golemotron 11y ago
I think you're right and as long as the discussion is about inequality rather than poverty there won't be a solution. Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status. Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.
tomp 11y ago
> a shiny item that can be obtained before the others get it > machines produce everything we need There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it. On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.
- alanwatts 11y ago
  There already exists a renewable surplus of food, water, and shelter but so much of it goes wasted every year. So poverty is not a problem of production but of distribution.
  - tomp 11y ago