4 ms·

There may be plenty of unrealistic prerequisites before the machine revolution can start distributing its economic surplus to everyone, and give people not enou

by z2 7y ago

There may be plenty of unrealistic prerequisites before the machine revolution can start distributing its economic surplus to everyone, and give people not enough work to do, but-- "...while in communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic." --Marx, The German Ideology Just replace 'society' with 'centralized AI'. To keep busy, maybe the reality if you don't need to create real value anymore is that life becomes a half-empty series of paint nights, cooking classes, and other such role-play.

MikeTheGreat 7y ago
I wonder about looking backwards in history for examples of how people dealt with 'no enough work'. For example, I believe that ballet got started in part so that Louis the XIV could require his aristocrats to observe the proper etiquette that he'd made up, so that he could better control them. Point being - they had enough food, shelter, and luxuries supplied to them that they didn't need to work.
- ckris 7y ago
  I don't think people are fearing not having to work, but inequality as a result. If you don't have redistribution your part is only as big as your work or your ownership. Since we are quoting, let's go with Stephen Hawking: "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." https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Of course everything old is new, so you could read for example Hannah Arendt. Our societies have mostly evolved out of how to distribute profits from automation. The reason automation is now the boogeyman is because we have changed paths by not thinking about that.
Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> maybe the reality if you don't need to create real value anymore is that life becomes a half-empty series of paint nights, cooking classes, and other such role-play. More likely is that life for many people becomes a lot more time spent staring at one’s phone. Even in places where people have a decent amount of leisure time, a lot of those old community events and social clubs are struggling now.

by z2 7y ago

MikeTheGreat 7y ago

I wonder about looking backwards in history for examples of how people dealt with 'no enough work'. For example, I believe that ballet got started in part so that Louis the XIV could require his aristocrats to observe the proper etiquette that he'd made up, so that he could better control them. Point being - they had enough food, shelter, and luxuries supplied to them that they didn't need to work.

ckris 7y ago
I don't think people are fearing not having to work, but inequality as a result. If you don't have redistribution your part is only as big as your work or your ownership. Since we are quoting, let's go with Stephen Hawking: "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." https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama_series_stephen_hawking_ama_answers/cvsdmkv/ https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3nyn5i/science_ama... Of course everything old is new, so you could read for example Hannah Arendt. Our societies have mostly evolved out of how to distribute profits from automation. The reason automation is now the boogeyman is because we have changed paths by not thinking about that.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago

> maybe the reality if you don't need to create real value anymore is that life becomes a half-empty series of paint nights, cooking classes, and other such role-play. More likely is that life for many people becomes a lot more time spent staring at one’s phone. Even in places where people have a decent amount of leisure time, a lot of those old community events and social clubs are struggling now.