5 ms·

Imagine a future where the vast majority of work is automated. Most of this is computationally expensive work, such as training large neural networks, and the

Imagine a future where the vast majority of work is automated. Most of this is computationally expensive work, such as training large neural networks, and the average program takes a substantial amount of resources to run, comparable to paying a human worker. In this scenario, labor power has been replaced by GPU power, which can be measured in terms of electricity. Everything from ordering a meal at a restaurant to building a house to designing a new computer system can be measured this way, and the price of everything is tightly coupled to the price of electricity and the price of compute. Under these conditions, it might make sense that programs/robots would incorporate smart contracts or participate in some sort of generalized proof-of-work system to finance themselves. Running a program would require currency as input to cover the computational cost of actually running the program, even if the program is open source. That's where I see this going. Traditional currency is great for incentivizing human labor, but the problem is it's not designed to be programmable.

maury91 4y ago
People being paid by the hour is just a result of simplifying work, in the very past everyone was a merchant and they sold their goods/services. The same old behaviour should be applied to machines, it doesn't matter how much resource a machine takes to do the job, what is important is the output. The pay should not be X*Watts, but X agreed in advance for training that specific neural network, this type of market incentives evolution, where the machines that can do the same job with lower resources have the lower hand
- yellowapple 4y ago
  > in the very past everyone was a merchant and they sold their goods/services In the past nearly everyone was a serf and they provided their goods/services to their lieges in exchange for basic needs like having someplace to live. In the present it's pretty much the same thing, except with us serfs being paid wages (which we then end up spending most of as rent and taxes) and serving multiple lieges.
  - bandrami 4y ago
    I normally push back at calling consumer capitalism "freedom", but the freedom to leave your employment is a huge one and the serfs didn't have that. The whole idea of just being able to pick up and move somewhere would be alien to most historical peasants.
    - yellowapple 4y ago
      That's part of what I'm getting at with the "multiple lieges" bit. Feudal lordship and fealty are more fungible now than they were centuries ago, but the fundamental power dynamic remains; being able to swap out lords ostensibly at will is one of those "illusion of freedom" things that helps us feel slightly less bad about our exploitation.
aabhay 4y ago
Why not? What's to prevent two parties from creating a digital smart contract denominated in dollars? Don't we already do this with things like credit card pre-auth? And the best part is that the transaction is backed by a predictable rule of law as long as the transaction takes place within a country.
- ETH_start 4y ago
  The traditional financial system and the political system it rests on are too unstable. Witness Moscow commuters not being able to enter their metro as Apple Pay cuts them off. Witness the AML surveillance regime shutting out entire countries: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/10/23/money-reimagined-they-starve-the-ugly-side-of-the-us-kyc-aml-obsession/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/10/23/money-reimagined-...
  - throwaway413 4y ago
    If a geopolitical climate is too volatile for fiat to provide value, what good is it that crypto can isolate its stability (it can’t) if the humans who would use it have bigger problems than how to pay with money they already have in some form? Supply chains, physical force/warfare, climate, etc. If fiat is breaking down, there are surely bigger problems at play. How does solving the ability to transfer money solve the overall stability of the situation? Per your example, ok Apple Pay got cut off. Is the transit system going to support crypto? Will they be able to run their business and make that transition with regulators? It’s a drastic measure that cuts one off from the structures that they physically exist in, and unless those structures are overall crypto-supportive, they would just be putting themselves further between a rock and hard place (which as we’ve seen by the lack of serious business adoption, companies and orgs are not really willing to take that risk in any meaningful way) Edit: I agree with your use of the term “regime” and am not arguing against the sentiment of your point. Just that I don’t think crypto actually has the backbone to solve it, there’s not enough physical-world tie in yet for it to have the leverage it needs to truly overcome the global financial regimes that are neck-deep in fiat and physical assets that actually impact everyday peoples’ lives.
automatic6131 4y ago
My sibling-in-christ, you are talking about an imaginary future. You cannot start to base the economy of today on your science fiction. Even if we were moving the direction of your sci-fi (and we're not, because you are even describing a PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO), it would be so far in the future as to be stupid to start today. You might as well start building landing pads for asteroid mined metals. Physically impossible: yes - you've suggested using a currency made by the infinitely wasteful PoW system to finance the power used to compute something useful. You might as well try to fly by pulling on the arms of your chair.

maury91 4y ago

People being paid by the hour is just a result of simplifying work, in the very past everyone was a merchant and they sold their goods/services. The same old behaviour should be applied to machines, it doesn't matter how much resource a machine takes to do the job, what is important is the output. The pay should not be X*Watts, but X agreed in advance for training that specific neural network, this type of market incentives evolution, where the machines that can do the same job with lower resources have the lower hand

yellowapple 4y ago
> in the very past everyone was a merchant and they sold their goods/services In the past nearly everyone was a serf and they provided their goods/services to their lieges in exchange for basic needs like having someplace to live. In the present it's pretty much the same thing, except with us serfs being paid wages (which we then end up spending most of as rent and taxes) and serving multiple lieges.
- bandrami 4y ago
  I normally push back at calling consumer capitalism "freedom", but the freedom to leave your employment is a huge one and the serfs didn't have that. The whole idea of just being able to pick up and move somewhere would be alien to most historical peasants.
  - yellowapple 4y ago
    That's part of what I'm getting at with the "multiple lieges" bit. Feudal lordship and fealty are more fungible now than they were centuries ago, but the fundamental power dynamic remains; being able to swap out lords ostensibly at will is one of those "illusion of freedom" things that helps us feel slightly less bad about our exploitation.

aabhay 4y ago

Why not? What's to prevent two parties from creating a digital smart contract denominated in dollars? Don't we already do this with things like credit card pre-auth? And the best part is that the transaction is backed by a predictable rule of law as long as the transaction takes place within a country.

ETH_start 4y ago
The traditional financial system and the political system it rests on are too unstable. Witness Moscow commuters not being able to enter their metro as Apple Pay cuts them off. Witness the AML surveillance regime shutting out entire countries: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/10/23/money-reimagined-they-starve-the-ugly-side-of-the-us-kyc-aml-obsession/ https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2020/10/23/money-reimagined-...
- throwaway413 4y ago
  If a geopolitical climate is too volatile for fiat to provide value, what good is it that crypto can isolate its stability (it can’t) if the humans who would use it have bigger problems than how to pay with money they already have in some form? Supply chains, physical force/warfare, climate, etc. If fiat is breaking down, there are surely bigger problems at play. How does solving the ability to transfer money solve the overall stability of the situation? Per your example, ok Apple Pay got cut off. Is the transit system going to support crypto? Will they be able to run their business and make that transition with regulators? It’s a drastic measure that cuts one off from the structures that they physically exist in, and unless those structures are overall crypto-supportive, they would just be putting themselves further between a rock and hard place (which as we’ve seen by the lack of serious business adoption, companies and orgs are not really willing to take that risk in any meaningful way) Edit: I agree with your use of the term “regime” and am not arguing against the sentiment of your point. Just that I don’t think crypto actually has the backbone to solve it, there’s not enough physical-world tie in yet for it to have the leverage it needs to truly overcome the global financial regimes that are neck-deep in fiat and physical assets that actually impact everyday peoples’ lives.

automatic6131 4y ago

My sibling-in-christ, you are talking about an imaginary future. You cannot start to base the economy of today on your science fiction. Even if we were moving the direction of your sci-fi (and we're not, because you are even describing a PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE SCENARIO), it would be so far in the future as to be stupid to start today. You might as well start building landing pads for asteroid mined metals. Physically impossible: yes - you've suggested using a currency made by the infinitely wasteful PoW system to finance the power used to compute something useful. You might as well try to fly by pulling on the arms of your chair.