5 ms·

This resonates with me. Tangentially related — for a few years now I've had my sights set on AI eventually driving the automation of all menial labor needed for

by mkaic 4y ago

This resonates with me. Tangentially related — for a few years now I've had my sights set on AI eventually driving the automation of all menial labor needed for human subsistence. Food, water, clothing, housing, healthcare — I see these all as things that every human should have for free. Survival should be free. I've often wondered what amazingly good and horrifyingly bad things humanity will do once nobody has to fight for their basic subsistence any more. I feel like so much turmoil in the world is caused by people acting irrational because they're afraid of going hungry, becoming homeless, being hurt, etc. A world where that fear is largely gone could be a marvelous utopia where everyone is free to chase after their dreams. It could also result in everyone living in VR 24/7 and our society decaying into hedonistic madness. I think it'll be a little bit of both.

nice_byte 4y ago
i think that people who believe that such a world is even remotely possible, even with most "menial" tasks automated, are utterly delusional. resources are finite, even if you're using very efficient fully automated planning & execution systems to utilize said resources. something's got to give, and most likely in such a world it will be the ability to procreate (get neutered, receive shelter, sustenance and healthcare for life).
- mkaic 4y ago
  Considering that most rich first-world countries aren't having enough kids to keep up the rate of replacement, I don't think this is going to be reality. There's a strong correlation between quality of life going up and birthrates going down already, no need to sterilize people. Also—we're already living in a world where a lot of menial labor is automated. I'm not sure I'd call it "utterly delusional" to see that there's a long history of humans automating tasks and to think that eventually we'll automate everything we need to survive. We've been moving towards that goal for the past 200 years!
  - nice_byte 4y ago
    automation doesn't solve the resource problem. we can automate seven way to Sunday, it won't change the fact that arable land, fuel, drinking water are all finite and scarce resources, and are set to become even more scarce as the effects of climate change worsen.
xg15 4y ago
I fully subscribe to that goal, but I think we'd need some far broader changes in society to make that a reality. We could already greatly reduce the amount of working hours and distribute essential resources more fairly. But what actually happens is that any increase in efficiently is frantically translated into an increase of output, even if that output is completely unnecessary. Work as of now is not a necessity to archieve some outcomes, it's what society is organised around in many aspects.
- mkaic 4y ago
  I agree that we could be already making some of these changes, and that the increase in output is definitely gobbling up a bunch of our capacity to do so. That said, we have seen a huge rise in average quality of life over the past 200 years of industrialization. The percentage of people in abject poverty is still much too high, but it's trending downwards [0] and I think AI automation could accelerate that change. I think it may be easier to just scale output so far that it overwhelms human greed — which might sound crazy, but in my opinion is easier than effecting large-scale societal change. We should absolutely be working on societal change as well, though! [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...
visarga 4y ago
We won't stop working unless the AI can give us everything we could desire. With or without UBI we'll be just as busy. Let's say you have lots of time, and super smart AI toys. You got the basics but no luxuries. What would you do? Nothing?
- mkaic 4y ago
  Nope! Which is why I think it would be great—I'd work on things that aren't motivated by needing to pay rent, buy food, provide basic necessities for me and anyone who's dependent on me, etc. I agree that humans are pretty industrious by nature, which is why I think a world where we can be industrious without being forced to be industrious would be pretty cool.

by mkaic 4y ago

nice_byte 4y ago

i think that people who believe that such a world is even remotely possible, even with most "menial" tasks automated, are utterly delusional. resources are finite, even if you're using very efficient fully automated planning & execution systems to utilize said resources. something's got to give, and most likely in such a world it will be the ability to procreate (get neutered, receive shelter, sustenance and healthcare for life).

mkaic 4y ago
Considering that most rich first-world countries aren't having enough kids to keep up the rate of replacement, I don't think this is going to be reality. There's a strong correlation between quality of life going up and birthrates going down already, no need to sterilize people. Also—we're already living in a world where a lot of menial labor is automated. I'm not sure I'd call it "utterly delusional" to see that there's a long history of humans automating tasks and to think that eventually we'll automate everything we need to survive. We've been moving towards that goal for the past 200 years!
- nice_byte 4y ago
  automation doesn't solve the resource problem. we can automate seven way to Sunday, it won't change the fact that arable land, fuel, drinking water are all finite and scarce resources, and are set to become even more scarce as the effects of climate change worsen.

xg15 4y ago

I fully subscribe to that goal, but I think we'd need some far broader changes in society to make that a reality. We could already greatly reduce the amount of working hours and distribute essential resources more fairly. But what actually happens is that any increase in efficiently is frantically translated into an increase of output, even if that output is completely unnecessary. Work as of now is not a necessity to archieve some outcomes, it's what society is organised around in many aspects.

mkaic 4y ago
I agree that we could be already making some of these changes, and that the increase in output is definitely gobbling up a bunch of our capacity to do so. That said, we have seen a huge rise in average quality of life over the past 200 years of industrialization. The percentage of people in abject poverty is still much too high, but it's trending downwards [0] and I think AI automation could accelerate that change. I think it may be easier to just scale output so far that it overwhelms human greed — which might sound crazy, but in my opinion is easier than effecting large-scale societal change. We should absolutely be working on societal change as well, though! [0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:World-population-in-extreme-poverty-absolute.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#/media/File:Wo...

visarga 4y ago

We won't stop working unless the AI can give us everything we could desire. With or without UBI we'll be just as busy. Let's say you have lots of time, and super smart AI toys. You got the basics but no luxuries. What would you do? Nothing?

mkaic 4y ago
Nope! Which is why I think it would be great—I'd work on things that aren't motivated by needing to pay rent, buy food, provide basic necessities for me and anyone who's dependent on me, etc. I agree that humans are pretty industrious by nature, which is why I think a world where we can be industrious without being forced to be industrious would be pretty cool.