5 ms·

You would do well to browse the threads discussing advanced forms of artificial intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, is artificial intelligence

You would do well to browse the threads discussing advanced forms of artificial intelligence. Artificial General Intelligence, AGI, is artificial intelligence that can perform any cognitive task that humans can perform at a human level or higher. It’s commonly predicted by people like Robin Hanson and Elon Musk that such intelligences would dominate the workforce. Most people will eventually become unemployable as it is always possible for a machine to perform their job cheaper. I’ve predicted that the State and private entities will build welfare programs or UBI. This will be done for political reasons, as the most probable alternative would be civilization scale chaos on par with any Communist revolution of the last century. Such programs will also allow those with power to cement their power further, as the recipients of welfare could not afford to bite the hand that feeds them.

chollida1 4y ago
Ha, as the other commenter pointed out, I was way off and misread the Acronym. I appreciate the time you took to educate me:)
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
> always possible for a machine to perform their job cheaper. > the State and private entities will build welfare programs or UBI. These two things don't seem to add up. If you're paying the person anyway why not have them do a job? It's not as if the labor of the AGI is free. The only way this would make any kind of economic sense is if the labor of the AGI is so superior to the human that it effectively creates additional value that compensates for the friction of having both the working AGI and the compensated, but non-working human. And in that case you need to start factoring in all of the externalities (including psychological welfare of the jobless human). Edit to add: If an AGI is so good, can't it come up with productive jobs that are better done by humans than by it? Or is this kind of like the "can god make a mountain that he can't lift?" question?
- qualudeheart 4y ago
  I spent 10 minutes typing a response and then my browser lost it. The gist was that some industries could still employ humans where humans have a decisive comparative advantage, as the customer wants the job the done by a human. This includes social work and production of luxury goods. In industries in which there is no human comparative advantage, humans could still be given jobs for philanthropic reasons. Charitable housing projects might also require tenants to work. A billionaire might buy an apartment complex, let you live there for free, pay you a few hundred dollars per month, but make you work because the billionaire thinks work is good for you.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Great news! In the future we can go back to the wonderful world of paternal feudalism! :( I sympathize over the browser issue.
    - qualudeheart 4y ago
      I don’t think it’s good news myself. I’m in sufficiently wealthy circles to just ask old friends for money. Most other people aren’t, and I’m sure all kinds of abusive cult dynamics will spring up. On net it might be worse than the power dynamics between employee and employer, as employees have more freedom to just walk away. The power dynamics may more closely resemble those between child and parent. Parents also provide their children with housing and money, and impose personal social norms on them.
- JoeAltmaier 4y ago
  To beat an old drum: the highest good of human life isn't to work like a slave until you die. Fiction used to write about how robots would lift the yoke of labor from our shoulders, so we could all live our better lives. Now that it's happening, all folks can think of is how to make sure everybody is still slaving away somehow. Because the alternative - most of us don't have to do that - is unthinkable to the older generation.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    Ennui has been a historical problem for the wealthy (and the retired). If we make it so no one has to work to earn a living we still need to address the problem of ennui. What I prefer, and what I think most people prefer, is a meaningful job that we enjoy doing. Sure, there will be times when the job sucks, but dealing with suckitude and adversity, if it isn't the majority of what you're doing, adds some positive feelings to life when after you've successfully dealt with it. If we can all do this with hobbies that don't add to the common good, then okay, UBI FTW. I don't know that I could do this with the low income of a UBI though (biology is expensive, and needs others to implement parts of it).
    - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
      Used to be you did three things: your vocation (made a living). Your avocation (what you'd rather be doing). And hobbies (not very good but dabble). There's a long, long western tradition of doing things. Today we've forgotten there's more to life, than work and slacking. It'll be good if we could change that, to something more satisfying.
  - qualudeheart 4y ago
    I don’t think that’s the highest good in life. I think it’s important that humans have access to well paying jobs because that gives them more agency. Money gives you options. In a perfect world nobody would have to work.
  - erik_seaberg 4y ago
    > most of us don't have to do that The big questions are who still does, and how do we persuade them?

chollida1 4y ago

Ha, as the other commenter pointed out, I was way off and misread the Acronym. I appreciate the time you took to educate me:)

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

> always possible for a machine to perform their job cheaper. > the State and private entities will build welfare programs or UBI. These two things don't seem to add up. If you're paying the person anyway why not have them do a job? It's not as if the labor of the AGI is free. The only way this would make any kind of economic sense is if the labor of the AGI is so superior to the human that it effectively creates additional value that compensates for the friction of having both the working AGI and the compensated, but non-working human. And in that case you need to start factoring in all of the externalities (including psychological welfare of the jobless human). Edit to add: If an AGI is so good, can't it come up with productive jobs that are better done by humans than by it? Or is this kind of like the "can god make a mountain that he can't lift?" question?

qualudeheart 4y ago
I spent 10 minutes typing a response and then my browser lost it. The gist was that some industries could still employ humans where humans have a decisive comparative advantage, as the customer wants the job the done by a human. This includes social work and production of luxury goods. In industries in which there is no human comparative advantage, humans could still be given jobs for philanthropic reasons. Charitable housing projects might also require tenants to work. A billionaire might buy an apartment complex, let you live there for free, pay you a few hundred dollars per month, but make you work because the billionaire thinks work is good for you.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Great news! In the future we can go back to the wonderful world of paternal feudalism! :( I sympathize over the browser issue.
  - qualudeheart 4y ago
    I don’t think it’s good news myself. I’m in sufficiently wealthy circles to just ask old friends for money. Most other people aren’t, and I’m sure all kinds of abusive cult dynamics will spring up. On net it might be worse than the power dynamics between employee and employer, as employees have more freedom to just walk away. The power dynamics may more closely resemble those between child and parent. Parents also provide their children with housing and money, and impose personal social norms on them.
JoeAltmaier 4y ago
To beat an old drum: the highest good of human life isn't to work like a slave until you die. Fiction used to write about how robots would lift the yoke of labor from our shoulders, so we could all live our better lives. Now that it's happening, all folks can think of is how to make sure everybody is still slaving away somehow. Because the alternative - most of us don't have to do that - is unthinkable to the older generation.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Ennui has been a historical problem for the wealthy (and the retired). If we make it so no one has to work to earn a living we still need to address the problem of ennui. What I prefer, and what I think most people prefer, is a meaningful job that we enjoy doing. Sure, there will be times when the job sucks, but dealing with suckitude and adversity, if it isn't the majority of what you're doing, adds some positive feelings to life when after you've successfully dealt with it. If we can all do this with hobbies that don't add to the common good, then okay, UBI FTW. I don't know that I could do this with the low income of a UBI though (biology is expensive, and needs others to implement parts of it).
  - JoeAltmaier 4y ago
    Used to be you did three things: your vocation (made a living). Your avocation (what you'd rather be doing). And hobbies (not very good but dabble). There's a long, long western tradition of doing things. Today we've forgotten there's more to life, than work and slacking. It'll be good if we could change that, to something more satisfying.
- qualudeheart 4y ago
  I don’t think that’s the highest good in life. I think it’s important that humans have access to well paying jobs because that gives them more agency. Money gives you options. In a perfect world nobody would have to work.
- erik_seaberg 4y ago
  > most of us don't have to do that The big questions are who still does, and how do we persuade them?