3 ms·

> or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete I'm not sure this is true. If all the things people are doing are done so much more

> or makes life much shittier for most humans by making most of us obsolete I'm not sure this is true. If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us, as we're also the buyers as well as the workers. However, I also doubt the premise.

confidantlake 2y ago
Why would you need buyers if AI can create anything you desire?
- martyfmelb 2y ago
  Bingo. The whole justification for keeping consumers happy or healthy goes right out the window. Same for human workers. All that matters is that your robots and AIs aren't getting smashed by their robots and AIs.
- flashgordon 2y ago
  In an ideal world where gpus are a commodity yes. Btw at least today ai is owned/controlled by the rich and powerful and that's where majority of the research dollars are coming from. Why would they just relinquish ai so generously?
  - brandall10 2y ago
    With an ever expanding AI everything should be quickly commoditized, including reduction in energy to run AI and energy itself (ie. viable commercial fusion or otherwise).
    - flashgordon 2y ago
      That's the thing I am struggling with. I agree things will exponentially improve with AI. What i am not seeing is who will actually capture the value. Or rather how will those other than rich and powerful get to partake in this value capture. Take viable commercial fusion for example. Best case it ends up looking like another PG&E. Worst case it is owned by yet another Musk like gatekeeper. How do you see this being truly democratized and accessible for the masses?
      - brandall10 2y ago
        The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer. Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Why would the cost of housing go to zero?
- pixl97 2y ago
  Where are you getting energy and land from for these AI's to consume and turn into goods? Moreso, by making such a magical powerful AI as you've listed, the number one thing some rich controlling asshole with more AI than you, would be to create an army and take what they want because AI does nothing to solve human greed.
justinclift 2y ago
> If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us ... Doesn't this tend to become "they're almost free to produce" with the actual pricing for end consumers not becoming cheaper? From the point of view of the sellers just expanding their margins instead.
- marcusverus 2y ago
  I'm sure businesses will capture some of the value, but is there any reason to assume they'll capture all or even most of it? Over the last ~ 50 years, worker productivity is up ~250%[0], profits (within the S&P 500) are up ~100%[1] and real personal (not household) income is up 150%[2]. It should go without saying that a large part of the rise in profits is attributable to the rise of tech. It shouldn't surprise anyone that margins are higher on digital widgets than physical ones! Regardless, expanding margins is only attractive up to a certain point. The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB [1] https://dqydj.com/sp-500-profit-margin/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-profit-margin/ [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    > Regardless, expanding margins is only attractive up to a certain point. The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. This does not make sense to me. While a higher profit margin is a signal to others that they can earn money by selling equivalent goods and services at lower prices, it is not inevitable that they will be able to. And even if they are, it behooves a seller to take advantage of the higher margins while they can. Earning less money now in the hopes of competitors being dissuaded from entering the market seems like a poor strategy.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The premise wasn't that there weren't competitors already, I don't think. With most things the price is (usually) floored by the cost of production, ceilinged by the value it provides people, and then competition is what moves it from the latter to closer to the former.
Lamad1234 2y ago
[dead]
pants2 2y ago
Up to the point of AGI, most productivity increases have resulted in less physical / menial labor, and more white collar work. If AGI is smarter than most humans, the pendulum will swing the other way, and more humans will have to work physical / menial jobs.
- smcin 2y ago
  Look on the bright side: they'll stop calling Frank Herbert a visionary.
thayne 2y ago
We won't be buyers anymore if we aren't getting paid to work. Perhaps some kind of garanteed minimal income would be implemented, but we would probably see a shrinkage or complete destruction of the middle class, and massive increases in wealth inequality.

confidantlake 2y ago

Why would you need buyers if AI can create anything you desire?

martyfmelb 2y ago
Bingo. The whole justification for keeping consumers happy or healthy goes right out the window. Same for human workers. All that matters is that your robots and AIs aren't getting smashed by their robots and AIs.
flashgordon 2y ago
In an ideal world where gpus are a commodity yes. Btw at least today ai is owned/controlled by the rich and powerful and that's where majority of the research dollars are coming from. Why would they just relinquish ai so generously?
- brandall10 2y ago
  With an ever expanding AI everything should be quickly commoditized, including reduction in energy to run AI and energy itself (ie. viable commercial fusion or otherwise).
  - flashgordon 2y ago
    That's the thing I am struggling with. I agree things will exponentially improve with AI. What i am not seeing is who will actually capture the value. Or rather how will those other than rich and powerful get to partake in this value capture. Take viable commercial fusion for example. Best case it ends up looking like another PG&E. Worst case it is owned by yet another Musk like gatekeeper. How do you see this being truly democratized and accessible for the masses?
    - brandall10 2y ago
      The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer. Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Why would the cost of housing go to zero?
pixl97 2y ago
Where are you getting energy and land from for these AI's to consume and turn into goods? Moreso, by making such a magical powerful AI as you've listed, the number one thing some rich controlling asshole with more AI than you, would be to create an army and take what they want because AI does nothing to solve human greed.

justinclift 2y ago

> If all the things people are doing are done so much more cheaply they're almost free, that would be good for us ... Doesn't this tend to become "they're almost free to produce" with the actual pricing for end consumers not becoming cheaper? From the point of view of the sellers just expanding their margins instead.

marcusverus 2y ago
I'm sure businesses will capture some of the value, but is there any reason to assume they'll capture all or even most of it? Over the last ~ 50 years, worker productivity is up ~250%[0], profits (within the S&P 500) are up ~100%[1] and real personal (not household) income is up 150%[2]. It should go without saying that a large part of the rise in profits is attributable to the rise of tech. It shouldn't surprise anyone that margins are higher on digital widgets than physical ones! Regardless, expanding margins is only attractive up to a certain point. The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. [0] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/OPHNFB [1] https://dqydj.com/sp-500-profit-margin/ https://dqydj.com/sp-500-profit-margin/ [2] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > Regardless, expanding margins is only attractive up to a certain point. The higher your margins, the more attractive your market becomes to would-be competitors. This does not make sense to me. While a higher profit margin is a signal to others that they can earn money by selling equivalent goods and services at lower prices, it is not inevitable that they will be able to. And even if they are, it behooves a seller to take advantage of the higher margins while they can. Earning less money now in the hopes of competitors being dissuaded from entering the market seems like a poor strategy.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    The premise wasn't that there weren't competitors already, I don't think. With most things the price is (usually) floored by the cost of production, ceilinged by the value it provides people, and then competition is what moves it from the latter to closer to the former.

Lamad1234 2y ago

[dead]

pants2 2y ago

Up to the point of AGI, most productivity increases have resulted in less physical / menial labor, and more white collar work. If AGI is smarter than most humans, the pendulum will swing the other way, and more humans will have to work physical / menial jobs.

smcin 2y ago
Look on the bright side: they'll stop calling Frank Herbert a visionary.

thayne 2y ago

We won't be buyers anymore if we aren't getting paid to work. Perhaps some kind of garanteed minimal income would be implemented, but we would probably see a shrinkage or complete destruction of the middle class, and massive increases in wealth inequality.