4 ms·

There's no such thing as post scarcity society - physical would is finite and society exists because cooperation > individual. Once you add competing superhuman

There's no such thing as post scarcity society - physical would is finite and society exists because cooperation > individual. Once you add competing superhuman intelligence to the equation the second assumption does not hold.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago
Postmodernism didn't dispatch with the modernists, it just moved on. You don't have to eliminate all scarcity before you can transition to a mode of economic behavior which is not predominantly scarcity driven. (And the sooner we do so the better. The scarcity driven model that we're using has no steering wheel and there are hazards on the horizon worth steering away from.)
- rafaelmn 2y ago
  You realize that in this mode your best bet for survival is becoming a pet of people controlling AI/AI itself if it's self motivating ? Why would anyone share access ? It's a one shot prisoner dilemma - whoever controls the best system first eliminates the competition and wins.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    > ...and wins. What do they win? A bunch of money? Post scarcity could mean many different things. One alternative to scarcity is consent. Behave in a way where enough people revoke consent, and your money won't go far enough to buy anything. So in that model they'll share access because if they don't they lose.
    - rafaelmn 2y ago
      Control over AI ? What money ? Money is just a tool to facilitate cooperation. If you have superhuman AGI you don't need anyone else to do things - they are just a threat for your control - so you eliminate that threat either by destroying or neutralizing any viable threat scenario (harmless pet).
      - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
        Not sure why a superhuman AGI would take orders from a human, but ignoring that for a moment... Intelligence is not the only bottleneck on getting things done. Yes, eventually it could build its own robot minions and farm food for its master and construct some kind of army of hunter killer bots to ensure compliance and dominate the planet, but that kind of conquest takes decades, if not centuries. Maybe it can play 4 dimensional chess, but we still have some advantages. We need post-scarcity economic models so that we can ensure that cooperation > individual continues to hold. The scarcity-driven ones we're using currently don't give us any legal nonviolent ways to stop outcomes like this, but that's not a law of physics, that's just a quirk of history. I think there are a million more immediate risks than a robot uprising, but as it turns out, putting a steering wheel on our economy would help with those too.
satvikpendem 2y ago
Indeed, hence my comment. I doubt such a society and economic system would actually come to fruition in the real world, it's a utopic dream in fiction like Star Trek only.
- TaylorAlexander 2y ago
  What I argue is that it is technologically, physically, sociologically, and economically possible to create a society where no one wants for food, shelter, medical care, human interaction, and human thriving. Of that I am certain. Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.
  - satvikpendem 2y ago
    How would you make that possible? I am really not sure if it is indeed possible because the real world is much messier than utopic dreams. For example, where does the money come from for all of these? I have not once seen an actual tangible budget for all of these things, and keep in mind that these things are much more expensive than those in power usually budget for, see things like constructing infrastructure almost always going way over budget and time.
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      The Roman empire didn't have enough money to fund it's conquests. Instead it created a new type of money out of proofs of participation in those conquests (Caesar's face went on coins paid to soldiers and taxes were collected in caesar-face coin. To get one, you had to help a soldier. This caused caesar-face coin to be traded above it's booluon value. After this change, Rome did have enough money for their conquests). We could do the same thing except instead of basing the money on the collective willingness to attack the neighboring village it could be a collective willingness to feed, house, and medically care for the neighboring village. You couldn't press people into it will fear like Caesar did, but hope might work. Money a proxy for what people believe in, and beliefs can change.

__MatrixMan__ 2y ago

Postmodernism didn't dispatch with the modernists, it just moved on. You don't have to eliminate all scarcity before you can transition to a mode of economic behavior which is not predominantly scarcity driven. (And the sooner we do so the better. The scarcity driven model that we're using has no steering wheel and there are hazards on the horizon worth steering away from.)

rafaelmn 2y ago
You realize that in this mode your best bet for survival is becoming a pet of people controlling AI/AI itself if it's self motivating ? Why would anyone share access ? It's a one shot prisoner dilemma - whoever controls the best system first eliminates the competition and wins.
- __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
  > ...and wins. What do they win? A bunch of money? Post scarcity could mean many different things. One alternative to scarcity is consent. Behave in a way where enough people revoke consent, and your money won't go far enough to buy anything. So in that model they'll share access because if they don't they lose.
  - rafaelmn 2y ago
    Control over AI ? What money ? Money is just a tool to facilitate cooperation. If you have superhuman AGI you don't need anyone else to do things - they are just a threat for your control - so you eliminate that threat either by destroying or neutralizing any viable threat scenario (harmless pet).
    - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
      Not sure why a superhuman AGI would take orders from a human, but ignoring that for a moment... Intelligence is not the only bottleneck on getting things done. Yes, eventually it could build its own robot minions and farm food for its master and construct some kind of army of hunter killer bots to ensure compliance and dominate the planet, but that kind of conquest takes decades, if not centuries. Maybe it can play 4 dimensional chess, but we still have some advantages. We need post-scarcity economic models so that we can ensure that cooperation > individual continues to hold. The scarcity-driven ones we're using currently don't give us any legal nonviolent ways to stop outcomes like this, but that's not a law of physics, that's just a quirk of history. I think there are a million more immediate risks than a robot uprising, but as it turns out, putting a steering wheel on our economy would help with those too.

satvikpendem 2y ago

Indeed, hence my comment. I doubt such a society and economic system would actually come to fruition in the real world, it's a utopic dream in fiction like Star Trek only.

TaylorAlexander 2y ago
What I argue is that it is technologically, physically, sociologically, and economically possible to create a society where no one wants for food, shelter, medical care, human interaction, and human thriving. Of that I am certain. Whether or not we accept that this is possible and whether or not we are willing to make the changes necessary is our choice. But it is not a thing that happens so much as a thing we make happen.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  How would you make that possible? I am really not sure if it is indeed possible because the real world is much messier than utopic dreams. For example, where does the money come from for all of these? I have not once seen an actual tangible budget for all of these things, and keep in mind that these things are much more expensive than those in power usually budget for, see things like constructing infrastructure almost always going way over budget and time.
  - __MatrixMan__ 2y ago
    The Roman empire didn't have enough money to fund it's conquests. Instead it created a new type of money out of proofs of participation in those conquests (Caesar's face went on coins paid to soldiers and taxes were collected in caesar-face coin. To get one, you had to help a soldier. This caused caesar-face coin to be traded above it's booluon value. After this change, Rome did have enough money for their conquests). We could do the same thing except instead of basing the money on the collective willingness to attack the neighboring village it could be a collective willingness to feed, house, and medically care for the neighboring village. You couldn't press people into it will fear like Caesar did, but hope might work. Money a proxy for what people believe in, and beliefs can change.