4 ms·

Sure if AI could make small communities autonomous and provide everyone with everything they would ever need, there would be no need for money. But we are far

Sure if AI could make small communities autonomous and provide everyone with everything they would ever need, there would be no need for money. But we are far away from this utopia, this utopia will require a ton of energy to be produced just to run the AI supervision layer, so hopefully by then we'd have fusion energy or something else figures out, and to achieve this utopia there will be a transition period. I am actually worried about the transition period in your fictional world. Some people will be replaced long before the deprecation of money. It's a lot of people that is going to suffer from extreme poverty if we don't think this right, which I believe is what the OP comment was about.

9rx 1y ago
> and provide everyone with everything they would ever need It doesn't need to provide for everyone. Imagine a single Jeff Bezos type who conquers the world with the magical AI with no need for anyone else to do anything for him. With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else. This is where the "they forget people also need money to buy their goods" falls apart. There is no such need.
- gchamonlive 1y ago
  You just forget that the transaction part of consuming is just a portion of it. AI could provide bezos with everything material he'd need, just not the power and status. That's where your argument falls apart. We are social beings, and for those in power they won't be satisfied with the illusion of power. Consumption is the driving force that maintains power in capitalism. You could replace the system, but never the need for power humans have.
  - 9rx 1y ago
    > That's where your argument falls apart. Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?
    - gchamonlive 1y ago
      No
      - 9rx 1y ago
        Then why did you claim the argument falls apart, but then proceed to retell the very argument you claim fell apart? If you read the comment in isolation I could at least understand your confusion, but you state that isn't the case.
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        Because "But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you" and "With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else" implies that consumption is purely transactional which I argued against. In other words, AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        9rx 1y ago
        > AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for. And magic isn't real. Perhaps the problem isn't that you are reading a comment in isolation, but rather that you aren't reading them at all?
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        I could say the same for you. Seriously though, I don't know what you are thinking when you say "Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?". I don't know what's unclear and what I should expand. If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.

9rx 1y ago

> and provide everyone with everything they would ever need It doesn't need to provide for everyone. Imagine a single Jeff Bezos type who conquers the world with the magical AI with no need for anyone else to do anything for him. With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else. This is where the "they forget people also need money to buy their goods" falls apart. There is no such need.

gchamonlive 1y ago
You just forget that the transaction part of consuming is just a portion of it. AI could provide bezos with everything material he'd need, just not the power and status. That's where your argument falls apart. We are social beings, and for those in power they won't be satisfied with the illusion of power. Consumption is the driving force that maintains power in capitalism. You could replace the system, but never the need for power humans have.
- 9rx 1y ago
  > That's where your argument falls apart. Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?
  - gchamonlive 1y ago
    No
    - 9rx 1y ago
      Then why did you claim the argument falls apart, but then proceed to retell the very argument you claim fell apart? If you read the comment in isolation I could at least understand your confusion, but you state that isn't the case.
      - gchamonlive 1y ago
        Because "But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you" and "With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else" implies that consumption is purely transactional which I argued against. In other words, AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        9rx 1y ago
        > AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for. And magic isn't real. Perhaps the problem isn't that you are reading a comment in isolation, but rather that you aren't reading them at all?
        gchamonlive 1y ago
        I could say the same for you. Seriously though, I don't know what you are thinking when you say "Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?". I don't know what's unclear and what I should expand. If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.