4 ms·

This article is insightful, but I blinked when I saw the headline “Reducing the human bottleneck” used without any apparent irony. At some point we should prob

by thorum 1y ago

This article is insightful, but I blinked when I saw the headline “Reducing the human bottleneck” used without any apparent irony. At some point we should probably take a step back and ask “Why do we want to solve this problem?” Is a world where AI systems are highly intelligent tools, but humans are needed to manage the high level complexity of the real world… supposed to be a disappointing outcome?

fnordpiglet 1y ago
Assuming you buy the idea of a post scarcity society and assuming we can separate our long ingrained notion that spending your existence in toil to survive is a moral imperative and not working is deserving of punishment if not death, I personally look forward to a time we can get off the hamster wheel. Most buttons that get pushed by people are buttons not worth spending your existence pushing. This includes an awful lot of “knowledge work,” which is often better paid but more insidious in that it requires not just your presence but capturing your entire attention and mind inside and outside work. I would also be hopeful that fertility rates would decline and there would simply be far fewer humans. In Asimov’s robots stories the spacers are long lived and low population because robots do most everything. He presents this as a dead end, that stops us from conquering the galaxy. This to me sounds like a feature not a bug. I think human existence could be quite good with large scale automation, fewer people, and less suffering due to the necessity for everyone to be employed. Note I recognize you’re not saying exactly the same thing as I’m saying. I think humans will never cede full executive control by choice at some level. But I suspect, sadly, power will be confined to those few who do get to manage the high level complexity of the real world.
- nradov 1y ago
  We will never have a post scarcity society. Automation can make certain foodstuffs and manufactured goods somewhat cheaper but the things that people really want will always be in short supply, for example real estate in geographically favorable areas.
  - lll-o-lll 1y ago
    With a stable population, post scarcity is surely possible technically. Just invest resource into improving everything that already exists. I also agree that we will never have a post scarcity society; but this is more about humanity than technology.
    - parineum 1y ago
      There will always be scarcity for goods whose value is derived from their scarcity. Maybe food won't be scarce (we wre actually very close to that) and shelter may not be scarce but, even if you invent the replicator, there will still be things that are bespoke.
      - exe34 1y ago
        there are levels of post scarcity. if food, shelter, medicine and leisure are available to all for almost no toil, then we're in post-scarcity. You'll (probably) never have your own planet. You might never be able to convince a certain artist to produce something for you personally.
  - alanbernstein 1y ago
    I have never understood "post scarcity" to mean the end of ALL scarcity, which is essentially impossible by definition. Relative to 500 years ago, we have already nearly achieved post-scarcity for a few types of items, like basic clothing. It seems this is yet another concept for which we need to adjust our understanding from binary to a spectrum, as we find our society advancing along the spectrum, in at least some aspects.
    - nasmorn 1y ago
      Also for basic food. You can get all the rice and beans you really need for basically no money. That means actual starvation is nowadays a political not a resource issue
      - 1y ago
- djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
  Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world? With no effort required to meet your needs and desires, what motivation will you have to do anything? Kaczynski's warnings seem more apt with every year that passes.
  - frozenseven 1y ago
    >Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world? Yes. >Kaczynski You're citing a psychopathic terrorist who murdered 3 people and injured a further 23. >what motivation will you have to do anything? For one thing, freedom from self-appointed taskmasters who view Kaczynski as a source of inspiration.
  - vkou 1y ago
    Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kaczynski didn't invent any of these ideas, or even develop them, instead of citing him, why not cite... Literally any other person with them whose mind wasn't blown out by LSD and a desire to commit random political murder. You're doing your point a disservice by bringing in all of that baggage.
    - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
      Perhaps there are more original or precise sources for the ideas. I've read Jacques Ellul, for example, but for someone not well versed in philosophy like myself, Kaczynski is more accessible and well known. I don't agree with many of his conclusions or actions, but I have no problem judging the good ideas he advocated on their own merit.
  - javcasas 1y ago
    I want to live in the post scarcity world. Given that we are headed into an ultra-productive world, I prefer by miles a world without scarcity over a world full of scarcity because the elites are hoarding the resources, and the only way to provide for oneself is by outcompeting the machines that already produce at zero marginal price, but only for the elites.
  - IanCal 1y ago
- aswegs8 1y ago
  Can you think of any more literature on the topic? Preferably non-fiction?
Davidzheng 1y ago
it actually doesn't matter what we want. Because eliminating it will in long run increase yield, economic forces will automate humans away by capitalistic forces.
- itsalotoffun 1y ago
  This is correct. It will require non-market forces to regulate soft-landings for humans. We may see a wave of "job-preserving" legislation in the coming years but these will eventually be washed away in favor of taxing the AI economy.
- LunaSea 1y ago
  If you don't have customers anymore, who are you selling your products to?
- swivelmaster 1y ago
  We should stop considering it a given that capitalistic forces will do this and start considering how we build systems that optimize for the maximum amount of human good rather than the maximum amount of abstract economic good (which nowadays usually means an increase in wealth disparity).
  - CamperBob2 1y ago
    Because no one has come up with a system that's better than capitalism at accomplishing that.

by thorum 1y ago

fnordpiglet 1y ago

Assuming you buy the idea of a post scarcity society and assuming we can separate our long ingrained notion that spending your existence in toil to survive is a moral imperative and not working is deserving of punishment if not death, I personally look forward to a time we can get off the hamster wheel. Most buttons that get pushed by people are buttons not worth spending your existence pushing. This includes an awful lot of “knowledge work,” which is often better paid but more insidious in that it requires not just your presence but capturing your entire attention and mind inside and outside work. I would also be hopeful that fertility rates would decline and there would simply be far fewer humans. In Asimov’s robots stories the spacers are long lived and low population because robots do most everything. He presents this as a dead end, that stops us from conquering the galaxy. This to me sounds like a feature not a bug. I think human existence could be quite good with large scale automation, fewer people, and less suffering due to the necessity for everyone to be employed. Note I recognize you’re not saying exactly the same thing as I’m saying. I think humans will never cede full executive control by choice at some level. But I suspect, sadly, power will be confined to those few who do get to manage the high level complexity of the real world.

nradov 1y ago
We will never have a post scarcity society. Automation can make certain foodstuffs and manufactured goods somewhat cheaper but the things that people really want will always be in short supply, for example real estate in geographically favorable areas.
- lll-o-lll 1y ago
  With a stable population, post scarcity is surely possible technically. Just invest resource into improving everything that already exists. I also agree that we will never have a post scarcity society; but this is more about humanity than technology.
  - parineum 1y ago
    There will always be scarcity for goods whose value is derived from their scarcity. Maybe food won't be scarce (we wre actually very close to that) and shelter may not be scarce but, even if you invent the replicator, there will still be things that are bespoke.
    - exe34 1y ago
      there are levels of post scarcity. if food, shelter, medicine and leisure are available to all for almost no toil, then we're in post-scarcity. You'll (probably) never have your own planet. You might never be able to convince a certain artist to produce something for you personally.
- alanbernstein 1y ago
  I have never understood "post scarcity" to mean the end of ALL scarcity, which is essentially impossible by definition. Relative to 500 years ago, we have already nearly achieved post-scarcity for a few types of items, like basic clothing. It seems this is yet another concept for which we need to adjust our understanding from binary to a spectrum, as we find our society advancing along the spectrum, in at least some aspects.
  - nasmorn 1y ago
    Also for basic food. You can get all the rice and beans you really need for basically no money. That means actual starvation is nowadays a political not a resource issue
    - 1y ago
djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world? With no effort required to meet your needs and desires, what motivation will you have to do anything? Kaczynski's warnings seem more apt with every year that passes.
- frozenseven 1y ago
  >Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world? Yes. >Kaczynski You're citing a psychopathic terrorist who murdered 3 people and injured a further 23. >what motivation will you have to do anything? For one thing, freedom from self-appointed taskmasters who view Kaczynski as a source of inspiration.
- vkou 1y ago
  Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Kaczynski didn't invent any of these ideas, or even develop them, instead of citing him, why not cite... Literally any other person with them whose mind wasn't blown out by LSD and a desire to commit random political murder. You're doing your point a disservice by bringing in all of that baggage.
  - djrj477dhsnv 1y ago
    Perhaps there are more original or precise sources for the ideas. I've read Jacques Ellul, for example, but for someone not well versed in philosophy like myself, Kaczynski is more accessible and well known. I don't agree with many of his conclusions or actions, but I have no problem judging the good ideas he advocated on their own merit.
- javcasas 1y ago
  I want to live in the post scarcity world. Given that we are headed into an ultra-productive world, I prefer by miles a world without scarcity over a world full of scarcity because the elites are hoarding the resources, and the only way to provide for oneself is by outcompeting the machines that already produce at zero marginal price, but only for the elites.
- IanCal 1y ago
aswegs8 1y ago
Can you think of any more literature on the topic? Preferably non-fiction?

Davidzheng 1y ago

it actually doesn't matter what we want. Because eliminating it will in long run increase yield, economic forces will automate humans away by capitalistic forces.

itsalotoffun 1y ago
This is correct. It will require non-market forces to regulate soft-landings for humans. We may see a wave of "job-preserving" legislation in the coming years but these will eventually be washed away in favor of taxing the AI economy.
LunaSea 1y ago
If you don't have customers anymore, who are you selling your products to?
swivelmaster 1y ago
We should stop considering it a given that capitalistic forces will do this and start considering how we build systems that optimize for the maximum amount of human good rather than the maximum amount of abstract economic good (which nowadays usually means an increase in wealth disparity).
- CamperBob2 1y ago
  Because no one has come up with a system that's better than capitalism at accomplishing that.