4 ms·
>We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be l
by m4nu3l 1y ago
>We are not there, yet, but if AI could replace a sizable amount of workers, the economic system will be put to a very hard test. Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch. Nor is it possible to imagine a system where a few mega companies are the only providers of intelligence: either AI will be eventually a commodity, or the governments would do something, in such an odd economic setup (a setup where a single industry completely dominates all the others).
I think the scenario where companies that own AI systems don't get benefits from employing people, so people are poor and can't afford anything, is paradoxical, and as such, it can't happen.
Let's assume the worst case: Some small percentage of people own AIs, and the others have no ownership at all of AI systems.
Now, given that human work has no value to those owning AIs, those humans not owning AIs won't have anything to trade in exchange for AI services.
Trade between these two groups would eventually stop.
You'll have some sort of two-tier economy where the people owning AIs will self-produce (or trade between them) goods and services.
However, nothing prevents the group of people without AIs from producing and trading goods and services between them without the use of AIs. The second group wouldn't be poorer than it is today; just the ones with AI systems will be much richer.
This worst-case scenario is also unlikely to happen or last long (the second group will eventually develop its own AIs or already have access to some AIs, like open models).
If models got exponentially better with time, then that could be a problem, because at some point, someone would control the smartest model (by a large factor) and could use it with malicious intent or maybe lose control of it.
But it seems to me that what I thought time ago would happen has actually started happening. In the long term, models won't improve exponentially with time, but sublinearly (due to physical constraints). In which case, the relative difference between them would reduce over time.
- iwontberude 1y agoI think the bigger relief is that I know humans won’t put up with a two tiered system of haves and have nots forever and eventually we will get wealth redistribution. Government is the ultimate source of all wealth and organization, corporations are built on top of it and thus are subservient.
- kortilla 1y agoGovernments are not the source of wealth. They are just a requisite component to allow people to create it and maintain it.
- azemetre 1y agoThis doesn't pass the sniff test, governments generate wealth all the time. Public education, public healthcare, public research, public housing. These are all programs that generate an enormous amount of wealth and allow citizens to flourish.
- m4nu3l 1y agoIn economics, you aren't necessarily creating wealth just because your final output has value. The value of the final good or service has to be higher than the inputs for you to be creating wealth. I could take a functioning boat and scrap it, sell the scrap metal that has value. However, I destroyed wealth because the boat was worth more. Even if you are creating wealth, but the inputs have better uses and can create more wealth for the same cost, you're still paying in opportunity cost. So things are more complicated than that.
- azemetre 1y agoThis isn't related to what I was commenting on where the other poster came across as not seeing government by the governed as having economic worth.
- andsoitis 1y agoSynthesizing between you two’s thoughts, extrapolating somewhat: - human individuals create wealths - groups of humans can create kinds of wealth that isn’t possible for a single indovidual. This can be a wide variety of associations: companies, project teams, governments, etc. - governments (formal or less formal) create the playing field for individuals and groups of individuals to create wealth
- Sincere6066 1y agopretty sure the economic system has already failed all the tests
- Davidzheng 1y agoSorry this doesn't make sense to me. Given tier one is much richer and more powerful than tier two, any natural resources and land traded at tier two is only at mercy of tier one not interfering. As soon as tier one needs some land or natural resources from tier two, tier two needs are automatically superseded. It's like animal community bear human civ
- rootusrootus 1y agoIf tier 2 amounts to 95% of the population, then the amount of power currently held by tier 1 is meaningless. It is only power so long as the 95% remain cooperative.
- yks 1y agoIn practice the tier 1 has the tech and know-how to convince the tier 2 to remain cooperative against their own interests. See the contemporary US where the inequality is rather high, and yet the tier 2 population is impressively protective of the rights of the tier 1. The theory that if the tier 2 has it way worse than today, that will change, remains to be proven. Persecutions against the immigrants are also rather lightweight today, so there is definitely space to ramp them up to pacify the tier 2.
- Disposal8433 1y ago> the amount of power currently held by tier 1 is meaningless. It's happening right now with rich people and lobbies. > It is only power so long as the 95% remain cooperative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption#Contemporary_shifts https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_consumption#Contemp... I rest my case.
- rootusrootus 1y agoThis only works as long as people are happily glued to their TVs. Which means they have a non-leaking roof above their head and food in their belly. Just at a minimum. No amount of skillful media manipulation will make a starving, suffering 95% compliant.