4 ms·

"This is a technology that could replace a sizable fraction of humamkind as a labor input." And if it does? What happens when a sizable fraction of humamkind i

"This is a technology that could replace a sizable fraction of humamkind as a labor input." And if it does? What happens when a sizable fraction of humamkind is hungry and can't find work? It usually doesn't turn out so well for the rich.

dweekly 1y ago
I don't think most folks think very hard about where most wealth comes from but imagine it just sort of exists in a fixed quantity or is pulled from the ground like coal or diamonds - there's a fixed amount of it, and if there are very rich people, it must be because they took the coal/diamonds away from other people who need it. This leads to catchy slogans. But it's pretty obvious wealth can be created and destroyed. The creation of wealth comes from trade, which generally comes from a vibrant middle class which not only earns a fair bit but also spends it. Wars and revolutions are effective at destroying wealth and (sometimes) equitably redistributing what's left. Both the modern left and modern right seem to have arrived at a consensus that trade frictions are a good way to generate (or at least preserve) wealth, while the history of economics indicates quite the contrary. This was recently best pilloried by a comic that showed a town under siege and the besieging army commenting that this was likely to make the city residents wealthy by encouraging self-reliance. We need abundant education and broad prosperity for stability - even (and maybe especially) for the ultra wealthy. Most things we enjoy require absolute and not relative wealth. Would you rather be the richest person in a poor country or the poorest of the upper class in a developed economy?
- utyop22 1y ago
  There's a subtle and nuanced difference between real wealth and financial wealth that most people never touch on.
- ChadNauseam 1y ago
  > The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...] I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. Trade allows specialization which does increase wealth massively, no doubt. And because of how useful specialization is, all wealth creation involves trade somewhere. But specialization is just one component of wealth creation. It stands alongside labor, innovation, and probably others.
  - lelanthran 1y ago
    >> > The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...] > I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. At a very foundational level, all wealth comes from trade, even when there is no currency involved. When two parties voluntarily make a trade, each party gets more value out of the trade than they had before, so the sum total of value after the trade is, by definition alone, greater than the sum total of value before the trade. Small example: I offer to trade you a bag of potatoes for 2 hours of your time to fix my tractor, and you accept. This trade only happens because: 1. I value a running tractor more than I value my bag of potatoes 2. You value a bag of potatoes more than you value 2 hours of your time. After the trade is done, I have more value (running tractor) and you have more value (a bag of potatoes), hence the total value after the trade is more than the total value before the trade. The only thing that creates value is trade. It's the source of value.
    - utyop22 1y ago
      Ultimately real wealth is all about enhancing the well-being of individuals in society by way of an exchange of assets. All we have done is become more elaborate and sophisticated in this stuff but at the core, its been the same throughout much of time.
    - elbear 1y ago
      There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. They see commerce as a zero-sum game.
      - lelanthran 1y ago
        > There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. It's not a deficit if the value they assign to what they get is higher than the value they assign to what they give. If they are giving away something they value highly for something they value less highly, then it's not a voluntary trade, now is it?
        1y ago
harmmonica 1y ago
Big question is whether it replaces and then doesn't create new opportunity to make up for those casualties. I'm not sold on this, but there's this part of me that actually believes LLM's or perhaps AI more broadly will enable vast numbers of people to do things that were formerly impossible for them to do because the cost was too great, or the thought of doing it too complex. Now those same things are not only accessible, but easy to access. I made a comment earlier today in the thread about Google's antitrust "win" where things I couldn't formerly have done without sizable and costly third-party professional help are now possible for near-zero cost and near-zero time. It really can radically empower folks. Not sure that's going to make up for all the job loss, but there is the possibility of real empowerment.
- alluro2 1y ago
  I'm genuinely curious about how you and other people with similar outlook see this playing out, as it would kind of provide hope. Scenario: You are a medium level engineer, who got laid off from a company betting on AI to replace a significant portion of their junior/medium level developers. You were also employing a middle-aged woman, to help with the kids after school and around the house, until you and your wife come back from work. She now needed to be let go as well, as you can't afford her anymore. The same thing happened to a large portion of your peers and work in the same industry/profession is practically no longer available. This has ripple effects on your local market (restaurants, caffes, clothing stores etc). How do you see this as empowering and a net positive thing for these people individually, and for the society? What do they do that replaces their previous income and empowers them to get back to the same level at least?
  - barchar 1y ago
    Well, if everyone is unemployed there won't be much of a market for these newly AI enabled companies to sell into. Also, in the extreme, you'd have deflation such that it's worth hiring again. This would be very painful. More likely automatic stabilizers and additional stimulative spending would have to happen in order to fully utilize all the new productive capacity (or reduce it, as people start to work less). It's politically hard to sustain double digit unemployment, and ultimately the government can always spend enough or cut enough taxes to get everyone employed or get enough people to leave the labor force.
unethical_ban 1y ago
Kill us off or else let us starve while they watch the world burn from their killer AI drone protected estates.

dweekly 1y ago

I don't think most folks think very hard about where most wealth comes from but imagine it just sort of exists in a fixed quantity or is pulled from the ground like coal or diamonds - there's a fixed amount of it, and if there are very rich people, it must be because they took the coal/diamonds away from other people who need it. This leads to catchy slogans. But it's pretty obvious wealth can be created and destroyed. The creation of wealth comes from trade, which generally comes from a vibrant middle class which not only earns a fair bit but also spends it. Wars and revolutions are effective at destroying wealth and (sometimes) equitably redistributing what's left. Both the modern left and modern right seem to have arrived at a consensus that trade frictions are a good way to generate (or at least preserve) wealth, while the history of economics indicates quite the contrary. This was recently best pilloried by a comic that showed a town under siege and the besieging army commenting that this was likely to make the city residents wealthy by encouraging self-reliance. We need abundant education and broad prosperity for stability - even (and maybe especially) for the ultra wealthy. Most things we enjoy require absolute and not relative wealth. Would you rather be the richest person in a poor country or the poorest of the upper class in a developed economy?

utyop22 1y ago
There's a subtle and nuanced difference between real wealth and financial wealth that most people never touch on.
ChadNauseam 1y ago
> The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...] I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. Trade allows specialization which does increase wealth massively, no doubt. And because of how useful specialization is, all wealth creation involves trade somewhere. But specialization is just one component of wealth creation. It stands alongside labor, innovation, and probably others.
- lelanthran 1y ago
  >> > The creation of wealth comes from trade, [...] > I'm not sure to what extent you meant this, but I don't know that I'd agree with it. At a very foundational level, all wealth comes from trade, even when there is no currency involved. When two parties voluntarily make a trade, each party gets more value out of the trade than they had before, so the sum total of value after the trade is, by definition alone, greater than the sum total of value before the trade. Small example: I offer to trade you a bag of potatoes for 2 hours of your time to fix my tractor, and you accept. This trade only happens because: 1. I value a running tractor more than I value my bag of potatoes 2. You value a bag of potatoes more than you value 2 hours of your time. After the trade is done, I have more value (running tractor) and you have more value (a bag of potatoes), hence the total value after the trade is more than the total value before the trade. The only thing that creates value is trade. It's the source of value.
  - utyop22 1y ago
    Ultimately real wealth is all about enhancing the well-being of individuals in society by way of an exchange of assets. All we have done is become more elaborate and sophisticated in this stuff but at the core, its been the same throughout much of time.
  - elbear 1y ago
    There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. They see commerce as a zero-sum game.
    - lelanthran 1y ago
      > There are people who trade at a deficit just because they believe that's the only viable option. It's not a deficit if the value they assign to what they get is higher than the value they assign to what they give. If they are giving away something they value highly for something they value less highly, then it's not a voluntary trade, now is it?
      - 1y ago

harmmonica 1y ago

Big question is whether it replaces and then doesn't create new opportunity to make up for those casualties. I'm not sold on this, but there's this part of me that actually believes LLM's or perhaps AI more broadly will enable vast numbers of people to do things that were formerly impossible for them to do because the cost was too great, or the thought of doing it too complex. Now those same things are not only accessible, but easy to access. I made a comment earlier today in the thread about Google's antitrust "win" where things I couldn't formerly have done without sizable and costly third-party professional help are now possible for near-zero cost and near-zero time. It really can radically empower folks. Not sure that's going to make up for all the job loss, but there is the possibility of real empowerment.

alluro2 1y ago
I'm genuinely curious about how you and other people with similar outlook see this playing out, as it would kind of provide hope. Scenario: You are a medium level engineer, who got laid off from a company betting on AI to replace a significant portion of their junior/medium level developers. You were also employing a middle-aged woman, to help with the kids after school and around the house, until you and your wife come back from work. She now needed to be let go as well, as you can't afford her anymore. The same thing happened to a large portion of your peers and work in the same industry/profession is practically no longer available. This has ripple effects on your local market (restaurants, caffes, clothing stores etc). How do you see this as empowering and a net positive thing for these people individually, and for the society? What do they do that replaces their previous income and empowers them to get back to the same level at least?
- barchar 1y ago
  Well, if everyone is unemployed there won't be much of a market for these newly AI enabled companies to sell into. Also, in the extreme, you'd have deflation such that it's worth hiring again. This would be very painful. More likely automatic stabilizers and additional stimulative spending would have to happen in order to fully utilize all the new productive capacity (or reduce it, as people start to work less). It's politically hard to sustain double digit unemployment, and ultimately the government can always spend enough or cut enough taxes to get everyone employed or get enough people to leave the labor force.

unethical_ban 1y ago

Kill us off or else let us starve while they watch the world burn from their killer AI drone protected estates.