6 ms·

What if I build and manage a dark factory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)) an

by llsf 10mo ago

What if I build and manage a dark factory (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lights_out_(manufacturing)) and it produces gizmos. Since all my competitors are also running dark factories, we compete essentially on source materials + energy (assuming we have similar design/quality). Margin would be eventually razor thin. The dark factory does not make much capital gains, even as it produces 1,000 gizmo per second. The capital gain is not much , but since we have only a handful of employees, that is enough to pay everyone a decent wage, after paying for the factory itself, source materials and energy. How much tax do we expect to get from this gizmo company ? 10 years ago, to produce the same gizmos, I needed 5,000 employees, the unit price was way higher, and had higher revenue. But since AI and dark factories came, the prices cratered, instead of 5,000 jobs, we only have 5 jobs to produce the same. Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? I am wondering how best to solve that equation ?

UltraSane 10mo ago
Who buys what you make if you need no employees?
- haroldp 10mo ago
  Now that jacquard loom has left so many textile workers unemployed?
  - rtkwe 10mo ago
    We've launched dozens of shuttles below the minimum temp threshold before there's no reason to delay this launch... Also that's a singular industry, if the current crop of AI companies deliver what their hype and valuation demands it's a shock across the whole economy not isolated.
    - haroldp 10mo ago
      > Also that's a singular industry 200 years ago, 95% of the workers in my country worked in subsistence farming. Today, only 2% are farmers. The whole spectrum of labor has turned upside down and upside down again, in that time. It has certainly not been a singular industry.
      - UltraSane 10mo ago
        There is no guarantee that this pattern will continue and that capitalism will always make enough good jobs for everyone who loses jobs to automation.
        haroldp 10mo ago
        There is likewise no indication that it won't. And if I am looking at a pattern where a thousand careers were destroyed by the advance of technology and were swiftly replaced by tens of thousands of new ones, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the pattern is likely repeat. My job title did not even exist when I was born.
        llsf 10mo ago
        Do you think that the velocity of change is different from previously ? I am wondering if we are touching on a human biological limitation. Human are adaptable and flexible, but there is a limit to that flexibility. Some sort of biological limit on how fast we can turn around. The technology acceleration is increasing, and I am wondering if there would be a point where the technology would evolve faster than what human biology can comprehend. 1,000 years ago, anyone could pretty much build or fix the current technology (anyone could fix a cart). 50 years ago, a majority of people could build or fix the current technology (e.g. most could fix a car). this year, a limited number of people can build or fix the current technology (e.g. how many people can fix a self driving car?) 10 years from now, a very limited number of people if any could build or fix the current technology (e.g. explain how is AI doing this thing?) If AI evolves at the same pace, and replacing labor (robots) and services (AI), I am not sure that human would turn around? How do you think we can turn things around ? Education ? but we are reaching the limit already of how much technology we can teach in a student lifetime. Now we could argue, that one does not need a PhD in computer science to use AI, but eventually do we even need someone to use AI ? Would AI be cheap and pervasive enough that AI would drive AI would drive AI... why would you add a 20W analog brain in the loop ? What activity would require human involvement ? Genuinely curious how the technology acceleration in general and AI in particular would affect the economy.
- cindyllm 10mo ago
  [dead]
- llsf 10mo ago
  Not 100% of the employees work on manufacturing, and it would crater the price of the products, so some should be able to buy ?
AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
> The dark factory does not make much capital gains, even as it produces 1,000 gizmo per second. But that's good, right? It means that the difference between what workers get paid when they do work and what they pay when they buy things is small. > Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? Let's consider the two possibilities here. The first is that we automate everything. This is implausible, but let's consider what would happen. Well then necessities would be free, because there is no labor cost to produce arbitrarily many solar panels or skyscrapers or mine asteroids to get unlimited raw materials etc. So then you don't need taxes because nothing costs anything. The second is that there is still work you need people to do, and then they do that, and still have jobs. And the more stuff you do automate, the less expensive it is to produce things, and the less assistance anyone needs to afford the now-lower cost of necessities. So if you get halfway between one and two then that's still fine because costs go down in proportion to the lower demand for labor. The real problem is if the cost of necessities are held artificially scarce through regulatory capture and zoning rules. But that's not an automation problem, that's a government problem.
- unsungNovelty 10mo ago
  My problem is when you automate, the benefits are not passed on to the entire chain of people involved even though we start the discussion with that. So what do we do?
  - AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
    In a competitive market, efficiency gains are generally going to end up as lower prices to the customer, which is the main way that ordinary people benefit from them. That doesn't happen when the market is consolidated and the oligopoly keeps the gains themselves. So, ensure competitive markets by thwarting regulatory capture and enforcing antitrust laws.
    - llsf 10mo ago
em500 10mo ago
> Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? So are we're simultaneously facing a big unemployment crisis, and a big shortage of health care providers and retirement care takers?
- llsf 10mo ago
  One could argue that AI could replace or add to the health and retirement care work force... I am not saying it should happen, but I am trying to understand where we are going with the AI promises, and their impact on society. If AI is so good that it can replace health and retirement care, then the price should fall to. But basically, we would end up with AI and dark factories building gizmos to sustain and entertain humans and fixing them until they die. I guess taxes at this point are irrelevant, AI could build new factories of factories, money would be useless.
kiliantics 10mo ago
Taxes used to be based only on property rather than labour, maybe we should go back to that. Of course this won't happen as it is a force of wealth-deconcentration.
- llsf 10mo ago
  By property you mean land property only or any possession (capital) ?

by llsf 10mo ago

UltraSane 10mo ago

Who buys what you make if you need no employees?

haroldp 10mo ago
Now that jacquard loom has left so many textile workers unemployed?
- rtkwe 10mo ago
  We've launched dozens of shuttles below the minimum temp threshold before there's no reason to delay this launch... Also that's a singular industry, if the current crop of AI companies deliver what their hype and valuation demands it's a shock across the whole economy not isolated.
  - haroldp 10mo ago
    > Also that's a singular industry 200 years ago, 95% of the workers in my country worked in subsistence farming. Today, only 2% are farmers. The whole spectrum of labor has turned upside down and upside down again, in that time. It has certainly not been a singular industry.
    - UltraSane 10mo ago
      There is no guarantee that this pattern will continue and that capitalism will always make enough good jobs for everyone who loses jobs to automation.
      - haroldp 10mo ago
        There is likewise no indication that it won't. And if I am looking at a pattern where a thousand careers were destroyed by the advance of technology and were swiftly replaced by tens of thousands of new ones, it is not unreasonable to suspect that the pattern is likely repeat. My job title did not even exist when I was born.
        llsf 10mo ago
        Do you think that the velocity of change is different from previously ? I am wondering if we are touching on a human biological limitation. Human are adaptable and flexible, but there is a limit to that flexibility. Some sort of biological limit on how fast we can turn around. The technology acceleration is increasing, and I am wondering if there would be a point where the technology would evolve faster than what human biology can comprehend. 1,000 years ago, anyone could pretty much build or fix the current technology (anyone could fix a cart). 50 years ago, a majority of people could build or fix the current technology (e.g. most could fix a car). this year, a limited number of people can build or fix the current technology (e.g. how many people can fix a self driving car?) 10 years from now, a very limited number of people if any could build or fix the current technology (e.g. explain how is AI doing this thing?) If AI evolves at the same pace, and replacing labor (robots) and services (AI), I am not sure that human would turn around? How do you think we can turn things around ? Education ? but we are reaching the limit already of how much technology we can teach in a student lifetime. Now we could argue, that one does not need a PhD in computer science to use AI, but eventually do we even need someone to use AI ? Would AI be cheap and pervasive enough that AI would drive AI would drive AI... why would you add a 20W analog brain in the loop ? What activity would require human involvement ? Genuinely curious how the technology acceleration in general and AI in particular would affect the economy.
cindyllm 10mo ago
[dead]
llsf 10mo ago
Not 100% of the employees work on manufacturing, and it would crater the price of the products, so some should be able to buy ?

AnthonyMouse 10mo ago

> The dark factory does not make much capital gains, even as it produces 1,000 gizmo per second. But that's good, right? It means that the difference between what workers get paid when they do work and what they pay when they buy things is small. > Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? Let's consider the two possibilities here. The first is that we automate everything. This is implausible, but let's consider what would happen. Well then necessities would be free, because there is no labor cost to produce arbitrarily many solar panels or skyscrapers or mine asteroids to get unlimited raw materials etc. So then you don't need taxes because nothing costs anything. The second is that there is still work you need people to do, and then they do that, and still have jobs. And the more stuff you do automate, the less expensive it is to produce things, and the less assistance anyone needs to afford the now-lower cost of necessities. So if you get halfway between one and two then that's still fine because costs go down in proportion to the lower demand for labor. The real problem is if the cost of necessities are held artificially scarce through regulatory capture and zoning rules. But that's not an automation problem, that's a government problem.

unsungNovelty 10mo ago
My problem is when you automate, the benefits are not passed on to the entire chain of people involved even though we start the discussion with that. So what do we do?
- AnthonyMouse 10mo ago
  In a competitive market, efficiency gains are generally going to end up as lower prices to the customer, which is the main way that ordinary people benefit from them. That doesn't happen when the market is consolidated and the oligopoly keeps the gains themselves. So, ensure competitive markets by thwarting regulatory capture and enforcing antitrust laws.
  - llsf 10mo ago

em500 10mo ago

> Sure the 4,995 unemployed might be able to afford the gizmo, but the state does not receive the same taxes. So what happens to those 4,995 unemployed people ? who is paying for their health benefits and social security (retirement) ? So are we're simultaneously facing a big unemployment crisis, and a big shortage of health care providers and retirement care takers?

llsf 10mo ago
One could argue that AI could replace or add to the health and retirement care work force... I am not saying it should happen, but I am trying to understand where we are going with the AI promises, and their impact on society. If AI is so good that it can replace health and retirement care, then the price should fall to. But basically, we would end up with AI and dark factories building gizmos to sustain and entertain humans and fixing them until they die. I guess taxes at this point are irrelevant, AI could build new factories of factories, money would be useless.

kiliantics 10mo ago

Taxes used to be based only on property rather than labour, maybe we should go back to that. Of course this won't happen as it is a force of wealth-deconcentration.

llsf 10mo ago
By property you mean land property only or any possession (capital) ?