3 ms·

What are ai and robots other than excess labor, waiting to be allocated? Why does the wealth have to come from the meat bags?

pastel8739 7mo ago
Who is going to buy the stuff that the AI and robots produce, then? What will the point be of producing all this stuff?
- kjkjadksj 7mo ago
  You act like I produce the dollars I spend. No, the government does, who debases our currency to print more.
  - vel0city 7mo ago
    You act like I produce the silver I spend. No, the miners and minters do, who debase our currency mining and minting more. Even if we tied our economic system to shiny rocks the vast majority of us aren't involved in the production of shiny rocks. We're still just trading tokens we agree have some kind of value.
- TFYS 7mo ago
  There will be no point, and the stuff that normal people use will become more expensive as resources are more and more directed to megaprojects that the capital class is interested in. More modern equivalents of pyramids and extravagant castles and less consumers goods.
- CalRobert 7mo ago
  Presumably the captains of the universe will want ever increasing luxuries and expressions of their power.
- 9rx 7mo ago
  What is the point of producing all this stuff now? Historically production was transactional. You give me something, I give you something. But along the way the average Joe ran out of things to offer in return. Businesses give, but increasingly fail to receive in kind. Apple, for example, produced in excess of $50 billion dollars worth of value that they've never been able to get anything in return for. In other words, they have effectively given away $50 billion dollars worth of stuff away for free and have shown no signs of wanting to stop. At least there is no direct transactional value. There is social value. When you've given away $50 billion dollars worth of things, the masses start to idol you. That is why people, like those who oversee Apple, are willing to produce all that stuff. You get social access not afforded to the average Joe. You can do stupid Epstien-style crap without repercussions. You get to live a different life even when you aren't directly getting anything in return. That, no doubt, will remain the point of producing stuff in the future.
  - anigbrowl 7mo ago
    In other words, they have effectively given away $50 billion dollars worth of stuff away for free and have shown no signs of wanting to stop. What are you talking about? Is this some dramatic way of saying you think some of their products are underpriced relative to their specifications?
    - 9rx 7mo ago
      I am, of course, referring to the IOUs (a.k.a. cash) they famously are sitting on, and have been sitting on for decades. Technically they can call the debt at any time, but what does average Joe have to give that Apple would want? If there was something appealing they'd have done it already. In reality there is nothing and it will sit there forevermore and the consumers on the other side of the transaction ultimately got stuff for free. But, as before, it doesn't really matter as rich people aren't interested in things. They already have everything they could ever dream of and physically cannot handle even more. They are interested in social standing.
      - anigbrowl 7mo ago
        This doesn't make any sense. Apple has a pile of cash hasn't spent or invested = they have given away free product?
        9rx 7mo ago
        A debt never called is the same as giving something away for free, yes. Technically they can still call the debt, but the question remains outstanding: What do you have that they would want in return? The answer is effectively nothing, and increasingly so.
        anigbrowl 7mo ago
        Who is the debtor in this case, the US government? You seem to think this is a brilliant insight but to me it seems like an empty truism.
- caconym_ 7mo ago
  In this scenario, where the AI and robots no longer rely on human labor for maintenance and growth, their productive capacity exclusively serves the owning elite (including defending them with violence if necessary) and the rest of us are an inconvenient growth occupying land and consuming resources. This is a scenario where the AI/capital owners complex has already survived the collapse of the consumer economy.
- pixl97 7mo ago
  >There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right. --CGPGrey, Humans need not apply. You need a paradigm shift in your mind on why the modern world looks like it does. You don't need human consumers, you just need a consumer. Any system that allows you to get the hard resources you need to produce the hard/soft resources required is simply enough. Humans are fungible for anything else that can provide manual or intellectual labor. As a thought excercize, just imagine a bunch of AIs/robots buying/selling/trading resources between each other. Where are humans required in this?
- tren_hard 7mo ago
  Why wouldn’t an advanced AGI robot, trained on human behavior, not want their own house and mode of transportation? Sure it’s basically kayfabe for them to ‘want’ the stuff we do but if we’re following the script of who will buy all the stuff, then the answer will be the robots I guess. You think housing market are tough now, wait until you’re competing with 5 robot families who all have jobs you used to do.

pastel8739 7mo ago

Who is going to buy the stuff that the AI and robots produce, then? What will the point be of producing all this stuff?

kjkjadksj 7mo ago
You act like I produce the dollars I spend. No, the government does, who debases our currency to print more.
- vel0city 7mo ago
  You act like I produce the silver I spend. No, the miners and minters do, who debase our currency mining and minting more. Even if we tied our economic system to shiny rocks the vast majority of us aren't involved in the production of shiny rocks. We're still just trading tokens we agree have some kind of value.
TFYS 7mo ago
There will be no point, and the stuff that normal people use will become more expensive as resources are more and more directed to megaprojects that the capital class is interested in. More modern equivalents of pyramids and extravagant castles and less consumers goods.
CalRobert 7mo ago
Presumably the captains of the universe will want ever increasing luxuries and expressions of their power.
9rx 7mo ago
What is the point of producing all this stuff now? Historically production was transactional. You give me something, I give you something. But along the way the average Joe ran out of things to offer in return. Businesses give, but increasingly fail to receive in kind. Apple, for example, produced in excess of $50 billion dollars worth of value that they've never been able to get anything in return for. In other words, they have effectively given away $50 billion dollars worth of stuff away for free and have shown no signs of wanting to stop. At least there is no direct transactional value. There is social value. When you've given away $50 billion dollars worth of things, the masses start to idol you. That is why people, like those who oversee Apple, are willing to produce all that stuff. You get social access not afforded to the average Joe. You can do stupid Epstien-style crap without repercussions. You get to live a different life even when you aren't directly getting anything in return. That, no doubt, will remain the point of producing stuff in the future.
- anigbrowl 7mo ago
  In other words, they have effectively given away $50 billion dollars worth of stuff away for free and have shown no signs of wanting to stop. What are you talking about? Is this some dramatic way of saying you think some of their products are underpriced relative to their specifications?
  - 9rx 7mo ago
    I am, of course, referring to the IOUs (a.k.a. cash) they famously are sitting on, and have been sitting on for decades. Technically they can call the debt at any time, but what does average Joe have to give that Apple would want? If there was something appealing they'd have done it already. In reality there is nothing and it will sit there forevermore and the consumers on the other side of the transaction ultimately got stuff for free. But, as before, it doesn't really matter as rich people aren't interested in things. They already have everything they could ever dream of and physically cannot handle even more. They are interested in social standing.
    - anigbrowl 7mo ago
      This doesn't make any sense. Apple has a pile of cash hasn't spent or invested = they have given away free product?
      - 9rx 7mo ago
        A debt never called is the same as giving something away for free, yes. Technically they can still call the debt, but the question remains outstanding: What do you have that they would want in return? The answer is effectively nothing, and increasingly so.
        anigbrowl 7mo ago
        Who is the debtor in this case, the US government? You seem to think this is a brilliant insight but to me it seems like an empty truism.
caconym_ 7mo ago
In this scenario, where the AI and robots no longer rely on human labor for maintenance and growth, their productive capacity exclusively serves the owning elite (including defending them with violence if necessary) and the rest of us are an inconvenient growth occupying land and consuming resources. This is a scenario where the AI/capital owners complex has already survived the collapse of the consumer economy.
pixl97 7mo ago
>There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right. --CGPGrey, Humans need not apply. You need a paradigm shift in your mind on why the modern world looks like it does. You don't need human consumers, you just need a consumer. Any system that allows you to get the hard resources you need to produce the hard/soft resources required is simply enough. Humans are fungible for anything else that can provide manual or intellectual labor. As a thought excercize, just imagine a bunch of AIs/robots buying/selling/trading resources between each other. Where are humans required in this?
tren_hard 7mo ago
Why wouldn’t an advanced AGI robot, trained on human behavior, not want their own house and mode of transportation? Sure it’s basically kayfabe for them to ‘want’ the stuff we do but if we’re following the script of who will buy all the stuff, then the answer will be the robots I guess. You think housing market are tough now, wait until you’re competing with 5 robot families who all have jobs you used to do.