3 ms·

As long as we are going toward a world of abundance where money doesn't mean much and the main currency is time, I can't complain. I will subsidize that with my

by aatd86 2mo ago

As long as we are going toward a world of abundance where money doesn't mean much and the main currency is time, I can't complain. I will subsidize that with my brain power turned into ink on paper.

PunchyHamster 2mo ago
well, we are not, so far it is just concentrating wealth and power in smaller and smaller subset of people
- aatd86 2mo ago
  Yes and then continue your reasoning... Is this sustainable? What do you think it leads to?
  - puelocesar 2mo ago
    Major social chaos, economic meltdown and extreme crackdown on dissent by ultra facist government powered by palantir surveillance.
    - aatd86 2mo ago
      But if no one has money nor a job, if the old model of economy is broken that way, can rich people stay rich? (so to speak) Isn't there some kind of mean reversal?
layer8 2mo ago
It’s pretty clear that the premise won’t be becoming reality.
- aatd86 2mo ago
  Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Future is all about research and entertainment. That is why tiktok stars and soccer players get so much money. All that being based on DARPA research, I mean the internet. People just want to have fun. Du pain et des jeux.
  - nearlyepic 2mo ago
    > Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Ha. Are you new here?
  - PeterStuer 2mo ago
    No, you will be a 'greeter' at a venue, a cleaner cheaper than the equivalent robot, a yes-mam serv in some corporate's division pfiefdom, or doing some endless sysiphus task for the ethernity of your days to get your daily ration after you get your eyeball scanned to confirm your identity at all points in the system. Can't let the masses run wild.
  - inigyou 2mo ago
    You wish it would happen. It could happen by the laws of physics. But it won't happen by the laws of politics. The redundant people will be culled from existence instead, one way or another.
  - crote 2mo ago
    No, the handful of billionaires would just let the now-unemployed people starve, or employ them as quasi slave labor. We know because that's what is already happening right now. The billionaire are not going to magically develop a sense of empathy and morality and give away huge chunks of their fortune to fund Universal Basic Income. They would rather invest a few million into building even taller walls around their compounds to prevent a repeat of the French Revolution.
    - aatd86 2mo ago
      No one ask them to fund it. The financial system will resolve itself. If you can't buy their product, they are not going to remain rich much longer. And AGI will make them just as irrelevant as any other person. And if they want their peace of mind, they are not going to amass huge amount of land while other people are just starving. That would be besides the point anyway, because it is going to equalize things. In the new economy, the one who can drive AI best, and who is clever enough to know what to ask gets ahead.
atoav 2mo ago
Abundance for whom, exactly? And if the answer is everybody: who in charge has an incentive to do this? Sorry to ruin your day, but if the people with money could have introduce equal society, you would have noticed their attempts by now.
- aatd86 2mo ago
  Abundance for everyone or it is not abundance. With abundance, the field gets levelled because everything someone else can get, you can too. Society can't be equal when everyone is in survival of the fittest mode because resources (energy) are not infinite.
  - atoav 2mo ago
    Well yes. The land where milk and honey flows in rivers and the fried chicken flies into your mouth (unless of course you, yourself are a chicken, in which case that would be horrible). The take of "if there would be no resource distribution problem, there would be no problems" isn't a genius take, it is literally a ancient children's story. Granted it is factually correct: If there were infinite resources and they all would be in the right places, there would be zero problems based on a lack of resources. However the problem with this theory is everything else, the first question being: How do you get from a system where many of the most powerful actors profit from (often: artificial!) scarcity to them giving up those power levers voluntarily? Or phrased much less abstract: Few bosses, want to stop being above others if they have the choice. And not only do they have the choice, the mechanism some people believe would lead to abundance (AI) is in their control. Turns out the computation power possible inside a finite universe, on a finite planet, with finite resources, an finite labor is.. well.. finite. Aside from that we already live in a world where the problem is nearly never the amount of resources, but the way they are distributed. Clothes that are produced for the west are shredded after each season as they go out of fashion, while in other parts of the world people live without clothes, with food the story is similar. The problem isn't lack of abundance. The problem is that a wealthy minority profits wildly from the inequality and if you ask me, they would rather use AI to make it stay that way, while extracting even more from the rest of us, than using that for good. Why do I believe that? Well I do not trust them when they say what they want, but instead look at what they do. Just look at the history of capitalism and where within it truly wealthy people started to contribute to society. You may be surprised if you look at the deeper causes... This theory of abundance is a story followers of an ideology tell themselves so they can feel good about themselves, while their ideology literally starves people and burns down the planet.

by aatd86 2mo ago

As long as we are going toward a world of abundance where money doesn't mean much and the main currency is time, I can't complain. I will subsidize that with my brain power turned into ink on paper.

PunchyHamster 2mo ago

well, we are not, so far it is just concentrating wealth and power in smaller and smaller subset of people

aatd86 2mo ago
Yes and then continue your reasoning... Is this sustainable? What do you think it leads to?
- puelocesar 2mo ago
  Major social chaos, economic meltdown and extreme crackdown on dissent by ultra facist government powered by palantir surveillance.
  - aatd86 2mo ago
    But if no one has money nor a job, if the old model of economy is broken that way, can rich people stay rich? (so to speak) Isn't there some kind of mean reversal?

layer8 2mo ago

It’s pretty clear that the premise won’t be becoming reality.

aatd86 2mo ago
Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Future is all about research and entertainment. That is why tiktok stars and soccer players get so much money. All that being based on DARPA research, I mean the internet. People just want to have fun. Du pain et des jeux.
- nearlyepic 2mo ago
  > Well, once there is no more jobs, or once a large enough number of people are made redundant, it will mechanically happen. Ha. Are you new here?
- PeterStuer 2mo ago
  No, you will be a 'greeter' at a venue, a cleaner cheaper than the equivalent robot, a yes-mam serv in some corporate's division pfiefdom, or doing some endless sysiphus task for the ethernity of your days to get your daily ration after you get your eyeball scanned to confirm your identity at all points in the system. Can't let the masses run wild.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  You wish it would happen. It could happen by the laws of physics. But it won't happen by the laws of politics. The redundant people will be culled from existence instead, one way or another.
- crote 2mo ago
  No, the handful of billionaires would just let the now-unemployed people starve, or employ them as quasi slave labor. We know because that's what is already happening right now. The billionaire are not going to magically develop a sense of empathy and morality and give away huge chunks of their fortune to fund Universal Basic Income. They would rather invest a few million into building even taller walls around their compounds to prevent a repeat of the French Revolution.
  - aatd86 2mo ago
    No one ask them to fund it. The financial system will resolve itself. If you can't buy their product, they are not going to remain rich much longer. And AGI will make them just as irrelevant as any other person. And if they want their peace of mind, they are not going to amass huge amount of land while other people are just starving. That would be besides the point anyway, because it is going to equalize things. In the new economy, the one who can drive AI best, and who is clever enough to know what to ask gets ahead.

atoav 2mo ago

Abundance for whom, exactly? And if the answer is everybody: who in charge has an incentive to do this? Sorry to ruin your day, but if the people with money could have introduce equal society, you would have noticed their attempts by now.

aatd86 2mo ago
Abundance for everyone or it is not abundance. With abundance, the field gets levelled because everything someone else can get, you can too. Society can't be equal when everyone is in survival of the fittest mode because resources (energy) are not infinite.
- atoav 2mo ago
  Well yes. The land where milk and honey flows in rivers and the fried chicken flies into your mouth (unless of course you, yourself are a chicken, in which case that would be horrible). The take of "if there would be no resource distribution problem, there would be no problems" isn't a genius take, it is literally a ancient children's story. Granted it is factually correct: If there were infinite resources and they all would be in the right places, there would be zero problems based on a lack of resources. However the problem with this theory is everything else, the first question being: How do you get from a system where many of the most powerful actors profit from (often: artificial!) scarcity to them giving up those power levers voluntarily? Or phrased much less abstract: Few bosses, want to stop being above others if they have the choice. And not only do they have the choice, the mechanism some people believe would lead to abundance (AI) is in their control. Turns out the computation power possible inside a finite universe, on a finite planet, with finite resources, an finite labor is.. well.. finite. Aside from that we already live in a world where the problem is nearly never the amount of resources, but the way they are distributed. Clothes that are produced for the west are shredded after each season as they go out of fashion, while in other parts of the world people live without clothes, with food the story is similar. The problem isn't lack of abundance. The problem is that a wealthy minority profits wildly from the inequality and if you ask me, they would rather use AI to make it stay that way, while extracting even more from the rest of us, than using that for good. Why do I believe that? Well I do not trust them when they say what they want, but instead look at what they do. Just look at the history of capitalism and where within it truly wealthy people started to contribute to society. You may be surprised if you look at the deeper causes... This theory of abundance is a story followers of an ideology tell themselves so they can feel good about themselves, while their ideology literally starves people and burns down the planet.