3 ms·

In the near term handling the transition. Jobs will be lost, careers ended, people won’t be able to reskill quickly enough. At the same time AI is an enormous o

In the near term handling the transition. Jobs will be lost, careers ended, people won’t be able to reskill quickly enough. At the same time AI is an enormous opportunity to uplift living standards, but nobody has the logistics of this figured out. We need to figure out how to restructure the global economy. How does UBI work internationally, if the AI companies are taking revenue in the US? What’s the tax base for it? What does that say about international trade and protectionism? Do countries end up splitting into different trading blocks based on their level of access and legality of AI (I assume some will ban it outright)?. How does intellectual property work in an AI generated future? What about healthcare advances, who gets to own those? What about meaning, what about purpose? How do we replace the work ethic that tells us we are our jobs and idleness is immoral? How do you replace “What do you do?” As one of the first questions you ask a new person? That sort of thing.

GolfPopper 2mo ago
[flagged]
striking 2mo ago
I think this too is a kind of denial. As in, while some are in denial about the usefulness of AI, others are in denial about whose living standards are actually going to be uplifted. And it's sad, really, because I think these two groups would make a great pairing if they could stop arguing against one another for a moment. They'll both be impacted about as much and probably have the same ultimate goals (to lead dignified lives). But it seems these days everyone is more interested in Kayfabe and feeling like they're in the right than working together, so maybe I should just keep quiet rather than attract the ire of both groups...
- throwaway0123_5 2mo ago
  > others are in denial about whose living standards are actually going to be uplifted. I don't know if it is fair to say they're in denial. For my part, I don't expect life to get much better for regular people (especially short term), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to try to make it happen.
- Chance-Device 2mo ago
  Asking questions about policy and values and pushing to have those resolved in positive ways is about as far away from denial as you can get. It’s possibly the only useful thing an ordinary person can do. What a lot of people want to do, and I’m not saying that you’re one of them, is to assume that a positive outcome is impossible and either do nothing or loudly yell that the world is ending. Neither is particularly useful. Or, as I said above, others just deny that there’s anything to see here and try to get people to move along.
  - HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
    The AI companies themselves, who are highly motivated to sell AI as overall positive for society, notwithstanding some security/etc risks, and who have economists on the payroll to think about things like this, do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present. Shane Legg (DeepMind co-founder), one of the more intelligent and thoughtful people you'll find in the industry, could only offer "it's a tough problem - we need to think about it" when recently interviewed by Hannah Fry. On the surface the most likely outcome for AI allowed to replace jobs is extraordinarily negative, especially since it is a general capability technology, not a specific one where displaced workers can just move to another field. Once AI becomes more capable it will be able to do the vast majority of white collar jobs, including any new ones that may appear as a result of AI. As Shane Legg put it, "if your job can be done remotely, sitting in front of a computer, then it can probably be replaced by AI". Not only does AI threaten to replace ALL the white collar jobs, but it is rapidly going after blue collar (factory jobs, driving jobs) and pink collar ones (Japanese robotics for elder-care) as well. If a positive outcome (which doesn't include putting displaced workers on welfare - UBI) is possible, then it sure would be nice to hear it, and the silence from the AI companies, and government for that matter, is deafening.
    - orangecat 2mo ago
      do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present See "Machines of Loving Grace" by Dario Amodei: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace.
joshmarlow 2mo ago
I don't understand why this got downvotes - simply extrapolating current trends leads to the need to answer all of these questions. My own $0.02 on the economics piece - every country should have a sovereign wealth fund. Governments should block market access from automated[0] companies until those companies provide equity contributions to the wealth fund for that country. This aligns regulator and corporate interests. Dividends flow into the sovereign wealth funds and then can be allocated locally from there - UBI, job programs, etc. Let different jurisdictions explore different ways to structure a post-labor society. On the broader social front - I think a lot of lack of meaning discussion boils down to the overemphasis we have on your job as your self-worth. We need to realign our societal expectations - and people need to spend more time with their families. [0] for this to work, I think we would need well accepted metrics for 'how automated' a company is - and that probably needs a 3rd party auditing industry.
- axus 2mo ago
  Nationalize the data centers, reserve enough inference to automate power generation, food production, transportation, and housing. Is there any government that has gotten socialism correct for its citizens? I'd point to UAE/Qatar if they didn't depend on human servitude and inequality.
  - joshmarlow 2mo ago
    I would not advocate nationalization of any operations - I think the free market will run the data centers better in general. I'm only suggesting (eventual) negotiations between countries and automated corporations - to operate here, you contribute equity.
esafak 2mo ago
Isn't it obvious if AI automates your job away, the AI company is going to reap the economic value, which is going to be less than what you cost, while giving you a pittance as UBI? If you received its full value there wouldn't be any point in anybody replacing you with AI. The only way to win is to wield the AI.
- throwaway0123_5 2mo ago
  Agreed, a LOT of UBI advocates gloss over the "B" in UBI. If AI increases human productivity overall, the only morally acceptable outcomes (imo) are that everyone's standard of living increases (or at least is the same without having to work) and wealth inequality decreases (if AI is doing ~all the work, there really isn't any sensible justification for some people having significantly more wealth than others). Frankly anything else seems like a recipe for massive social instability.
- unfitted2545 2mo ago
  Nationalised LLM? As long as the state doesn't decide what information the LLM shares (from an output and privacy perspective).
GPerson 2mo ago
Why do you think the AI companies are going to let it be a “we” kind of decision, and since it’s obviously not going to be a “we” kind of decision, as getting to this point certainly has not been thanks to people like you, what makes you think living standards are going to be broadly uplifted?
hansmayer 2mo ago
[dead]
bubblemoth 2mo ago
What pressure is there to push for any of these changes? I see AI advocates discussing the concept of UBI, but I can't imagine a world where the United States would ever pass this sort of legislation. I mean, congress can barely pass a budget each year. If you are correct, I expect corporations to reap massive profits while most Americans try to find a way to survive in a world where they are obsolete.
- azinman2 2mo ago
  I also don’t understand why UBI is desirable. Putting everyone on welfare means everyone is poor. This won’t end well, and it’s certainly not the case that 99% of the population will let a tiny number of people remove their income in favor of pennies for all. Political violence will come first, easily.
  - sodapopcan 2mo ago
    No idea why anyone would downvote this, it's true. As someone else pointed out "b = basic." And does anyone think it will adjust with inflation?
    - frabcus 2mo ago
      Because the implied alternative of the comment is that people will carry on having jobs, which breaks the entire premise that there is AI that replaces all human labour. The comment is missing the point - UBI is the only suggestion anyone has so far that meets this fundamental question about the technology. We will be less poor than without UBI, unless we come up with a better plan.
- Chance-Device 2mo ago
  There is whatever pressure you bring to bear on it. As long as you are still living in a democracy your vote is the pressure you can apply. If the parties that exist won’t represent you, make new ones that will. Do something rather than deciding it’s both impossible and up to other people anyway.
thuuuomas 2mo ago
Why should IP persist in a world of “intelligence too cheap to meter”?
cautiouscat 2mo ago
I’ll be the first to call myself cynical. > In the near term handling the transition. Jobs will be lost, careers ended, people won’t be able to reskill quickly enough. At the same time AI is an enormous opportunity to uplift living standards, but nobody has the logistics of this figured out. > We need to figure out how to restructure the global economy. How does UBI work internationally, if the AI companies are taking revenue in the US? What’s the tax base for it? What does that say about international trade and protectionism? Do countries end up splitting into different trading blocks based on their level of access and legality of AI (I assume some will ban it outright)?. UBI in the United States is never going to happen in time. If it happens at all. We don’t even get universal healthcare. I think people who think AI will be a net positive for humanity are also in some sort of denial. In a different US political climate I would entertain it. If these frontier labs weren’t so clearly going after the money, I would entertain it. LLMs are clearly a step up for capitalists so I just can’t see any inclusion of LLMs move towards more progressive ideologies.
- frabcus 2mo ago
  I guess we'll have to fall back on the plan of hoping one of the 7 Anthropic co-founders has secure power in this world, and decides to use EA principles to give us all a bit of their share of the future light cone ;) (The wink because I'm kinda not really joking that this seems the best plan, if we actually get superintelligence from a US AI company)
sodapopcan 2mo ago
Everything you're saying is oddly simultaneously specific and hand-wavy at the same time. I say this because I'm not sure a lot of these things are solvable or, if they are, it's going to take lifetimes. For example: > How do we replace the work ethic that tells us we are our jobs and idleness is immoral? For many people it has nothing to do with morality, it's hardwired into their instincts. They want to work, and they will work. For a lot of us who are not excited about this future it's that no one is trying to answer all the questions you laid out. Instead we have the disgusting people at the helm purposefully spreading doomerism and saying, "We'll figure it out." I think it's pretty problematic (to say the least) to care more about technological advancement than how that advancement is actually shaping up to effect people in the short term. But I know many people don't care, especially those who believe they won't be among the affected.
- infinitezest 2mo ago
  Beautifully put. This exactly summarizes my feelings about this particular tech. I actually find it hugely useful. But I fear we lack the wisdom to use this in a way that won't destroy us.

GolfPopper 2mo ago

[flagged]

striking 2mo ago

I think this too is a kind of denial. As in, while some are in denial about the usefulness of AI, others are in denial about whose living standards are actually going to be uplifted. And it's sad, really, because I think these two groups would make a great pairing if they could stop arguing against one another for a moment. They'll both be impacted about as much and probably have the same ultimate goals (to lead dignified lives). But it seems these days everyone is more interested in Kayfabe and feeling like they're in the right than working together, so maybe I should just keep quiet rather than attract the ire of both groups...

throwaway0123_5 2mo ago
> others are in denial about whose living standards are actually going to be uplifted. I don't know if it is fair to say they're in denial. For my part, I don't expect life to get much better for regular people (especially short term), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't work to try to make it happen.
Chance-Device 2mo ago
Asking questions about policy and values and pushing to have those resolved in positive ways is about as far away from denial as you can get. It’s possibly the only useful thing an ordinary person can do. What a lot of people want to do, and I’m not saying that you’re one of them, is to assume that a positive outcome is impossible and either do nothing or loudly yell that the world is ending. Neither is particularly useful. Or, as I said above, others just deny that there’s anything to see here and try to get people to move along.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo ago
  The AI companies themselves, who are highly motivated to sell AI as overall positive for society, notwithstanding some security/etc risks, and who have economists on the payroll to think about things like this, do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present. Shane Legg (DeepMind co-founder), one of the more intelligent and thoughtful people you'll find in the industry, could only offer "it's a tough problem - we need to think about it" when recently interviewed by Hannah Fry. On the surface the most likely outcome for AI allowed to replace jobs is extraordinarily negative, especially since it is a general capability technology, not a specific one where displaced workers can just move to another field. Once AI becomes more capable it will be able to do the vast majority of white collar jobs, including any new ones that may appear as a result of AI. As Shane Legg put it, "if your job can be done remotely, sitting in front of a computer, then it can probably be replaced by AI". Not only does AI threaten to replace ALL the white collar jobs, but it is rapidly going after blue collar (factory jobs, driving jobs) and pink collar ones (Japanese robotics for elder-care) as well. If a positive outcome (which doesn't include putting displaced workers on welfare - UBI) is possible, then it sure would be nice to hear it, and the silence from the AI companies, and government for that matter, is deafening.
  - orangecat 2mo ago
    do not seem to have found any possible positive outcome to present See "Machines of Loving Grace" by Dario Amodei: https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace https://darioamodei.com/essay/machines-of-loving-grace.

joshmarlow 2mo ago

I don't understand why this got downvotes - simply extrapolating current trends leads to the need to answer all of these questions. My own $0.02 on the economics piece - every country should have a sovereign wealth fund. Governments should block market access from automated[0] companies until those companies provide equity contributions to the wealth fund for that country. This aligns regulator and corporate interests. Dividends flow into the sovereign wealth funds and then can be allocated locally from there - UBI, job programs, etc. Let different jurisdictions explore different ways to structure a post-labor society. On the broader social front - I think a lot of lack of meaning discussion boils down to the overemphasis we have on your job as your self-worth. We need to realign our societal expectations - and people need to spend more time with their families. [0] for this to work, I think we would need well accepted metrics for 'how automated' a company is - and that probably needs a 3rd party auditing industry.

axus 2mo ago
Nationalize the data centers, reserve enough inference to automate power generation, food production, transportation, and housing. Is there any government that has gotten socialism correct for its citizens? I'd point to UAE/Qatar if they didn't depend on human servitude and inequality.
- joshmarlow 2mo ago
  I would not advocate nationalization of any operations - I think the free market will run the data centers better in general. I'm only suggesting (eventual) negotiations between countries and automated corporations - to operate here, you contribute equity.

esafak 2mo ago

Isn't it obvious if AI automates your job away, the AI company is going to reap the economic value, which is going to be less than what you cost, while giving you a pittance as UBI? If you received its full value there wouldn't be any point in anybody replacing you with AI. The only way to win is to wield the AI.

throwaway0123_5 2mo ago
Agreed, a LOT of UBI advocates gloss over the "B" in UBI. If AI increases human productivity overall, the only morally acceptable outcomes (imo) are that everyone's standard of living increases (or at least is the same without having to work) and wealth inequality decreases (if AI is doing ~all the work, there really isn't any sensible justification for some people having significantly more wealth than others). Frankly anything else seems like a recipe for massive social instability.
unfitted2545 2mo ago
Nationalised LLM? As long as the state doesn't decide what information the LLM shares (from an output and privacy perspective).

GPerson 2mo ago

Why do you think the AI companies are going to let it be a “we” kind of decision, and since it’s obviously not going to be a “we” kind of decision, as getting to this point certainly has not been thanks to people like you, what makes you think living standards are going to be broadly uplifted?

hansmayer 2mo ago

[dead]

bubblemoth 2mo ago

What pressure is there to push for any of these changes? I see AI advocates discussing the concept of UBI, but I can't imagine a world where the United States would ever pass this sort of legislation. I mean, congress can barely pass a budget each year. If you are correct, I expect corporations to reap massive profits while most Americans try to find a way to survive in a world where they are obsolete.

azinman2 2mo ago
I also don’t understand why UBI is desirable. Putting everyone on welfare means everyone is poor. This won’t end well, and it’s certainly not the case that 99% of the population will let a tiny number of people remove their income in favor of pennies for all. Political violence will come first, easily.
- sodapopcan 2mo ago
  No idea why anyone would downvote this, it's true. As someone else pointed out "b = basic." And does anyone think it will adjust with inflation?
  - frabcus 2mo ago
    Because the implied alternative of the comment is that people will carry on having jobs, which breaks the entire premise that there is AI that replaces all human labour. The comment is missing the point - UBI is the only suggestion anyone has so far that meets this fundamental question about the technology. We will be less poor than without UBI, unless we come up with a better plan.
Chance-Device 2mo ago
There is whatever pressure you bring to bear on it. As long as you are still living in a democracy your vote is the pressure you can apply. If the parties that exist won’t represent you, make new ones that will. Do something rather than deciding it’s both impossible and up to other people anyway.

thuuuomas 2mo ago

Why should IP persist in a world of “intelligence too cheap to meter”?

cautiouscat 2mo ago

I’ll be the first to call myself cynical. > In the near term handling the transition. Jobs will be lost, careers ended, people won’t be able to reskill quickly enough. At the same time AI is an enormous opportunity to uplift living standards, but nobody has the logistics of this figured out. > We need to figure out how to restructure the global economy. How does UBI work internationally, if the AI companies are taking revenue in the US? What’s the tax base for it? What does that say about international trade and protectionism? Do countries end up splitting into different trading blocks based on their level of access and legality of AI (I assume some will ban it outright)?. UBI in the United States is never going to happen in time. If it happens at all. We don’t even get universal healthcare. I think people who think AI will be a net positive for humanity are also in some sort of denial. In a different US political climate I would entertain it. If these frontier labs weren’t so clearly going after the money, I would entertain it. LLMs are clearly a step up for capitalists so I just can’t see any inclusion of LLMs move towards more progressive ideologies.

frabcus 2mo ago
I guess we'll have to fall back on the plan of hoping one of the 7 Anthropic co-founders has secure power in this world, and decides to use EA principles to give us all a bit of their share of the future light cone ;) (The wink because I'm kinda not really joking that this seems the best plan, if we actually get superintelligence from a US AI company)

sodapopcan 2mo ago

Everything you're saying is oddly simultaneously specific and hand-wavy at the same time. I say this because I'm not sure a lot of these things are solvable or, if they are, it's going to take lifetimes. For example: > How do we replace the work ethic that tells us we are our jobs and idleness is immoral? For many people it has nothing to do with morality, it's hardwired into their instincts. They want to work, and they will work. For a lot of us who are not excited about this future it's that no one is trying to answer all the questions you laid out. Instead we have the disgusting people at the helm purposefully spreading doomerism and saying, "We'll figure it out." I think it's pretty problematic (to say the least) to care more about technological advancement than how that advancement is actually shaping up to effect people in the short term. But I know many people don't care, especially those who believe they won't be among the affected.

infinitezest 2mo ago
Beautifully put. This exactly summarizes my feelings about this particular tech. I actually find it hugely useful. But I fear we lack the wisdom to use this in a way that won't destroy us.