3 ms·
Scarcity of status, fame, power, etc may be inevitable -- but that's fine. After all, people need stuff to do. But if we solve food, hunger, housing, education
by slibhb 28d ago
Scarcity of status, fame, power, etc may be inevitable -- but that's fine. After all, people need stuff to do.
But if we solve food, hunger, housing, education, healthcare, and entertainment then that's enough for me. And no, it's not "the current political system" that prevents us from solving those problems now. Rather it's that engine of production is human labor, which forces us to rely on incentives.
- philipov 28d agoWhen was the last time the United States had a famine caused by there not being enough food rather than because we decided certain people don't deserve food? Everything you named is a political problem caused by the desire to concentrate status, fame, and power. These are not problems that lack a technological solution.
- slibhb 28d agoThe US has never experienced a widespread famine. In some sense I agree with you that starvation in the modern world is a political problem. Evidence for that is the common observation that famines don't occur in functioning liberal democracies. But food production relies on more than technology. Human labor is necessary to produce food, and so incentives have to exist for people to do that work (prices, free markets, capitalism, inequality, etc). So if we decide "everyone deserves free food" then we are undermining the production of food. Why would people work in the fields when they could just collect their free food? Scarcity won't be truly gone until food is abundant whether or not there are any people working the fields.
- philipov 28d agoDoesn't that just shift the problem away from incentivizing humans to incentivizing the godkings who own the robots? The scarcity becomes robot manufacturing. Why should the owners undermine the value of their robots by providing free food for all? Those robots could be put to better use fighting wars instead.
- slibhb 28d agoToday, the decentralized nature of human labor means we have to incentivize people in broad ways. But if there's like 5 AI companies doing all the labor with their robots, we can just tax them and redistribute. The owners/workers at AI companies won't resist the redistribution. It will be seen as inevitable as AI performs a greater and greater share of labor. Also, the AI company owners/workers will accrue massive status and fame; which will become the new currency (like you noted in your first post).
- philipov 28d ago> The owners/workers at AI companies won't resist the redistribution. I find this to be a somewhat incredible claim. I don't find it easy to believe such a thing. You can bring up enlightened self interest if you want, but you're going up against the entire history of humanity. I think it's more likely that something else will happen instead. For example, you're underestimating the influence that being the ones to control all the labor in a society will grant these entities. When they reject your demands and send in the robot military to maintain order, how are you going to resist? Why should they bend when controlling all the labor will allow them to win?
- slibhb 27d agoThis is what happens when people get "the entire history of humanity" from Howard Zinn-like sources. Healthy, stable societies are not based on the threat of violence, but rather consensual submission to a rule of law. As a rule, humans cooperate, play fairly, and want others to admire and respect them.
- Timon3 27d agoWhy would the people who have control over this enormous automated labor force agree to taxation? How will you make them pay up if they tell you "no" and hide behind their robot army?
- slibhb 27d ago