4 ms·

>> Once a robot can do everything an IQ 80 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 80 humans. Once a robot can do everything

>> Once a robot can do everything an IQ 80 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 80 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 120 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ IQ 120 humans. Once a robot can do everything an IQ 180 human can do, only better and cheaper, there will be no reason to employ humans at all, in the unlikely scenario that there are any left by that point. [1] The answer may sound harsh, but we will not need human once AI reaches that threshold. Current IQ of AI is currently 130 as per Google. [1] https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch https://www.slatestarcodexabridged.com/Meditations-On-Moloch

sdeframond 23d ago
Who is "we" ? Because if you dont need to employ a human, then who needs your services? If nobody needs anybody, what are we? (Edit: assuming you are human)
- int_19h 23d ago
  This only makes sense if you assume that the value of humans to other humans is solely their economic output. Which is certainly how our society is structured, but, does it have to be? Can we admit that we basically have a developmental trauma as a species and learn to live the sake of living, instead of for the sake of being "useful"?
- bonoboTP 23d ago
  Depends on who controls the machines and what they do. If the machines just serve a select few and the masses are left to fend for themselves, they can just make a secondary pre-AI-like economy where they do small scale medieval-like economic activity for each other. Because if you're poor and can buy no AI services but still need some shoes, your other underclass neighbor may specialize and make some handmade shoes out of some plants or whatnot, for which you give him some seashells you got from another guy for cooking a pot of peas. However the machines may come in and intervene and stop this kind of shadow economy and force you to... I don't know. To just sit in your pod, or die. Because I guess they won't allow you to plow a field and stuff, because that land is now owned by AI or AI-owners too. There are too many uncertainties around who will be in control and with what kinds of aims. It would end in some kind of prison or zoo.

sdeframond 23d ago

Who is "we" ? Because if you dont need to employ a human, then who needs your services? If nobody needs anybody, what are we? (Edit: assuming you are human)

int_19h 23d ago
This only makes sense if you assume that the value of humans to other humans is solely their economic output. Which is certainly how our society is structured, but, does it have to be? Can we admit that we basically have a developmental trauma as a species and learn to live the sake of living, instead of for the sake of being "useful"?
bonoboTP 23d ago
Depends on who controls the machines and what they do. If the machines just serve a select few and the masses are left to fend for themselves, they can just make a secondary pre-AI-like economy where they do small scale medieval-like economic activity for each other. Because if you're poor and can buy no AI services but still need some shoes, your other underclass neighbor may specialize and make some handmade shoes out of some plants or whatnot, for which you give him some seashells you got from another guy for cooking a pot of peas. However the machines may come in and intervene and stop this kind of shadow economy and force you to... I don't know. To just sit in your pod, or die. Because I guess they won't allow you to plow a field and stuff, because that land is now owned by AI or AI-owners too. There are too many uncertainties around who will be in control and with what kinds of aims. It would end in some kind of prison or zoo.