4 ms·

This idea fails because we had the resources to feed everybody today yet it doesn't happen. In the future, when techno-baron A sees that techno-baron B is getti

This idea fails because we had the resources to feed everybody today yet it doesn't happen. In the future, when techno-baron A sees that techno-baron B is getting ahead, techno-baron A consumes more resources in order to defeat techno-baron B. If people are in the way of that, and they are of no use to any techno-barons they are pushed aside. There was "post-scarcity for basic survival needs" for millions of years already. When life first formed on earth, there was food enough for every organism. That didn't prevent organisms from fighting each other. Competition and the extinction of the losers has been a central theme of life since it began. Being at the top of the food pyramid, and in a first-world country has made us forget that fact. The idea that humanity can rise above this, formed from living in this social-economic bubble for far too long, is just hubris.

rtkwe 13y ago
Things have always been this way isn't really strong argument for this. There are many ways we could set up a society in which the basic needs for everyone's survival is needed and the surplus is allocated in a way which most benefits society. A perfectly impartial central planning AI comes to mind. That's where the big difference comes from your example of '"post-scarcity for basic survival needs" for millions of years already.' there's never been the coordination and impartiality to distribute and coordinate at that level. As for today if we coordinated and there were no economic considerations we could feed everyone today. It's just that there's not the planning or monetary forces in place to make it happen.
- conroe64 13y ago
  A central planning AI to impose fairness and the right to basic survival could only come about and remain standing if there was enough support for it from those already in power to allow this. How would you suppose this would come about? The future will hold a very different scenario than a typical first-world country today where the populous actually produces useful work. As a leader, instead you have a population who who in-fight amongst themselves for the best of the consumable goods and produce absolutely nothing of value for you. To make matters worse, they continually attempt to push their boundaries, growing bigger and bigger if not thwarted (as life normally does). My other point, that techno-baron A will want to fight/defend himself against techno-baron B still applies. Won't anything that techno-baron A needs to do to defend himself against techno-baron B trump the humanitarian concerns for maintaining the lifestyle of his subjects that give absolutely nothing back to him? Even if techno-baron A is morally inclined to do so, there will be others that are more brutal and would not. And even if the moral techo-baron A is able to completely conquer the world (seems very unlikely considering how schizophrenically both brutal and compassionate he would have to be), then his hold on it will at some time cease, probably under duress from threat(s) within.
  - rtkwe 13y ago
    People have been trying to fairly distribute resources to give everyone a basic standard living for ages. It's the basic idea behind welfare, socialism, and communism, there's a precedent for trying to do exactly what I described as the CPAI.
    - conroe64 13y ago
      So why do you think that an AI could do any better? You really think it's too complicated for people to figure out how distribute wealth fairly enough and that's why it failed? All an AI tasked with making things fair for everybody can do is create a plan. It cannot execute it, it cannot enforce it. Why would people follow it? Why would some rich and powerful guy with connections forgo all his power to some CPAI that was set up? How would he maintain his ego when the world no longer shakes from his every footstep? How would he repay all the favors he made to those that got him there? AI is just a tool, like the gun, the ship or the railroad. It's not some panacea that is going to protect human nature from itself.
      - rtkwe 13y ago
        I think one of the reason it failed in the past was a mixture of corruption and incomplete technology. There just wasn't the tech in place for things to be efficiently planned accurately and efficiently.
kybernetyk 13y ago
> This idea fails because we had the resources to feed everybody today yet it doesn't happen. The idea is that in a post singularity[1] world we won't be making those decisions. A hopefully wise AI will manage and decide everything for us. (Even if we wouldn't want it to.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

rtkwe 13y ago

Things have always been this way isn't really strong argument for this. There are many ways we could set up a society in which the basic needs for everyone's survival is needed and the surplus is allocated in a way which most benefits society. A perfectly impartial central planning AI comes to mind. That's where the big difference comes from your example of '"post-scarcity for basic survival needs" for millions of years already.' there's never been the coordination and impartiality to distribute and coordinate at that level. As for today if we coordinated and there were no economic considerations we could feed everyone today. It's just that there's not the planning or monetary forces in place to make it happen.

conroe64 13y ago
A central planning AI to impose fairness and the right to basic survival could only come about and remain standing if there was enough support for it from those already in power to allow this. How would you suppose this would come about? The future will hold a very different scenario than a typical first-world country today where the populous actually produces useful work. As a leader, instead you have a population who who in-fight amongst themselves for the best of the consumable goods and produce absolutely nothing of value for you. To make matters worse, they continually attempt to push their boundaries, growing bigger and bigger if not thwarted (as life normally does). My other point, that techno-baron A will want to fight/defend himself against techno-baron B still applies. Won't anything that techno-baron A needs to do to defend himself against techno-baron B trump the humanitarian concerns for maintaining the lifestyle of his subjects that give absolutely nothing back to him? Even if techno-baron A is morally inclined to do so, there will be others that are more brutal and would not. And even if the moral techo-baron A is able to completely conquer the world (seems very unlikely considering how schizophrenically both brutal and compassionate he would have to be), then his hold on it will at some time cease, probably under duress from threat(s) within.
- rtkwe 13y ago
  People have been trying to fairly distribute resources to give everyone a basic standard living for ages. It's the basic idea behind welfare, socialism, and communism, there's a precedent for trying to do exactly what I described as the CPAI.
  - conroe64 13y ago
    So why do you think that an AI could do any better? You really think it's too complicated for people to figure out how distribute wealth fairly enough and that's why it failed? All an AI tasked with making things fair for everybody can do is create a plan. It cannot execute it, it cannot enforce it. Why would people follow it? Why would some rich and powerful guy with connections forgo all his power to some CPAI that was set up? How would he maintain his ego when the world no longer shakes from his every footstep? How would he repay all the favors he made to those that got him there? AI is just a tool, like the gun, the ship or the railroad. It's not some panacea that is going to protect human nature from itself.
    - rtkwe 13y ago
      I think one of the reason it failed in the past was a mixture of corruption and incomplete technology. There just wasn't the tech in place for things to be efficiently planned accurately and efficiently.

kybernetyk 13y ago

> This idea fails because we had the resources to feed everybody today yet it doesn't happen. The idea is that in a post singularity[1] world we won't be making those decisions. A hopefully wise AI will manage and decide everything for us. (Even if we wouldn't want it to.) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity