4 ms·

> The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure. Some of those , like

by hershel 12y ago

> The main fields of human endeavor will be culture, arts, sciences, creativity, philosophy, experimentation, exploration, and adventure. Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Some others like science[1] and large parts of creativity[2] might be highly automated, requiring only a few experts. Fields that aren't highly repetitive(like many types of programming) and things that require a human touch(which computers also seem to attack[3]) might be more resistant to automation. [1]http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scientific-discovery/fulltext http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2012/5/148614-automating-scien... [2]http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-procedural-creation-scares-me-creator-says/ http://www.computerandvideogames.com/453386/no-mans-sky-proc... [3]http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-game-designed-to-treat-depression-worked-better-than-counseling/256324/ http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/04/a-video-ga...

stonemetal 12y ago
>Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.
- hershel 12y ago
  It's really hard to make money on those fields.Very very few do, and i don't expect it to become any better.
  - UK-AL 12y ago
    In the crazy utopian world described, there would probably be a lot of accumulated capital struggling to get used productively. My idea would be in the struggle to accumulate/protect capital, in a world where human materialistic needs are perfectly met. The money will flow into highly risky creative projects. Where the vast vast majority of projects are expected to fail, funded by highly diversified funds. Virtually everyone would be expected to obtain/raise money working for these funds on creative projects. It would be considered the 'norm'. Kickstarter for example could be beginning of this
    - hershel 12y ago
      First , the problem is that this won't happen in an utopian world, this will happen in our materialistic world. We're quite far from that utopian world.That will take long political struggle. My guess is that when we're there , machines will probably surpass humans even in the arts. Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy.
      - UK-AL 12y ago
        "Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy." The point is that money making projects will be so rare, that people would have no choice but to put money into projects that have the remotest chance making money. Funds will fund millions/billions of projects on the basis of finding one superstar project. They would diversified on a massive scale. This would be better than letting money flounder. That or a kickstarter model where people simply give money to projects that interests them.
        hershel 12y ago
        Why will money making projects will be so rare ? people have a certain amount of attention=money and money to give to entertainment. That probably won't drastically change. And from that pile of money, the industry has quite an efficient ways to find superstar projects. On the other hand, on the surface your way doesn't seem efficient or profitable , and it even goes against improvements we made in that process like using big data. And with regards to kickstarter, i haven't yet though about how it and the future.
        UK-AL 12y ago
        Money making entertainment projects are rare now. Imagine how many bands there are, only a tiny fraction will make it big. Except that work will be the only work left. So money will have to flow to it.
  - Smudge 12y ago
    Why not, exactly? (serious question)
    - hershel 12y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891044
- gress 12y ago
  Who would the customers be?

by hershel 12y ago

stonemetal 12y ago

>Some of those , like arts and philosophy and exploration and adventure would not generate an income, and would be done for free/fun. Why would they not generate income? Currently all of those activities are done both for fun and for profit.

hershel 12y ago
It's really hard to make money on those fields.Very very few do, and i don't expect it to become any better.
- UK-AL 12y ago
  In the crazy utopian world described, there would probably be a lot of accumulated capital struggling to get used productively. My idea would be in the struggle to accumulate/protect capital, in a world where human materialistic needs are perfectly met. The money will flow into highly risky creative projects. Where the vast vast majority of projects are expected to fail, funded by highly diversified funds. Virtually everyone would be expected to obtain/raise money working for these funds on creative projects. It would be considered the 'norm'. Kickstarter for example could be beginning of this
  - hershel 12y ago
    First , the problem is that this won't happen in an utopian world, this will happen in our materialistic world. We're quite far from that utopian world.That will take long political struggle. My guess is that when we're there , machines will probably surpass humans even in the arts. Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy.
    - UK-AL 12y ago
      "Even if not,as far as i know ,the "youtube economy" i.e. people who earn full time salary on you tube is quite small. So i'm a bit pessimistic about it filling the economy." The point is that money making projects will be so rare, that people would have no choice but to put money into projects that have the remotest chance making money. Funds will fund millions/billions of projects on the basis of finding one superstar project. They would diversified on a massive scale. This would be better than letting money flounder. That or a kickstarter model where people simply give money to projects that interests them.
      - hershel 12y ago
        Why will money making projects will be so rare ? people have a certain amount of attention=money and money to give to entertainment. That probably won't drastically change. And from that pile of money, the industry has quite an efficient ways to find superstar projects. On the other hand, on the surface your way doesn't seem efficient or profitable , and it even goes against improvements we made in that process like using big data. And with regards to kickstarter, i haven't yet though about how it and the future.
        UK-AL 12y ago
        Money making entertainment projects are rare now. Imagine how many bands there are, only a tiny fraction will make it big. Except that work will be the only work left. So money will have to flow to it.
- Smudge 12y ago
  Why not, exactly? (serious question)
  - hershel 12y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7891044
gress 12y ago
Who would the customers be?