3 ms·

I don't think a future with AI is as easy as "robots will produce everything". There are two important factors usually being ignored in these discussions: - Hu

by mojuba 12y ago

I don't think a future with AI is as easy as "robots will produce everything". There are two important factors usually being ignored in these discussions: - Human labour is not only about producing stuff or advancing sciences, that's a narrow-minded, or even consumerist view of life. We are also creative, we like to appreciate beauty and like to be appreciated for things we create. Even when every thinkable and unthinkable thing will be produced by the machines, we will be able to focus on arts. We will be creating unique things, re-distribute it among ourselves and inevitably some of us will prove to be better at that than the others. Appreciation on one hand and the show-off factor on the other are in our nature, I don't think they will ever become an atavism. - Scarcity of natural resources: something suggests our fight for (possession of) resources will continue until at least we have a technology that transforms any matter to anything, which has nothing or very little to do with the AI per se. But then there will be a problem of habitable space. We will fight for possessing more than the others, that's also part of our nature. More habitable planets, more powerful machines, more possibilities. Because those who possess less have smaller chances to survive. So no, inequality and survivalism (in a broader sense) are not going away. And to satisfy our need to be better and to have more we'll have to maintain a socio-economic system that ensures inequality is always in place. It's going to be Capitalism 2.0 rather than Communism.

TeMPOraL 12y ago
I think those factors are being ignored partly because not relevant to the "capitalism vs. technology discussion" and partly because they're not on capitalism's side. - RE creation. It's true that people like to create and be created, but as sad as it is, being "human-made" is hardly a quality you can run entire economics on. Say, I create a new work of art. How can I exchange it for food? I could sell it for a bunch of credits to someone who appreciates my work, and then use those credits to buy food made by machines. But machines don't need that money, they just make food and run on machine-controlled power generation, etc. They're not participating in the economy; paying for that food becomes just a weird kind of tax, at which point we'd be better off just giving the food away - eliminating the unneccessary theatre. Being able to focus on creating beautiful and interesting things is the promise of automated future. I don't think anyone in their right mind could think that there will be no economy of anything at all - as long as you have people exchanging things, there's always one. It doesn't really matter much what kind of economy it is (though you could get a good guess by observing content creation and sharing dynamics on the Internet when no one is trying to monetize it) - what matters is that it won't be the same system you use for getting your basic needs (food, shelter) fulfilled. - RE scarcity. I see two problems with it. One that in western societies there's almost no visible scarcity at all. You look around and see shops overflowing with all sorts of dirt-cheap products. We're isolated from the actual scarcity by many layers of abstraction, and it isn't even reflected in the prices - otherwise gas or meat wouldn't be so cheap as they are right now. Humans do have a drive for achieving more (or more than others), but our economic system is built completely around the concept of growth - to the point that we use up resources in an exponentially increasing rate and have to invent artificial scarcities just to keep the whole machine from falling apart on the edges (see the thread about jewlery currently on HN). Not to mention increasing numbers of bullshit jobs. That system needs to go, it's unsustainable. Inequality and survivalism are not going away. Nor should they, really - what history showed us is that people don't react well when forced to be equal. The drive to get more will always be there, but it doesn't preclude us from raising the low point from "starving to death" to "comfortable, if minimalist, life". Basics can totally be Communism 2.0 and let sulprus be whatever develops, only moderated so that it doesn't go exponential.
- mojuba 12y ago
  But there will always be scarcity of something: materials, energy, land. Things will always have a price, because they at least require energy and space for production. It will be unbelievably cheap, but never absolute zero. And then someone will own the land (along with what's underneath) and the machines themselves, unless of course we dump private property altogether. I don't see how this is substantially different from what we have now. It's just the machines will get better, living standards will be higher, there will be more bullshit jobs, and more time for creativity. So essentially the discussion comes down to whether there will be private property rights in the future. As someone who grew up in the USSR, where nominally there was no private property per se, I can only say the humanity will need a very, very good reason to abandon it for good. It's almost like saying prohibit sex in all of its forms and purposes, i.e. going against the nature.

by mojuba 12y ago

TeMPOraL 12y ago

I think those factors are being ignored partly because not relevant to the "capitalism vs. technology discussion" and partly because they're not on capitalism's side. - RE creation. It's true that people like to create and be created, but as sad as it is, being "human-made" is hardly a quality you can run entire economics on. Say, I create a new work of art. How can I exchange it for food? I could sell it for a bunch of credits to someone who appreciates my work, and then use those credits to buy food made by machines. But machines don't need that money, they just make food and run on machine-controlled power generation, etc. They're not participating in the economy; paying for that food becomes just a weird kind of tax, at which point we'd be better off just giving the food away - eliminating the unneccessary theatre. Being able to focus on creating beautiful and interesting things is the promise of automated future. I don't think anyone in their right mind could think that there will be no economy of anything at all - as long as you have people exchanging things, there's always one. It doesn't really matter much what kind of economy it is (though you could get a good guess by observing content creation and sharing dynamics on the Internet when no one is trying to monetize it) - what matters is that it won't be the same system you use for getting your basic needs (food, shelter) fulfilled. - RE scarcity. I see two problems with it. One that in western societies there's almost no visible scarcity at all. You look around and see shops overflowing with all sorts of dirt-cheap products. We're isolated from the actual scarcity by many layers of abstraction, and it isn't even reflected in the prices - otherwise gas or meat wouldn't be so cheap as they are right now. Humans do have a drive for achieving more (or more than others), but our economic system is built completely around the concept of growth - to the point that we use up resources in an exponentially increasing rate and have to invent artificial scarcities just to keep the whole machine from falling apart on the edges (see the thread about jewlery currently on HN). Not to mention increasing numbers of bullshit jobs. That system needs to go, it's unsustainable. Inequality and survivalism are not going away. Nor should they, really - what history showed us is that people don't react well when forced to be equal. The drive to get more will always be there, but it doesn't preclude us from raising the low point from "starving to death" to "comfortable, if minimalist, life". Basics can totally be Communism 2.0 and let sulprus be whatever develops, only moderated so that it doesn't go exponential.

mojuba 12y ago
But there will always be scarcity of something: materials, energy, land. Things will always have a price, because they at least require energy and space for production. It will be unbelievably cheap, but never absolute zero. And then someone will own the land (along with what's underneath) and the machines themselves, unless of course we dump private property altogether. I don't see how this is substantially different from what we have now. It's just the machines will get better, living standards will be higher, there will be more bullshit jobs, and more time for creativity. So essentially the discussion comes down to whether there will be private property rights in the future. As someone who grew up in the USSR, where nominally there was no private property per se, I can only say the humanity will need a very, very good reason to abandon it for good. It's almost like saying prohibit sex in all of its forms and purposes, i.e. going against the nature.