Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

gmalandrakis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#131

Post by Waterluvian »

jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127
jameslk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > But if you imagine a sci-fi world where machines can build and do everything humans can do, the concept of a human-centric economy would be pointless. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

> Everyone wants more Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat and would be much, much happier for it. Unfortunately that option isn't available to me, nor to most people.

Getting 3/5ths fired is my dream, too.

For a while I had a sweet gig where instead of raises I got to work less but that just bewilders management even though I’m very confident they got more for their money.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#132

Post by stephc_int13 »

jameslk wrote: post #108
stephc_int13 wrote: post #79

The idea of a consumer based economy has always appeared dumb to me. The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. And the reason why having a large amount of people working is that human work has been producing a surplus basically since the dawn of civilization. This surplus is partially shared but tend also to "trickle up", contrary to some weird beliefs, as can clearly be seen almost everyw…

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > But if you imagine a sci-fi world where machines can build and do everything humans can do, the concept of a human-centric economy would be pointless. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

Yes, the transition is unlikely to be linear and without conflict, if this was ever possible. But I am sure that some would be happy to control armies of bots and very few humans.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#133

Post by chongli »

jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127
jameslk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > But if you imagine a sci-fi world where machines can build and do everything humans can do, the concept of a human-centric economy would be pointless. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

> Everyone wants more Not true at all. If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat and would be much, much happier for it. Unfortunately that option isn't available to me, nor to most people.

That's still wanting more: more free time.

You're not going to take a 60% paycut if it means 60% less food, 60% less shelter, etc.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#134

Post by peab »

pianopatrick wrote: post #119

The idea that the economy is based on "consumption" depends on how you define "consumption". If you think of "consumption" as "buying real world products from Wal Mart or Amazon" then that is wrong, the US economy is not really based on that. Most GDP in the US comes from the service sector. And one thing is true about human nature - a lot of people like having other people serve them. There are many things that mach…

but would the scale stay the same?

Take a hotel for example - it's nice to have a butler, someone at the front desk, and a waiter, perhaps. But you don't need the cleaning crew, the kitchen staff, etc, that run behind the scenes. These you could replace with robots, no problem.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#135

Post by oh_my_goodness »

rogerrogerr wrote: post #111
oh_my_goodness wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without jobs, and after our savings run out, we will be homeless people. Then, after that, we can try to bargain for ... whatever homeless people get in this society. It doesn't look like much to me. Call it 'basic income' if that helps.

If I’m one of the six people who ends up with all the money and controlling all the robots, why do I want your 3 bed 2 bath house in Tennessee? Trying to take it from you will only make you riot. It’s not exactly a bright outlook, but I do think we in the west are likely to be not-worse, on average, than we are now. Of course, your average HN denizen is much better off than average. I think there’s room for our stand…

Bruh. This has nothing to do with like Elon coming and taking the house away. This is just plain old reality.

Without income or savings, people can't afford houses. How would they pay the property taxes? Can't maintain the house. The house gets repossessed or sold for taxes. This happens all the time. Nobody swoops in and saves those people.

Also, hang on. Will we be "not worse" or will our standard of living "fall precipitously"? Those feel different.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#136

Post by throw4847285 »

sp527 wrote: post #37
hurtigioll wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

we do not trade with animals, for they have nothing to offer. AIs will not trade with us, for we have nothing to offer.

AIs are not conscious and do not have real needs that are detached from a real person. That can certainly be simulated , but I would hope that we can collectively agree to unplug them should that situation arise.

Science fiction has melted people's minds.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#137

Post by smallmancontrov »

stephc_int13 wrote: post #132
jameslk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > But if you imagine a sci-fi world where machines can build and do everything humans can do, the concept of a human-centric economy would be pointless. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

Yes, the transition is unlikely to be linear and without conflict, if this was ever possible. But I am sure that some would be happy to control armies of bots and very few humans.

Pertinent section from Rules for Rulers

https://youtu.be/rStL7niR7gs?t=746s

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#138

Post by chongli »

jMyles wrote: post #47
kingstnap wrote: post #29

What AI really seems to be posed to do is make labour a lot less valuable and capital a lot more valuable. Running a government requires a lot of cash flow. I think its sort of inevitable that it's going to need to start coming mostly from the later and not the former.

> Running a government requires a lot of cash flow. I think its sort of inevitable that it's going to need to start coming mostly from the later and not the former. Why presume that "running a government" is inevitable at all? How much longer do we think these states of old are going to putter on for?

Governments are inevitable. Even when you look at so-called "lawless places" or "failed states", you'll find governments: de-facto governments run by warlords and criminals.

Nature abhors a vacuum and that principle extends to power vacuums.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#139

Post by stephc_int13 »

wyldfire wrote: post #115
stephc_int13 wrote: post #79

The idea of a consumer based economy has always appeared dumb to me. The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. And the reason why having a large amount of people working is that human work has been producing a surplus basically since the dawn of civilization. This surplus is partially shared but tend also to "trickle up", contrary to some weird beliefs, as can clearly be seen almost everyw…

Physics, or ... capital. Look at the cryptocurrency and Bitcoin economies for an example. Instead of being a democratic mining economy where spare cycles are used, only companies which invest capital to find semiconductors from the latest process node combined with facilities and inexpensive electricity benefit from mining. Only the next Standard Oil / Amazon / Google will benefit from the people-free economy.

No, you don’t feed machines with bitcoins or any kind of currency, you feed them with Joules, Iron, Copper, rare earths etc.
Post reply on HN