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

161–170 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#161

Post by ares623 »

qsera wrote: post #159
xyzzy123 wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. Unless one of us happens to be a food producer we will both starve. We need our trade graph to be connected to resources we need. Production also tends to need exclusive access to resources (land, materials, etc) and you will be competing with machines for access to those. > The reason we have an economy and money and trade is that we need to in…

>Unless one of us happens to be a food producer we will both starve. We need our trade graph to be connected to resources we need.. How will you starve when the robots will produce food for everyone, for free? Isn't that the idea? >Who owns the robots though.. I think may be the government. The population will have to pay taxes for their maintenance. But it will be vastly less.

> How will you starve when the robots will produce food for everyone, for free? Isn't that the idea?

If the people aren't needed then why dedicate robots and land to feed them, for free?

> I think may be the government. The population will have to pay taxes for their maintenance. But it will be vastly less.

Taxes from what?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#163

Post by bigstrat2003 »

smallmancontrov wrote: post #31
stevenwoo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using Marxist as a denunciation feels like a shibboleth considering how often it comes out of the mouths of conservative politicians in the USA when talking about stuff that is not remotely related to it.

Yep, exactly. The USA is in the fortunate position of having a solid historical example of how to re-balance an economy that let inequality cook out of control: FDR. We didn't have a far-right Hitler or a far-left Stalin because we had a Roosevelt. We should aim for that again -- but at the moment I'm afraid our aim is drifting to the right, a right that calls its own policy position from 6 months prior "radical Marx…

> We didn't have a far-right Hitler or a far-left Stalin because we had a Roosevelt. We should aim for that again...

I would much rather not have a repeat of the president who ran the federal government like he was a king, and the Constitution a bare semblance of a suggestion. FDR was one of the worst presidents in history, and many of the problems we face in our country today can be traced back to his immense executive branch power grab.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#164

Post by 827a »

andrewmutz wrote: post #11

If you want to understand the likely capabilities of AI technology in the future, listen to software engineers like this guy. If you want to understand the impact of AI technology on the economy, don't listen to software engineers, listen to economists.

If you want to understand the impact of AI technology on the economy, don't listen to software engineers, in fact, don't listen to anyone, no one was able to predict what the economy was going to do pre-AI, no one has any clue what's going on.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#165

Post by bellowsgulch »

baron816 wrote: post #142

It’s an economic fallacy that a group of people would get “locked out” of the economy. If you and I are able to work, but can’t get jobs because robots do all the jobs, then we’re not just going to sit on our hands and starve. You and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. But that’s not how things will turn out. The reason we have an economy and money and trade is that we need to incentivize…

Always impressive how smoothly complex constraints vanish in these models.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#166

Post by casey2 »

ares623 wrote: post #161
qsera wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Unless one of us happens to be a food producer we will both starve. We need our trade graph to be connected to resources we need.. How will you starve when the robots will produce food for everyone, for free? Isn't that the idea? >Who owns the robots though.. I think may be the government. The population will have to pay taxes for their maintenance. But it will be vastly less.

> How will you starve when the robots will produce food for everyone, for free? Isn't that the idea? If the people aren't needed then why dedicate robots and land to feed them, for free? > I think may be the government. The population will have to pay taxes for their maintenance. But it will be vastly less. Taxes from what?

For all the other economic activities that robots don't run? 40% of Humans work in the food supply chain, the more automation, the more jobs. That's how it's always worked. All those people who were previously working are now spending their time looking for work, and they will find it.

As for LLMs, language is a tool for communication, not thought. That's why APL's "notation as a tool of thought" failed. And it's why LLMs will fail to replace human thought.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#167

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

baron816 wrote: post #142

It’s an economic fallacy that a group of people would get “locked out” of the economy. If you and I are able to work, but can’t get jobs because robots do all the jobs, then we’re not just going to sit on our hands and starve. You and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. But that’s not how things will turn out. The reason we have an economy and money and trade is that we need to incentivize…

>AI should be able to figure out how much to produce, how to limit waste, who should get what, etc. in a very fair and efficient manner.

AI could also be able to figure out how much to produce and how to limit waste in a way that leaves you to starve. And there won't be anything you can do about it. And this solution would, it turns out, suit the people who still have influence in how the system works just fine.

>ou and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. But that’s not how things will turn out.

But what would you even trade? Do you have anything that a starving unemployed man who bargain for? And does he have anything you want?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#168

Post by markdown »

xyzzy123 wrote: post #153
baron816 wrote: post #142

It’s an economic fallacy that a group of people would get “locked out” of the economy. If you and I are able to work, but can’t get jobs because robots do all the jobs, then we’re not just going to sit on our hands and starve. You and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. But that’s not how things will turn out. The reason we have an economy and money and trade is that we need to incentivize…

> You and I can still trade with each other, no robots need be involved. Unless one of us happens to be a food producer we will both starve. We need our trade graph to be connected to resources we need. Production also tends to need exclusive access to resources (land, materials, etc) and you will be competing with machines for access to those. > The reason we have an economy and money and trade is that we need to in…

The government will need to buy control of (or merely seize under eminent domain) the bots and the ai that runs them.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#170

Post by stephc_int13 »

jameslk wrote: post #160
stephc_int13 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That’s quite a lot of slippery slope hand waving to get there. I’d wager those obstacles will pose a larger challenge than most people in this article’s thread seem to think

I genuinely have no idea how that transition would happen.

And I agree that it would pose many unforeseen challenges.

This is why the transition is the interesting part, not the sci-fi end game with a world populated with billions of robots doing everything.

Post reply on HN