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

181–190 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#181

Post by chongli »

nextaccountic wrote: post #144
chongli wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> That's still wanting more: more free time. But this is working less to have more free time. > You're not going to take a 60% paycut if it means 60% less food, 60% less shelter, etc. Why not? That's exactly what the person said they want. The incorrect point that was made is that everyone want to work because they want more stuff, not because they want more free time. People that get more free time typically achieve…

Free time is a luxury just like anything else, but it's only valuable if you have enough of everything else. Nobody is jealous of all the free time homeless people have. They're jealous of the free time of people who don't need to work full time to pay all their bills.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#182

Post by BobbyTables2 »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #163
smallmancontrov wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 execut…

Wonder how many read that first sentence thinking it was referring to the current times… (;->

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#183

Post by AngryData »

whatever1 wrote: post #60

Why do we believe that AI (if indeed we achieve human level AI) will have different outcome than the means of production or capital? It’s a winner takes all situation. Very few will accumulate all of the wealth of world. This time it will be more efficient than the Industrial Revolution, because not only you can produce the weapons for the meatbags to protect your wealth, you can even get rid of the meatbags and just…

I think it is a supreme delusion that robots and turrets can defend you against any large mass of angry or hungry humans. Until you can field an robot army that supremely outnumbers humans, im betting on the larger group of clever little shit humans. And if shit gets bad enough small grenade or bomb type EMPs do work, provided you aren't relying on electronics yourself and aren't worried about pissing off everyone in 100+ miles with EM noise. And that is assuming their isn't any larger organized resistance organizations.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#184

Post by strken »

jameslk wrote: post #171
whatever1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the only way that matters. They will corner finite resources and land. Now if we are lucky and the owners are humans with a good heart (and not AI), maybe there is some room for some people (aka provide authentic experiences)

> They will corner finite resources and land. They need a lot of money to do that. Where do they get it all from? Not the jobless masses I presume? Investors don’t usually like to invest in companies that aren’t going to eventually earn any revenue either

Money is a mirage. You can't use dollars to hold land; you need force projection.

Once upon a time that meant guns and soldiers, but today it increasingly means drones. Drones mean mines, factories, supply chains, chemical plants, and farms. Money can buy these things, but it's not the only way to get them.

You can chase the money around all day, but money is only one small part of wealth, and wealth can increase with no injection of money at all.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#185

Post by jeremysalwen »

whack wrote: post #117

Imagine if the top 0.001% build and jointly own an ASI that makes human labor completely obsolete in every single way. This seems like the worst case scenario for the rest of us, right? Wrong. In this scenario, these 0.001% would not interact with the rest of us in any way. They will not hire us, they will not buy anything from us, and they will not sell anything to us either. After all, the rest of us are completely…

I don't see why having ASI would make the top 0.001% less interested in using the energy, minerals, and land on earth. Just because they have no interest in your labor doesn't mean they have no interest your house or your energy supply. "Humans will be so rich they will fuck off to other parts of the world and leave gorilla habitat alone" hasn't really panned out so well.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#186

Post by ShinyLeftPad »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #172
whatever1 wrote: post #60

Why do we believe that AI (if indeed we achieve human level AI) will have different outcome than the means of production or capital? It’s a winner takes all situation. Very few will accumulate all of the wealth of world. This time it will be more efficient than the Industrial Revolution, because not only you can produce the weapons for the meatbags to protect your wealth, you can even get rid of the meatbags and just…

Ironically, if 1 person had 99.99% of all the wealth in the world, I’m not entirely sure it would have as much meaning as one might assume. The one with the wealth would be effectively be unable to obtain greater wealth, power, or influence. Other this individual being able to command arbitrary amounts of goods and services, the rest would compete for the remaining scraps as we do today. Ironically, if they want tech…

For some people it's a zero sum game. If you have 99% of it, you won.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#187

Post by jameslk »

This discussion thread is so full of slippery slope fallacies and plot holes it’s so hard to take seriously. I think it’s safe to say nobody knows for sure how AI will exactly change the economy in the long term. Humans are complex and often unpredictably irrational (see also: behavioral economics), let alone stacking on assumptions about how technology might progress. It might as well be noise

It’s fun to speculate on a sci-fi level, but I don’t think the long term endgame is worth losing any sleep over yet

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#188

Post by mc32 »

BobbyTables2 wrote: post #177
dyauspitr wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well yes, that how it has always been. But if robots do the labor we don’t have to abide by that nonsense anymore. It’s a paradigm shift. I realize we’re probably not going to see it in our lifetimes but that will be the norm in the future. Also that extremely ingrained mindset of earning your keep is exactly what keeps most of the world working hard while the elite jetset and live a life of pleasure.

More than a mindset, it also takes quite a bit of money to live in a permanent vacation 24/7, even modestly. Aside from the income, employment also has a way of occupying one’s time. Without that, one would often spend additional funds on various forms of entertainment (books, movies, crafts, travel, etc.)…

Without direction or a pull in life people tend to self-destruct. Even the wealthy are susceptible to this. Hollywood nepotites are a nice example: they live off their parents's wealth or easily acquired money and self-destroy themselves. They are not engaging in higher pursuits but rather basic degeneration. Not all of course; some do good, productive things.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#189

Post by jeremysalwen »

jaggederest wrote: post #109
dlev_pika wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is?

GDP = C + I + G + Xn = W + I + R + P (To grossly simplify the single-nation macroeconomic picture, at least) C = consumption I = investment (the first one) G = government Xn = net exports W = wages paid to labor I = interest on capital R = rent on resources and real property P = profit to entrepreneurs consumption ~= wages, so if wages go to zero, the economy massively shrinks unless government steps in with somethin…

Wages could go up, it's just in the form of trillionare paying another trillionare a trillion dollars a day. GDP would be looking rosy!

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#190

Post by lumost »

jameslk wrote: post #171
whatever1 wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the only way that matters. They will corner finite resources and land. Now if we are lucky and the owners are humans with a good heart (and not AI), maybe there is some room for some people (aka provide authentic experiences)

> They will corner finite resources and land. They need a lot of money to do that. Where do they get it all from? Not the jobless masses I presume? Investors don’t usually like to invest in companies that aren’t going to eventually earn any revenue either

The abstraction of capital and money get a bit funny when wealth is sufficiently concentrated. If there is a monopsomy (one buyer), then they can largely dictate the price of anything. If they also control violent coercion via a captured state or other means, then they can compel production at that price point.

The idea of capitalism only really makes sense when wealth is reasonably distributed such that there is still reasonable competition in both the marketplace and control of the state.

Post reply on HN