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

211–220 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#211

Post by shimman »

ares623 wrote: post #152
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…

Or, what the billionaires are actually thinking, remove entire swathes of the population from the equation. Now the reasonable ones might think "hey, even if that sounds 'rational', isn't that very risky? What happens if the machines don't actually cut it? Then we'd be stuck with not enough people to support our lavish lifestyles? And we can't exactly spin up millions of people in an instant, so where does that leave…

You should check out "Four Futures" by Peter Frase. This would be the "extermination" future and like you I think it's the most likely one without extreme counteraction.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#212

Post by stephc_int13 »

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.

It is never really “for free”.

It appears free because machines, like perfect slaves, don’t ask to be paid for work.

They still need to be fed though, energy, iron, etc.

No matter how you turn it, it can’t be free. Meaning you can’t benefit from it without owning it or trading something.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#213

Post by crabmusket »

cousin_it wrote: post #147
baron816 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it a winner takes all situation? There’s really intense competition up and down the supply chain for AI. That competition is going to bring down costs for everything. It’s becoming cheaper and easier every day to start a company that will disrupt the established players and bring down prices. Everything will become commoditized. The winners in the end will be consumers, and the losers will be the big AI compan…

I think you and the parent comment are both wrong. The right analogy is something like a new species, which consumes resources and makes more of itself. The species is "AI", or "AI-empowered organization with a handful of humans on top", whichever way you like to think of it. It doesn't have to be winner-take-all, there can be many such things running around. But the point is humans can't compete with such things and…

A data centre the size of Gormenghast, with the remains of humanity clinging like limpets to the outer walls, trying to stay warm.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#214

Post by pixl97 »

pastel8739 wrote: post #175
whatever1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You will need electricity, water you will be producing waste etc. in your Tennessee house. Why would someone who owns all of the power and resources share with you? Really I don’t see any playable alternative other than near complete annihilation of human race. It’s very similar to a nuclear apocalypse. Very few get to survive.

Realistically though, if there are some humans left, they are going to want to live in a society. Humans are fundamentally social and I think the people in charge would eventually realize this. But then again rich people are not normal, so maybe not

>they are going to want to live in a society.

Now stop and imagine what kind of society the rich people you know and hear of would want to live in?

Do they want a bunch of poors around? Of course not. Do they want to give the money so they are not poor? Of course not. Would many of them just 'erase' said poor people. History says yes.

Do they want a bunch of dumb people around? Of course not. Do they want to give them education so they are not dumb? Of course not. Would many of them just 'erase' said dumb people. History says yes.

Do they want a bunch of ugly people around? Of course not. Do they want to give them plastic surgery, genetic manipulation so they are not ugly? Of course not. Would many of them 'erase' said ugly people. History says yes.

There are a number of people that already think that the Earths population should be culled back to a few million people. Giving people that believe this power seems to be a really good way to cause a genocide.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#215

Post by AngryData »

pirate787 wrote: post #141
smallmancontrov wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just remember that the US purged left-leaning economists during the cold war and the field re-grew under intense think-tank incentives towards the economic right, so if you think labor/capital dynamics might be important to the AI revolution you really ought to balance your "random" sampling of US economists with some Piketty (Atkinson, Stiglitz, Zucman -- but in an era where reading even one book is considered a her…

Piketty is just a marxist flailing around, backfilling data to fit his belief that communism is the solution for every problem. He's been spectacularly wrong in his predictions so far, for example he said Milei would be "devastating" for Argentina and the opposite is the case.

Anyone who flat out dismisses others work because they are "marxist" is only proclaiming their own ignorance on economic topics.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#216

Post by mc32 »

sosomoxie wrote: post #105
bluefirebrand wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you accept "fairly" distributed instead of "evenly"? I think it's fair to say that some jobs do actually deserve to be compensated more highly? Jobs that require special skills and training, or require taking on more responsibility? I don't think the problem is that some work earns different amounts of money. To me it seems that the problem is how much wealth is concentrating in such few hands, because the peop…

I would prefer "evenly" but "fairly" would be better than what we have now. If AI and robots are going to make infinite progress and replace all labor, then I definitely would want "evenly".

What would keep people from circumventing a roboticized society and forming their own human-based society? Buy good and services produced by other people and avoid and or penalize members who cheat -ostracize them. There can be parallel systems. Pretty much only communist systems prevent non-communist systems from operating. In capitalist systems communist systems that form from time to time fail because members grow disillusioned with the inevitable slackers and because they operate within a greater society can't just send slackers to gulags or re-educational camps.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#217

Post by pixl97 »

chongli wrote: post #133
jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

In theory in a robot economy you'll have 100% of the food and shelter you need to some standard, hopefully a decent one. The particular issue with how the world currently is is some people have 60% of their food and shelter while other people have 30000%

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#218

Post by CamperBob2 »

Jtarii wrote: post #57
david_shi wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in 'Metcalfe's law'–which states that the number of potential connections in a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants–becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005 or so, it will become clear that the Internet's impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine's."

Krugman is a bitch. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiJXALBX3KM

I wouldn't call Krugman nasty names, but I do have to wonder why anyone pays any attention to someone who has been so consistently and uniformly wrong about virtually everything he's commented upon. Even a Nobel should only earn you so much slack in life.

If you look at his track record, it's hard to explain without resorting to accusations of a humiliation fetish.

Post reply on HN