After the AI Crash • Hacker News Board

Re: After the AI Crash

#231

Post by vrganj » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 5:54 PM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #230

vrganj wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Land is an inherently limited resource Yes, that's my point exactly. > whatever process exists to obtain land after the singularity, the robots can do it Who's robots? Who will get all this land? And its spoils, and the robots that multiply them? Because your utopia sounds like a recipe for making our oligarchs even more powerful at the expense of the rest of us. It sounds like a slide into neofeudalism. The alread…

You are missing the point: robotic labor does not create anything "at the expense of the rest of us". It's not some stock market speculation, but real productivity increase. The pie of wealth is not fixed, the robots actually enlarge it, massively. The robot owning class wil not be some exclusive billionaire club: as the price of robots comes down (inevitable, with any technology, doubly so with one that can make its…

I believe you are missing the point.

You've already conceded that there is inherently limited resources like land. These are going to be the limiting factor in any economic system, the key question is always how you distribute these.

Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then extract the resources from there to build even more robots etc.

No resources for you and me. No robots for us either. Why are you talking about prices going down? We're making money obsolete, remember? Why would they even sell us robots when they already own all the land and all the resources to make as many robots as they want? Sure, the pie will get bigger. But you ain't getting a slice.

What leverage would the vast majority of people have? If the oligarchs own all the robots and land and resources, how do we even ensure basic subsistence? Our labor is worthless. Our money is worthless. What stops them from... simply not sharing? The goodness of their hearts?

Re: After the AI Crash

#232

Post by goatlover » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:44 PM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #223

vrganj wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money is just an abstraction for resources. You'll still need land, energy, minerals etc.

Robots can mine minerals and build power plants. They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

In this speculative scenario, robots could do that, but they can't just do it anywhere as it depends on where the minerals and land is at and who owns it, where power plants can be built, how supplies get shipped.

The idea that economics goes out the windows in a post-AGI world is highly speculative and not a situation that has ever happened in the real world.

Re: After the AI Crash

#233

Post by goatlover » Thu, Jul 30, 2026, 6:46 PM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #220

goatlover wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will still need land, energy and resources. They will also be subject to the wrath of voters and angry unemployed mobs.

> They will still need land, energy and resources. Human-level robots can mine resources and build power plants. Perhaps you need some initial land to build your first robotic base, but robots can also perform work to earn you money to buy more land afterwards.

Everyone is not just going to be able to tell their robots to buy land where the precious minerals are.

Re: After the AI Crash

#234

Post by unknownfuture » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 1:51 AM UTC

neonstatic wrote: post #201

unknownfuture wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is the old saw about the market staying irrational. You can't time the market reliably. Ultimately the base advice remains sound even if it's couched in a bit of conspiracy: diversify and allocate your assets based on your risk profile, as informed by your retirement timeline.

> You can't time the market reliably. There's an entire profession doing that: traders. But for most people, yes, it is not worth it. No argument there. I just don't like conspiracy theories and that line of thought, it's cheap and stupid.

> There's an entire profession doing that: traders.

Well no, there's an entire profession trying to time the market. The data is not favourable as to their ability to actually do it at a rate greater than random chance.

But.

I also don't think it's reasonable to label as a conspiracy a claim that markets are rife with cheating, insider trading, etc. Just look at the current US Presidents profit margins.

Is that systematic, organized, conspiratorial, rich v poor market rigging? No. But it would be naive, I think, to believe that the rich aren't significantly advantaged in the market in ways that the average person isn't. There is, after all, a reason payment for order flow exists as a valuable thing.

Re: After the AI Crash

#235

Post by Marha01 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:28 AM UTC

goatlover wrote: post #232

Marha01 wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots can mine minerals and build power plants. They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

In this speculative scenario, robots could do that, but they can't just do it anywhere as it depends on where the minerals and land is at and who owns it, where power plants can be built, how supplies get shipped. The idea that economics goes out the windows in a post-AGI world is highly speculative and not a situation that has ever happened in the real world.

I did not say economics goes out of the window, I said monetary economics.

With cheap robotic labor, many resource mines that are currently not economically viable will become viable, so basic resources will become much more plentiful.

The new economics will probably be based on needed energy, direct tally of needed material resources, or the number of robot-hours something takes to do.

Re: After the AI Crash

#236

Post by Marha01 » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:42 AM UTC

vrganj wrote: post #231

Marha01 wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are missing the point: robotic labor does not create anything "at the expense of the rest of us". It's not some stock market speculation, but real productivity increase. The pie of wealth is not fixed, the robots actually enlarge it, massively. The robot owning class wil not be some exclusive billionaire club: as the price of robots comes down (inevitable, with any technology, doubly so with one that can make its…

I believe you are missing the point. You've already conceded that there is inherently limited resources like land. These are going to be the limiting factor in any economic system, the key question is always how you distribute these. Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then…

> Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then extract the resources from there to build even more robots etc.

The speed at which the availability of the robots to the general population increases will be much faster than the speed at which the initial robot owners would be able to buy land, and exclude others from using it. There are trillionaires today, extremely rich people have existed for a long time, yet they still own only a small fraction of all available land.

There could be a class of people who do not own any robots and thus are dependent on the goodwill of the robot owners to get anything they need to live, but this will be a small fraction of the population, equivalent to the homeless today. Definitely not the majority.

Re: After the AI Crash

#237

Post by hakfoo » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 4:56 AM UTC

tedmiston wrote: post #175

jsnell wrote: post #147

> analysts have estimated that it will take $2 trillion a year in revenue to pay for the infrastructure that has already been built I doubt any credible analyst has claimed that. What's the total AI capex that's already been spent? About $1T? It's a pretty absurd idea that those DCs need to make $2T/year for 5-7 years -> $10T-14T over their lifetime to break even. (Yes, this is nitpicking in the sense that there are…

The post is just full of half-baked conjectures masquerading as facts... combined with "things they read" by unspecified authors and sources... the author seems to prefer engaging in AI doomerism as opposing to actually understanding . > Diseconomies of Scale. Every new technology I can think of thrived, in part, due to economies of scale, where the larger the industry grew, the more efficient it got. AI is going in…

It's possible that the demands on the model are growing faster than it gets efficient though. A lot of the improvement in output quality/metrics come from more churning and passes.

You could argue that a RTX5090 needs less power than a 1996 3Dfx Voodoo 1 to render GLQuake at 320x200/60fps, but it's rarely being used for that.

Re: After the AI Crash

#238

Post by vrganj » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 7:15 AM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #236

vrganj wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you are missing the point. You've already conceded that there is inherently limited resources like land. These are going to be the limiting factor in any economic system, the key question is always how you distribute these. Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then…

> Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then extract the resources from there to build even more robots etc. The speed at which the availability of the robots to the general population increases will be much faster than the speed at which the initial robot owners would be able…

> The speed at which the availability of the robots to the general population increases will be much faster than the speed at which the initial robot owners would be able to buy land, and exclude others from using it. There are trillionaires today, extremely rich people have existed for a long time, yet they still own only a small fraction of all available land.

What are you basing this prediction on?

If you're a robot maker, already part of the oligarchy class, and you knew that robots would rapidly accelerate resource acquisition, why sell the robots at all? Money is about to become useless, remember? Why let the plebes have robots? They'll just use up resources you could hoard.

I feel like you predict the end of market economics, but at the same time make a bunch of assumptions based on them. Why would availability increase, price decrease etc etc if we're ending that whole resource allocation system? It'll be a giant landgrab by the ultra rich to grow and cement their empires, why wouldn't it be?

Re: After the AI Crash

#239

Post by watwut » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 8:33 AM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #224

watwut wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mining and farming. So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? If your actual plan is such fascist takeover where AI companies bully everyone else, then everyone else is entirely valid to wage war against you before you are close to that goal. > Data center consumption of water is miniscule…

> So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines. > The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the…

> What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

There are no money in your world, they cant buy them. Why would the owners sell anyway? Selling the land would mean they have absolutely nothing except money they can not start new business with.

>The water is getting too expensive now. [...] Because human-level robots do not exist yet

We are not carrying water in buckets. It is all done with technology now.

> Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work

No. It exists because people who have thing too much of a thing A and a little of the a thing B. Before money, people would barter - I will give you 5 eggs and you will give me 10 apples. Money were invented to facilitate the barter.

Re: After the AI Crash

#240

Post by watwut » Fri, Jul 31, 2026, 8:34 AM UTC

Marha01 wrote: post #219

watwut wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence". AGI itself produces nothing. Also, if there are no money so 80%-100% of people move to barter instead of money to trade stuff. Same thing, just less effective.

> No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence". What more does it require? Spoiler: now you tell me what more is needed, and I would then tell you how to use intelligent robots to obtain it.

Land to mine from. And yes, you can use robot to beat up the owner and steal it. Then again, you dont need it to be intelligent to be violent.