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

241–250 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#241

Post by pixl97 »

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.

?but I would hope that we can collectively agree to unplug them should that situation arise.

Buwahaha. Jesus Christ, people won't unplug them, half the bastards here would marry them... then defend their AI girlfriend to the death.

No my friend, we won't just unplug the data centers.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#242

Post by stephc_int13 »

qsera wrote: post #235
stephc_int13 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>They still need to be fed though, energy, iron, etc. But just like humans can help each other, robots could help each other too. This includes digging up various resources, finding means of power generation etc..

Of course, but none of them is working for free, each consume energy and materials.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#243

Post by solumunus »

ransom1538 wrote: post #205
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…

"Why is it a winner takes all situation?" I have lawyer agent x10 better than yours in a civil matter. Guess who wins. What value is second best lawyer?

It depends on the evidence available.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#244

Post by stephc_int13 »

qsera wrote: post #235
stephc_int13 wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>They still need to be fed though, energy, iron, etc. But just like humans can help each other, robots could help each other too. This includes digging up various resources, finding means of power generation etc..

Otherwise you could say that humans are working for free as well, as they can cultivate their own food and even build themselves by making babies.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#246

Post by Maxatar »

AngryData wrote: post #193
jameslk wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Most people wouldn’t be content to live in one room huts with thatched roofs and no hospitals or antibiotics. There might be some that do, but most prefer having more things and “better” lives. If we kept progressing, we’d look back at the era we live today and consider it just as primitive

Please, not even poor starving destitute people in 3rd world countries live in thatched huts anymore. Also antibiotics are not that expensive, especially if you buy them for "fish" and get them closer to production cost. You could sell some watermelons and afford antibiotics.

>Please, not even poor starving destitute people in 3rd world countries live in thatched huts anymore.

UN data on housing somewhat disagrees with you. The somewhat is only because people living in such housing aren't starving/destitute, but they are still incredibly poor.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#247

Post by david_shi »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #218
Jtarii wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately a lot of (economics) research is co-opted to reinforce and obfuscate in service of power.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#248

Post by Maxatar »

wyre wrote: post #158
pirate787 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe critique his ideas instead of his predictions. Piketty is an economist, not a future-teller.

What's the significance of his "ideas" with respect to economics if they don't lead to actual predictions?

Why did he decide to make these predictions if his ideas supposedly have no bearing on how predictions are created?

Does economics no longer even have the pretense of being a science, which by its very nature exists to make testable predictions?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#249

Post by dosisking »

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…

> 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.

This is the premise of the Star Trek TOS episode with Harry Mudd "I, Mudd"

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#250

Post by dlev_pika »

jeremysalwen wrote: post #189
jaggederest wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

This is kinda what’s been happening for a while -

Wages are decoupled from consumption, and it is increasingly aggregated in the higher income brackets.

This is the ‘K’ economy.

https://www.dallasfed.org/research/economics/2025/1125-yang-...

Post reply on HN