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

311–320 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#311

Post by crazylogger »

jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127
jameslk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > 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. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

> 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.

This is equivalent to buying 3 extra days of free time with 60% of your income. You want more (holidays, in this case) and you buy them with work.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#312

Post by Ma8ee »

jameslk wrote: post #287
Ma8ee wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you instead imagine the perspective of anyone from 16th century, you’d realise we are already living as kings. We have way more food and clothes than we can eat and use, we have self driving carriages, magic devices with entertainment in our pockets, not to mention that almost all our kids live to adulthood. At what point do we say that we don’t need to waste more of earth’s resources and instead find time to enjo…

Well that's kinda my point. If we could all afford yachts tomorrow because AI robot factories made it a commodity like Swiss watches of yore[0], we'd all be buying yachts. And instead of bickering about not being able to afford yachts, people would be bickering about the rich asshole with the limited edition Aston Martin space yacht, while they could only afford the 3-speed helipad Temu yacht 0. https://www.paulgraha…

What a miserable world view. What do you need a yacht to when you have two weeks of holiday every year?

While I agree that many people are status seekers, that can be different things. Where I live, a yacht is vulgar. Even a bigger car is looked down on if it isn't for some specific utility. Status is showing your care for the climate by leaving your kids in daycare with a cargo bike. Status is being able to leave work early to be able to spend time in the afternoon with your family, or do so some garden work. No one wants to be the one with an expensive car but not knowing your own kids.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#313

Post by lan321 »

chongli wrote: post #181
nextaccountic wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Many dream of getting a van or a shack in bumfuck nowhere and doing what they want. Essentially living as an almost homeless person because the price premium to sleeping rough is worth it. Hell, I'm not a camping enjoyer, but a van with a starlink and space for my bike sounds enough. Sadly, I still need an address registration tho.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#314

Post by spaqin »

mc32 wrote: post #76
dyauspitr wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whatever, let it happen. Humans working on anything other than exactly what they want to do is stupid. The few will eventually have to give the masses the necessities at some point though that can happen in one of two ways, from the very beginning or wrested forcefully after a painful era. Both are better than the current paradigm of what is essentially slavery with extra steps. A world where a human can work exactly…

I think everyone who is able should earn their keep. From ants to lions, to survive and live, even if in meager spurts they must put in some work.

Your abilities, while not taken away, suddenly become close to useless as there's a far cheaper substitute, and rationally there is no point in hiring you for anything. Good luck earning your keep now.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#316

Post by AngryData »

pixl97 wrote: post #203
AngryData wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

EMPs are generally much harder to make than one would expect unless you plan on setting off nukes, which generally pisses everyone off. The particular problem with organized resistance movements is the ever present monitoring of everything everywhere. This is where AI has a one up on us meat bags. When everything you do is logged and correlated the leaders of the resistance may find it hard to hide. Simply put Ukrain…

I mean explosively pumped generators aren't new and were invented in the 50s. The hardest part is getting a fast enough explosive, however it doesn't take that much effort or chemistry knowledge to make supersonic explosives if someone needed it. And neodynium magnets are pretty common consumer products these day.

It is harder that just blowing stuff up, but when one side is using killer robots and other advanced electronics tech it doesn't seem like much effort in comparison. We already see criminal elements making guns and drugs and narco submarines, a fast explosive and magnets doesn't seem beyond reach to me.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#317

Post by athrowaway3z »

blks wrote: post #295
stephc_int13 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don’t feed machines with bitcoins or any kind of currency, you feed them with Joules, Iron, Copper, rare earths etc.

Machines don’t exist by themselves, someone owns them.

There are quite a few machines connected to the internet right now with no owner. Boxes forgotten over time and power consumption not enough to matter.

If we keep on the trajectory of energy usage and computation, in 50y you might have the same with smarter models. Also, a virus could have its own bitcoins to rent compute and work for more.

Ownership is as much a social construct as Money or The Economy. Do with that what you want.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#318

Post by bcjdjsndon »

jbxntuehineoh wrote: post #127
jameslk wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why the masses should consume is to motivate them to work. The masses work because they want to consume, not the other way around. Everyone wants more > 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. There’s a number of obstacles I can think of to get there, in a human governed world, where humans make…

> 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.

> If I could work two days a week for 40% of my current income I would take the opportunity in a heartbeat

What about never working for 2billion% more?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#319

Post by pjerem »

inglor_cz wrote: post #302
toasty228 wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's always the choice between flying cars and living in a hut made of cow dung, right? No in between is conceivable by the human brain, either boundless growth or the Neolithic

I am not sure if the choice is so binary, but neither am I sure whether you can sustain a reasonable compromise without a certain level of societal and economic complexity. A lot depends on what "in between" actually means. I think almost no one would be willing to return, say, to the early 1900s when it comes to medical science and available treatment options. Things like anti-retroviral therapy and CAR-T are just t…

> without a certain level of societal and economic complexity.

Well, the good news is that organizing societal and economic complexity and living into it is exactly what differentiate us from other species.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#320

Post by dominicrose »

It is frustrating to not be able to predict the future. How can you get married, have children, get a 25 year mortgage on a house, buy a car for comfort even though you don't absolutely need it? Even if you do consider buying a home, how do you know it's worth anything if you can't predict this particular place's future situation? Some countries tax enough to make the risk of buying quite high.

A leap of faith is required and sometimes things don't happen the way we expect but it's better than aiming for nothing.

Post reply on HN