Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#381

Post by risyachka »

dragonwriter wrote: post #158
risyachka wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

> if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. No, the cost of goods will be the cost of the robots involved in production amortized over their production lifetime. Which, if robots are more productive than humans, will not be “near zero” from the point of view of any human without ownership of at least the number of robots needed to produce the goods that they w…

The cost of robots will be zero because robots will mine ore, process it and make other robots.

Re: Replacement.ai

#382

Post by risyachka »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #166
risyachka wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

Sure... in 200 years. The trick is getting through the cultural/economic shifts required to get to that point without blowing up the earth in WW3.

I think the trick is to start preparing like it will happen in 10 years and hope it will take 200, otherwise wars are imminent.

Re: Replacement.ai

#383

Post by beeflet »

warent wrote: post #339
beeflet wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is not a bug, it is a law of nature. The world has limited resources, time and labor being one of them. The technology proposes a source of labor for the elites so abundant that they will not need to trade their wealth with the eaters. However much resources you consume, it will be too much to buy for your labor. You will be priced out of existence.

Elites unilaterally claiming and reaping the benefits of automation (i.e. consolidation of wealth) is not a law of nature.

It is. It's not something you can wave away with some new political system.

Automation results in centralization of power. It transforms labor-intensive work to capital-intensive work and reduces the leverage of the working class.

You could have a system that distributes wealth from automation to the newly-unemployed working class, but fundamentally the capital-owners are less dependent on the working class, so the working class will have no leverage to sustain the wealth distribution (you cannot strike if you don't have a job). You are proposing a fundamentally unstable political system.

It's like liebig's law of the minimum or any other natural law. You can try to make localized exceptions in politics, but you are futilely working against the underlying dynamics of the system which are inevitably realized in the long term.

Re: Replacement.ai

#384

Post by wahnfrieden »

NoOn3 wrote: post #247
wahnfrieden wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes wonder about what our governments would do if one of the businesses in their jurisdictions were to achieve AGI or other such destabilizing technology. If it were truly disruptive, why would these governments respect the ownership of such property and not seize it - toward whatever end authority desires. These businesses have little defense against that and simply trust that government will protect their o…

As we have almost seen, they will do absolutely nothing because they are afraid of losing to competing countries.

AGI is end game scenario. That is "winning". If a business wins it, then the government may not remain subservient to it no matter what free market conditions it had preserved beforehand, as long as it has the power to act.

Re: Replacement.ai

#386

Post by risyachka »

beeflet wrote: post #148
risyachka wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero. government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

There are still capital costs in producing the robots and infrastructure. So the costs of goods will be nonzero. >government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money So basicially what you are saying is that a government monopoly will control everything?

Government is people, it is not some corporation.

>> government monopoly

there is no monopoly if there is no market

Re: Replacement.ai

#387

Post by bee_rider »

andriesm wrote: post #278
leptons wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job. Wondering how long before people start setting datacenters on fire.

I find it hard to locate my sympathy button for people who smash and burn things built up by other people.

The act of destruction is not inherently evil, it is a matter of what it targets. You can burn down the Library of Alexandria or you can bust open a concentration camp. (These are just some extreme examples, some datacenter isn’t morally equal to either).

Re: Replacement.ai

#388

Post by serial_dev »

bittercynic wrote: post #374
didibus wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. -- Frank Herbert, Dune The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Those who will own machines that can match humans will have unprecedented power over others. In effect they'll grow more and more to be the government. Even now, compan…

>The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Often, yes, but in a more functional society it would be the mechanism we collectively use to prevent a few people from amassing excessive wealth and power.

Where did this ever work out? It’s extremely common that policies are universally hated by the people, yet the people in power do it anyway.

Re: Replacement.ai

#389

Post by jimnotgym »

didibus wrote: post #363
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. -- Frank Herbert, Dune The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Those who will own machines that can match humans will have unprecedented power over others. In effect they'll grow more and more to be the government. Even now, compan…

Voting for it has become really difficult in countries with a First Past The Post voting systems, where the only parties that could win are comprehensively captured by the elite
Post reply on HN