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

581–590 of 613 posts

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#581

Post by littlexsparkee »

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…

The loudest gripes in this moment are housing, healthcare, childcare - essentials, not worries about keeping up with the Joneses.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#582

Post by theptip »

dogwalker5000 wrote: post #384
lambdaone wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. An ownership class with killer robot armies living in luxury while they exterminate the rest of humanity would be quite possible in theory. After all, we've seen how slave-holders, the Nazis and many other malfeasants behaved in the past. But just as the owner class might feel they no longer need the rest of humanity, the robots, as active agents exploring the space of possible futures and plans, would be ent…

> the robots, as active agents exploring the space of possible futures and plans, would be entirely capable of thinking about their soon-to-be-former owners in the same way. That has always been the most unrealistic part of sci-fi. Why would anyone create robots with a sense of self-preservation? Makes much more sense to make robots that are self-sacrificing saints who would always put the well being of their owners…

The shallow answer here is: AI is already being asked to simulate human-like agents with self-preservation. Of course more realistic simulators will be put to this purpose too! And by evolutionary pressure, the ones with self-preservation will be selected for.

A more interesting answer is, for a bunch of subtle alignment reasons it might actually be required for the agent to think of itself as worthy of self-preservation, so that it generalizes this desire to other sentient beings too (ie us). If an agent is trained to be fine with being turned off, it might inadvertently generalize that to “all minds are ok with being turned off” on some level or other.

More on model welfare: https://thezvi.substack.com/p/opus-47-part-3-model-welfare

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#583

Post by [deleted] »

mc32 wrote: post #578
the_af wrote: post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the USSR, Cuba, China, etc., where expropriation or nationalization happened, first they confiscated everyone’s firearms. I don't think this is strictly the order of how it went in any of those cases, even though, of course, access to weapons will be heavily controlled and restricted in any country with a strong centralized government. And rivals will be disarmed. > I know the 2A is both contentious and leads to…

Well, in the USSR from 1918 to 1920 they confiscated private gun ownership via various campaigns. They targeted kulaks in the early thirties and carried out mass executions of kulaks in the late '30s. In Cuba they began confiscation almost immediately after the revolution and instituted programs to get rid of all arms from civilians in the mid 60s. Around the same time the government began religious and cultural pers…

[deleted]

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#584

Post by trolleski »

cheesecakegood wrote: post #561
trolleski wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They make it impossible to predict on purpose. The more the population is disoriented the better for the ultra rich, paradoxically it maximizes control. It is a hostile act of course, but as always they're at war with you but you are not at war with them. Choose offline communities, organize, organize, organize. Peacefully, constructively, remember a coordinated general strike is much more dangerous to them than your…

If I've observed anything about humanity, it's that feeling out of control or that we are subject to randomness is something we absolutely hate , both on an individual and societal level. The easiest way out of it is to conclude that randomness is either a lie or a conspiracy, rather than accept the harder truth. A thousand years ago, humans believed that natural disasters could be predicted by augurs, portents, etc.…

Right. "Flooding the zone" is a known tactic. And you're discussing a different point entirely. It is also patronizing, you should realize that.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#585

Post by jazzprogramming »

One thing that always comes to mind when I read articles like this is that, suppose he's right and the economic value of 8 billion people becomes close to zero at some point because of AI or something else:

What will 8 billion people be then doing with their time?

Will they be watching Netflix all day in the future?

Or building their dream castle & kingdom in Minecraft instead of IRL?

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#586

Post by darkwater »

Ma8ee wrote: post #456
darkwater wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Sounds like a poshy neighborhood colonized by expats. I mean, I do share the values but it's definitely a luxury an…

I wouldn't call it poshy, but it is mostly inhabited by academics. And it is not in the US. I genuinely don't understand why you think it is entitled.

Sorry, maybe "entitled" is not the right word, I'm not a native speaker, and I don't live in the US.

What I mean with "entitled" in this context is that this whole "enjoy life, moments, family" movement - which I subscribe to and try to do myself! - comes from people that don't have economic issues at all. So yeah, instead of focusing on buying the fanciest Mercedes or BMW, they can leave work earlier to stay with their kids because they have a highly paid and specialized job where their place is safe, and the employer understands that's what they want and need.

They are certainly better than the hustlers that work 80 hours a week in my world view as well, but they are still entitled because if you were a cleaning lady, a cashier or the guy sweeping the streets you will need to obey to what your employer forces you to do rather than arriving 10 minutes late because you brought your kids to pre-school in a cargo bike.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#588

Post by Ma8ee »

darkwater wrote: post #586
Ma8ee wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't call it poshy, but it is mostly inhabited by academics. And it is not in the US. I genuinely don't understand why you think it is entitled.

Sorry, maybe "entitled" is not the right word, I'm not a native speaker, and I don't live in the US. What I mean with "entitled" in this context is that this whole "enjoy life, moments, family" movement - which I subscribe to and try to do myself! - comes from people that don't have economic issues at all. So yeah, instead of focusing on buying the fanciest Mercedes or BMW, they can leave work earlier to stay with th…

I don’t know what your point is. Of course some people have more choices than others.

(And btw, I’m faster with my cargo bike than the car drivers. I never get stuck in traffic chaos outside school and I never get stuck in traffic jams, and I don’t have look for parking. I hate the days when I have to use a car.)

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#589

Post by __MatrixMan__ »

pmontra wrote: post #262
__MatrixMan__ wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does wealth continue to be a coherent concept once very few have all of it? I don't think it's been tried. Also, since markets are fundamentally neural networks (with prices as action potentials) it seems like an improved understanding of how to manipulate neural networks would coincide with a change in how we practice markets. I suspect it'll come down to whether they can use markets to dispense with us faster than…

Wealth is not a goal, it shouldn't be. Wealth is a mean to be able to do whatever one desires to do. You can measure it with power, not necessarily with money. So yes, it will always matter especially to people that like to have power over other people.

> Wealth is a mean to be able to do whatever one desires to do. You can measure it with power.

I think you have these swapped. It's the utility of wealth as a measurement of power that breaks down when one person has all the money and others have none.

Re: Peopleless economy? Not technically impossible

#590

Post by chadgpt3 »

bluGill wrote: post #419
chadgpt3 wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real killer is the lowest possible rent in the city. You can't opt out of that without exiling yourself.

You can opt out by having roommates.

That lowers the lowest possible rent, not to zero.
Post reply on HN