If AIs become smart enough to outperform a critical mass of humans across the board, that's the singularity and whilst the economic model says all humans out of jobs means no consumers, the model isn't really valid anymore because the underlying assumptions are just broken too, so you can't take the model too seriously. Obviously it would be very disruptive but the demand destruction economic model just isn't making useful predictions anymore.
The dead economy theory
871–880 of 1001 posts
Re: The dead economy theory
#872I think this article underestimates how weird things could get if we had low employment but a vast surplus of material goods. I don’t think a society has ever really been in that position
Totally - the (useful) economic models they are bringing are being extrapolated into very unusual territory!
Re: The dead economy theory
#873The fact that this could happen is widely known and has been talked about for years now. What to do about it is the real issue. I've seen David Shapiro and many others tangentially talk about UBI and similar "post AI economics". The dream was that the machines could do the housework whilst we all painted, wrote music and built beautiful wood furniture in our sheds. It still could be that way, but we need to sort out…
> I feel like 20 or 30 years ago, the average person seemed to have more disposable income.
Big if true but is it true?
Re: The dead economy theory
#874I quit Reddit because it became infected with the delusion. Now, it appears, Hacker News has as well, and I think my days here may be numbered as the discourse here is not based on reality. LLMs are largely useless except for writing code and marketing copy, but everyone here seems to be convinced already that they're going to supplant all knowledge workers. Yet, no one can give me a body of examples of any companies…
Of the same mind. It's a mass panic with overtones of covid. The only explanation I can think of is that most of those who are convinced that AI is going to make engineering redundant are those who've never ventured into the deeper engineering water; never experienced large-scale product engineering and support etc (or have forgotten what it's like).
If there were real gains to be had, we'd see the biggest adopters pulling ahead of their competitors and gaining unassailable leads. It's not happening... Where are the companies which are breaking out and crushing their competitors? Why haven't there been breakouts? Why is software quality seeming (subjectively) to be going in reverse?
All we’ve got is a boatloads of slop, a tsunami of cloned products that their ‘creators’ don’t understand, everything being overrun by bots. It’s just a tidal wave of dross. Where’s the value?
Re: The dead economy theory
#875Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If AI suddenly makes it possible for a law firm to be run with a skeleton crew, then what's stopping all those people you fired from starting new law companies, where AI also does most of the work, and competing with you for the same market? Money. They won't have the money to pay for the tokens, or the best models, because they'll be unemployed. They also won't have the connections to get the clients. When you're…
Eventually AI-run banks will refuse credit to non-AI customers, directly or indirectly
It's nice to know they picked up their training data's penchant for racism in loans.
Re: The dead economy theory
#876Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We see the start of it already, when just two individuals have a combined wealth on the order of a trillion dollars. That inequality is not going down, only upwards. Isn't there an inconsistency here? You've set up this narrative of businesses as being the only entities with money (wealth?) but then singled out two individuals. Also, how do calls for equality of wealth address the inequality in contribution of valu…
Businesses will still be owned or at heavily influenced by individuals and it is those individuals that will be able to steer how those business’ capital is allocated (including towards themselves).
Would you rather AI steer the capital?
Re: The dead economy theory
#877Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I foresee a wave of entrepreneurship coming. why would anyone pay anyone else for anything when they could just get an AI to do it? any service would now be worthless, there will be people with hardware and people without. 3 futures: one where the hardware is shared. one where it is not. one where the first person with enough of it kills everyone else.
Why would everyone want to do everything themselves? No comparative advantage at all and infinitely capable robots?
The entire discussion is predicated on the arrival of an AI future where AI can do any human labor at incredibly low costs and all but eliminating the value of human expertise. If getting something done resembles "doing everything themselves" then that future did not arrive.
Re: The dead economy theory
#878Earlier quoted context omitted.
It has become a meme at this point but this sentence still stands: "The underlying purpose of AI is to allow wealth to access skill while removing from the skilled the ability to access wealth".
Taste and experience are so much more important than the raw talent. You can't fix this with money. https://youtube.com/shorts/akcSX81KOv4
havent heard taste being a defining factor in building farming robots that can replace labor.
"doing shit fast and good enough" seems to be a much better fitness function here
Re: The dead economy theory
#879Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would everyone want to do everything themselves? No comparative advantage at all and infinitely capable robots?
The entire discussion is predicated on the arrival of an AI future where AI can do any human labor at incredibly low costs and all but eliminating the value of human expertise. If getting something done resembles "doing everything themselves" then that future did not arrive.
The AI would solve all your problems without even needed to prompted in any way?
Re: The dead economy theory
#880Earlier quoted context omitted.
And all it cost was 15+ years of life?
It doesn't cost life to eat modestly and live smaller than you can afford, you live life while doing this. Many think the best part of their life was when they were young and poor, its not a bad life to have low costs so you can live stress free.
Unless you think that the rich experiences of life are what make life worth living, that money grants you access to some of those richest experiences, and that you are more able to fully appreciate and incorporate those experiences into your personhood at a younger age.