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

The dead economy theory

owenmcgrann.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

881–890 of 1001 posts

Re: The dead economy theory

#881

Post by ijk »

9rx wrote: post #705
spondelkryp wrote: post #91

>The US horse population grew from nine million in 1840 to twenty-one million by 1900, seemingly immune to technological change. Within sixty years of the internal combustion engine, the population collapsed by eighty-eight percent. I think this is a very interesting and chilling point, especially if you draw the parallel literally. For quite some time, I was pondering the question:"Who is buying though?". I.e if you…

> I.e if you automate workers out of labor, who are we selling these AI services to? Those who were formally workers? Remember, money is debt. It is an IOU that, sometime in the future, allows you to receive something of value (e.g. food, shelter, etc.) that was previously owed to you. Profit occurs when you give more than you receive. That's okay in the short term because you still might exercise calling the debt ov…

Historically one pattern this took was patronage. Most famously associated with sponsoring artists, but historically it covered a wide variety of professions. The patron gets power, influence, the ability to call on a guy who can do the thing, and so on.

Of course the first thing we replaced with AI was artists, so expect more exclusively as the lower rungs of patronage clients fall off the economic ladder.

Re: The dead economy theory

#882

Post by extraextra »

This article is a work of fiction, interesting to read as entertainment, but definitely not a rigorous model.

The premise that just because a lot of investment goes into AI infrastructure means that it has to displace the entire workforce globally is wrong to begin with.

It even admits at the end that the scenario presented is unlikely: "I don’t want to dwell on whether AI can do what these companies claim. It may well be able to, though the current evidence suggests the gap between pitch and product is vast, and serious economists think the productivity gains are a fraction of what the industry projects."

It begs the question, what's the point in being alarmist and anxious about something that even you claim it's unlikely to happen?

Re: The dead economy theory

#883

Post by phendrenad2 »

> The dead economy is not one where nothing happens. Plenty will happen. The GDP might even go up; AI-related investments are already propping it up. The dead economy is one where plenty happens and none of it requires you. Where the productive capacity of civilization has been captured by a system you have no stake in, no input into, and no vote on. Where the people who built it told you they don’t think you should have a say

Who cares what they think? If the people feel that the economy is bad, the economy is bad. Full stop. Unless the tech oligarchs remove human labor entirely, there will always be a mortal threat to them posed by a disenfranchised population.

That's where this article loses the plot. Even if the world is just AI buying and selling goods and services to itself, so what? That's not a "dead economy", in the "secretly dead but only the wealthy notice" that's "dead economy" as in "french revolution is ongoing so commerce has taken a pause".

Re: The dead economy theory

#884

Post by DangitBobby »

gls2ro wrote: post #725
kipchak wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is already to some extent a solved problem. The top 10% of households in the US for example are 50% of spending, the "horses" to a large extent already don't matter to the economy. This is similar to the relationship between US consumers and workers in undeveloped nations during globalization. Historically this tends to be resolved when it creates an unsustainable level of political instability, but there are ma…

I keep reading this idea and I think something is missing. Lets take this to the extreme: only 2 people remain with capital and AI all the rest are replaced. Now these two people how do they make money? they pay each other so there is no extra value created thus the amount of money as value symbol remains constant. But here is an even more interesting question: As their AI can create anything why would they pay each…

Different AIs will be optimized for different types of tasks, or have completely different capabilities e.g. huge data access versus physical bodies. It could be more efficient for different firms to optimize and specialize their hardware and software for these use-cases and exchange for use of the labor of the other rather than for everyone to have a fully generalized fleet. I imagine this will be true even for incredibly advanced AI but who knows.

Re: The dead economy theory

#885

Post by Eextra953 »

iliaxj wrote: post #457

The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. 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? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…

Lawyers will be fine they will work with legislators to make it illegal for AI to practice law. Then, even if the lawyers job is mostly presenting the work of a legal AI, they will still be employed. Other knowledge workers will need to wisen up and do the same.

Edit: same for any profession that requires professional accreditation: lawyers, doctors, cpas, professional engineers, etc.

Re: The dead economy theory

#886

Post by sham1 »

jjkaczor wrote: post #252
spondelkryp wrote: post #91

>The US horse population grew from nine million in 1840 to twenty-one million by 1900, seemingly immune to technological change. Within sixty years of the internal combustion engine, the population collapsed by eighty-eight percent. I think this is a very interesting and chilling point, especially if you draw the parallel literally. For quite some time, I was pondering the question:"Who is buying though?". I.e if you…

Curtis Yarvin, who pals around with Peter Thiele posted in 2008 on how to deal with "non-productive" people: "convert them into biodiesel, which can help power the Muni buses." Of course, he was "just joking" and it is a "humane alternative" to genocide... These are the people shaping politics, tech and the economy...

It seems that Yarvin didn't realise -- accidentally or more probably intentionally -- that the society in Soylent Green was not supposed to be taken as a model to emulate. It's not supposed to be a documentary! To even joke about it is telling.

As a tech industry we'll probably be complacent on whatever is coming up in the future, no matter if it's something like this or something far more insidious. But hey, some of our class got very wealthy and got to enjoy material prosperity so it's all good, right? People would chase ever higher wages and shiny trinkets and end up working for Evil Megacorps because "one needs to be able to afford to live comfortably".

Re: The dead economy theory

#887

Post by arthurofbabylon »

While I am ideologically aligned with the author (ie, humans matter) and agree with their proposed interventions (progressive taxation, spread the base of capital across society, aggressive antitrust enforcement) and appreciate the thrust of the essay, I’m doubtful of the underlying predicate that human labor will be replaced with AI.

I don’t believe we have seen AI-driven layoffs yet (despite the CEO’s prognostications and suspect justifications). I personally have more to do than ever despite “AI being able to do everything I can do” (‡). I still want to speak to a human at the company I am a client of. And how many AI bloggers even know what a nurse at a hospital does?

I agree with the author’s repeated statement and implication that it is all about the human. The human is the lynchpin. Imagine for a moment this “dead economy,” or instead imagine a virtualized economy that is just incredible with trillions of this and trillions of that, absolute abundance, perfect chemical processing, impeccable design, unlimited resources. How much is that worth without humans?

Further, in many societies humans became irrelevant to labor in its simplest definition decades ago, without becoming economically irrelevant. If the US lost 10% of its able-bodied workforce economists would be primarily concerned with lost consumption, and not production. Apparently this “human labor” is a lot more than its superficial and material interpretation.

What I don’t agree with is the fickleness assigned to the human role. The human role is not a light or arbitrary one. It is the defining characteristic of our societal system that all subsequent characteristics rely upon and are derived from.

(‡ – Despite “AI being able to do everything I can do,” it cannot tie it together, because there is no such thing as agency in LLM’s. Probabilistic processes as n approaches infinity become gobbledygook at best. Deterministic interruptions are a necessity of agency.)

Re: The dead economy theory

#888

Post by gattr »

thomasfl wrote: post #751

AI will accelerate the decline in the world’s population. No job, no marriage and no kids will be the norm for most people. For many years to come. Some will say it’s good for the planet and especially for other species of vertebrates. Others will see it as a personal failure to not have any living offspring when they get old. In ancient Greece, Diana was the goddess of hunting, wildlife and personal freedom and Venu…

Nitpick: in Greek mythology it's Artemis and Aphrodite. Diana and Venus are Roman equivalents.

Re: The dead economy theory

#889

Post by MisterTea »

iliaxj wrote: post #457

The article doesn't seem to take his train of thought quite far enough. 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? And ultimately, if AI gets to be so good that it can competently do a lawyer's job, what reason do big law…

> I foresee a wave of entrepreneurship coming. AI will empower more people to provide useful services directly to other people, with less middlemen and menial work, and more direct problem solving.

What services would those be? You already stated the AI will eliminate the need for companies in many areas so I'm not sure how this fits in with that statement.

Re: The dead economy theory

#890

Post by gom_jabbar »

matrix87 wrote: post #604
wcfrobert wrote: post #299

> Turn three: the company that fired its workers to save money discovers that its customers were, in aggregate, other companies’ workers. Revenue growth stalls. The AI subscription that was supposed to be an investment in efficiency turns out to be a contribution to the destruction of its own market. If we take it to the extreme, the final solution to this problem is secessionism: a fully non-human AI economy where t…

Nick Land already predicted this

Yes. Here's one relevant quote that touches on autonomization and secession:

> Most simply, there is the utilitarian order, in which capital establishes itself as the competitively-superior solution to prior purposes (production of human use-values), and the intelligenic order in which it accomplishes its self-escalation (mechanization, autonomization, and ultimately secession).

Nick Land (2014). Freedoom (Prelude-1a) in Xenosystems Blog. Retrieved from github.com/cyborg-nomade/reignition

Post reply on HN