"There's less need to pay humans for their time to perform work, because you can replace that with capital"
At which point you run headlong into the paradox of productivity.
If you don't hire and pay the humans, then who is going to have the income to buy the output?
And then after that you have the problem of why anybody should operate the machines for longer than they need to provide what they require. There's a great belief amongst technologists that they can distribute output to everybody, but that still requires somebody to work longer hours than they need to provide for themselves. Why should they work Fridays to produce output for everybody else? After all those they are providing for can no longer produce anything of material value in exchange.
Until you have machines doing absolutely everything, there will need to be policies in place to ensure that the 'socially necessary labour' is distributed in terms of hours. Otherwise the default is a slave class who have most of their machine enhanced output confiscated for the benefit of other people simply to ensure they continue to work the 40 hour weeks necessary to produce all the output without the machines failing.
And if that labour requires incredibly high skill that only those with IQs over 140 can provide, then we have a fundamental problem. Collectively we can't give these people anything more to get them to work all those hours. They can provide for themselves all they materially need with the machines.
As Ali put it, "service to others is the rent we pay for our room here on earth". If we can no longer be of service to others, then we can't make the rent.
Shuffling money around doesn't fix that basic issue. I use up some of my finite life to help you because you are using up some of your finite life to help me.
EdwardDiego 3 days ago [-]
I feel like lesswrong writers always have an implied "something something, post-scarcity economy!" suffix in all their thinking.
That using AI for everything will be great because X, Y and Z, and then something something post-scarcity economy, now everyone can take the time to learn the Ressikan flute like Captain Picard.
imtringued 3 days ago [-]
Every human is AGI.
The irony with hiring robots is that you can't exploit them. You have to tend to their every needs or they break and stop working. Since you own and paid for the robot, it is your problem if it breaks.
You can exploit humans, because their parents, extended family and friends have made the initial "investments" to grow that human into a useful worker and the exploiting employer is just taking these investments for himself.
Because you're not paying for the full cost of that productivity and are just renting the labor, you can easily replace the exhausted worker with a fresh one.
There is also another problem: flooding the world with capital will make it worthless.
cyanydeez 3 days ago [-]
Right, slavery isintrinsicly beneficial
est 2 days ago [-]
Reminds me of a sci-fi setting where earth was a single super living organism. We human individuals acts like cells, inter-connected by the Internet, then a single super AI conscience acts like the brain.
The article mentions UBI, which is similar to the adenosine triphosphate energy cycle in our body. There are also some forms of "hormones" to make sure every cell lives happily.
One particular interesting question: is this the inevitable way of all evolving creatures in the galaxy? Can we spot other "super-intelligence" planets like the super-intelligence Earth?
Kon-Peki 3 days ago [-]
I don’t know why you would include software in your definition of capital. In an AGI situation, great software is trivially generated by the AGI, so it has no value whatsoever.
Also, the Wright Brothers analogy is just plain wrong. Their invention, patent, and contribution to flight was about control surfaces and a method for operating them such that heavier than air craft could stay off the ground long enough to be useful. And that all came from recognizing the similarities between the way that birds moved and bicycles steered. Money/funding had little to do with it.
Rendered at 13:18:28 GMT+0000 (UTC) with Wasmer Edge.
At which point you run headlong into the paradox of productivity.
If you don't hire and pay the humans, then who is going to have the income to buy the output?
And then after that you have the problem of why anybody should operate the machines for longer than they need to provide what they require. There's a great belief amongst technologists that they can distribute output to everybody, but that still requires somebody to work longer hours than they need to provide for themselves. Why should they work Fridays to produce output for everybody else? After all those they are providing for can no longer produce anything of material value in exchange.
Until you have machines doing absolutely everything, there will need to be policies in place to ensure that the 'socially necessary labour' is distributed in terms of hours. Otherwise the default is a slave class who have most of their machine enhanced output confiscated for the benefit of other people simply to ensure they continue to work the 40 hour weeks necessary to produce all the output without the machines failing.
And if that labour requires incredibly high skill that only those with IQs over 140 can provide, then we have a fundamental problem. Collectively we can't give these people anything more to get them to work all those hours. They can provide for themselves all they materially need with the machines.
As Ali put it, "service to others is the rent we pay for our room here on earth". If we can no longer be of service to others, then we can't make the rent.
Shuffling money around doesn't fix that basic issue. I use up some of my finite life to help you because you are using up some of your finite life to help me.
That using AI for everything will be great because X, Y and Z, and then something something post-scarcity economy, now everyone can take the time to learn the Ressikan flute like Captain Picard.
The irony with hiring robots is that you can't exploit them. You have to tend to their every needs or they break and stop working. Since you own and paid for the robot, it is your problem if it breaks.
You can exploit humans, because their parents, extended family and friends have made the initial "investments" to grow that human into a useful worker and the exploiting employer is just taking these investments for himself.
Because you're not paying for the full cost of that productivity and are just renting the labor, you can easily replace the exhausted worker with a fresh one.
There is also another problem: flooding the world with capital will make it worthless.
The article mentions UBI, which is similar to the adenosine triphosphate energy cycle in our body. There are also some forms of "hormones" to make sure every cell lives happily.
One particular interesting question: is this the inevitable way of all evolving creatures in the galaxy? Can we spot other "super-intelligence" planets like the super-intelligence Earth?
Also, the Wright Brothers analogy is just plain wrong. Their invention, patent, and contribution to flight was about control surfaces and a method for operating them such that heavier than air craft could stay off the ground long enough to be useful. And that all came from recognizing the similarities between the way that birds moved and bicycles steered. Money/funding had little to do with it.