Submitted by Charming-Coconut-234 t3_zoxvv7 in Futurology
Today all the economies are designed to make people think money is good, you should work more and get more money so you can own more things. But how would that change (title question)
Comments
Gubekochi t1_j0qfztu wrote
There is only war.
norbertus t1_j0tpequ wrote
>How it should happen: we all work less on things that “must” be done, giving us more time for leisure and innovation
Unlikely. If workers had been given their share of increasing productivity since automation became widespread, we'd be working 20 hour weeks with full employment and benefits.
See, for example, point XIV from the charter of the Knights of Labor from the late 1800's
“XIV. The reduction of the hours of labor to eight per day, so that laborers may have more time for social enjoyment and intellectual improvement, and be enabled to reap the advantages conferred by the labor-saving machinery which their brains have created.”
Edarneor t1_j0u77p1 wrote
>we'd be working 20 hour weeks with full employment and benefits.
So that means... someone is fucking us over?
Hm.. I wonder who might that be...
SkyNet_was_taken t1_j0tan4b wrote
What about people who are lazy? I'm curious about how society will look for people who don't desire to do anything.
LalinOwl t1_j0td32o wrote
If we do achieve automation utopia in the future, people will have more energy to pursue what they actually want, instead of what society needs them to do. Less burnouts, stress etc.
See people who achieve financial independence (no not the oligarchs they would still chase political power), they might stop doing things right after, but they usually pursue something that brings them joy, like opening their own café, farming as a hobby etc.
MZZXX t1_j0tlim8 wrote
There's a good video on why people would want to work under socialism and I think it applies here.
Second Thought: Why Would Anyone Work Under Socialism?
People don't really want to do nothing. If you think about it, if you sat at home all day an moderated Reddit, you're still contributing to society.
oldcreaker t1_j0pz973 wrote
This is end game capitalism - once you get rid of enough labor, there's no longer enough consumers to support the system and the whole thing dies.
panguardian t1_j0q2e2c wrote
Yes, I think that is a fair conclusion. The system must change, but we don't know what it will change into. Tyranny or enlightenment. Then you add climate catastrophe into the mix...
captainstormy t1_j0rcj38 wrote
Tyranny for sure, let's be real.
panguardian t1_j0ruaic wrote
Dunno. Protest and violent protest has an effect.
AzureSkyXIII t1_j0sgpxx wrote
If we don't fight for enlightenment, tyranny is all but ensured.
jep5680jep t1_j0qm8i5 wrote
It will default back to tyranny. Sadly always will.
panguardian t1_j1130j9 wrote
I don't know about that. From what I have observed, revolution tends to lead to tyranny. Such as the Arab Spring, the Russian and French Revolutions, etc. But gradual effects through protest and using the existing democratic structure do have a positive long-term effect.
For example, the shift to the left in the UK during the 19th (the Tories ended up adopting Gladstone's position.) We might be beginning to see some kind of move to the left in US democratic policies because of long-term gradual pressure from Sanders and others like him.
Matched with protest and organization of labor, and gradual changes in favor of the majority can be gradually effected. Admittedly, we are entering unknown territory with automation. But then again, I don't know. Rome destabilized because the ruling classes imported slaves instead of paying its lower classes. So that didn't turn out too well.
Admittedly, looking at that historical, it is looking iffy. If the wealthy don't need labor, then what leverage do the majority have?
RandomPhail t1_j0r8xpw wrote
The concept of money would just have to be deemphasized
People who DO still work (probably as AI and robot repairers/mechanics) would get some extra money to do fun stuff, but nobody would need money to simply survive anymore—ideally anyway.
linuxluser t1_j0tu6z2 wrote
Post-capitalism becomes whatever we want the world to look like. Free from the constraints of markets and the growth imperative, we no longer must shape our activities around making somebody else's line go up. That means we can use AI for human needs and wants. That's what we were always dreaming of!
While "it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism", if we're headed to the end of capitalism regardless, the time for dreaming of a better world is now. Thinking cooperatively not competitively and remembering that no matter the system, we are still all connected anyway, goes a long way. Our differences aren't really too different.
To me, this is what fully-automated luxury Communism will be. I look forward to it. But how bloody it'll be to get there will depend entirely on whether we see the keepers of the old system (the few that think themselves better than the rest of us) the enemy or our neighbors (because they don't look/believe/behave like we want, etc).
shawnwasim t1_j0q9ir6 wrote
But wouldnt there be more capital focus on creative things like art?
LizardWizard444 t1_j0r5cg6 wrote
People usually only do art when they're not starving, homeless or dehydrated. According to capitalism you have to pay for those things and if you can't your too poor to be worth letting exist. So no that won't happen unless we change to something that isn't capitalism.
buddyleex t1_j0qba6a wrote
AI though lol
ericivar t1_j0qxqzf wrote
Ah. Somebody else that wants to watch the world burn.
oldcreaker t1_j0r2zas wrote
Just because you think something will happen doesn't mean you want it to happen. I just don't see "and they all lived happily ever after" as very realistic.
LizardWizard444 t1_j0r7ltg wrote
I'm pretty sure almost nobody literally wants to see the world burn i think he's just stating some simple facts and deducing the likely outcome.
-capitalism generally needs people and businesses to pay for they're continued existence
-the businessed like automation because it often means paying the electric bill month to month instead of a paying for a whole person to come do the same job often worse than the automatic machine can.
-automation permanently removed a job from the work force.
-if all of the above are true eventually you get a problem where people can't pay for they're existence or anything else for that matter and so the businesses can't continue existing because no one's buying anything from them and the whole thing stalls out.
These are all decently well known and proven facts. So even if you managed to get a third party with no stake in any of this, informed them of the facts they'd probably go with the guy watching the world burn itself over the guy accusing him of wanting blind destruction.
indysingleguy t1_j0td17y wrote
Automation has been slowly degrading the middle class for 50 years. The middle class basically is no more.
I was in a higher end grocery store yesterday and all but 2 checkouts were self scan. This store is charging more and making the customers ring themselves out. Its evil genius.
So jobs are being eliminated now at both ends of the middle class through automation.
I dont see how it is sustainable.
LizardWizard444 t1_j0tdbl7 wrote
Yup I'd recon if 20% of current jobs get removed than the crash comes and everything sucks.
coyote-1 t1_j0pidcg wrote
Doesn’t seem to be going that way. It seems AI is now producing the music and art, while humans continue to flip burgers and stock grocery store shelves.
Stillwater215 t1_j0pu8at wrote
The big question is how long this will last when it becomes significantly cheaper to build a machine to cook fast food than it would be to keep humans on staff.
The-Sun-God t1_j0qlg2j wrote
Who will buy the burgers and how will they pay? It is in the best interests of Capital that more people are able to purchase products. Meaning it is in the best interest of capital that people earn wages.
Even Fascist Ford determined that paying his employees more not only got him better employees, but more importantly minted him new customers.
All of this fear-mongering neglects this…
That, or the people at the top of the capital hierarchy must absolutely commit to making the world their playground, and kill everyone else off.
usaaf t1_j0r0qxq wrote
>It is in the best interests of Capital that more people are able to purchase products. Meaning it is in the best interest of capital that people earn wages.
Ah great, so we have to work forever. Sure the jobs will get easier, but that's not much of a help, and it's certainly not the way forward. Having to have a job forever because we can't think past Capitalism is just sad. I do not want that future for the human race, but that is what we'll get if we let the Capitalist be in charge.
Capitalism, like most economic systems, is simply a management system for scarcity. And just like slavery and feudalism before it, it is a VERY bad one for many reasons, but the most important one for the future is this: it has no management system/plan for abundance.
When there is enough of something to go around, there's no capitalist incentive to provide it for all. When people talk about prices always falling, there is a lower limit to that. Prices cannot get too low, to the point where providing a service to everyone would not be profitable. Capitalism encourages this. It also encourages flat out waste. Dutch East India company traders burned excess spice crops because they knew that their existence jeopardized a high price.
We can do better, but not with the profit motive as a guiding operating principle. Even without robots, labor could be divided much more fairly, waste could be curtailed, etc., but none of that will happen with Capitalists in charge because such reforms would massively eat into profit. Which is the point. Our scarcity fuels their profit.
A Post-Scarcity (my preferred definition for this is not everyone gets space yachts, but rather to say that society has no need unfilled rather than every want fulfilled) future requires the dismantling of Capitalism, down to even the social and cultural machinery that perpetuates it.
xantec15 t1_j0sficc wrote
Capitalism has one plan for abundance: subsidies. Through our taxes we literally pay farmers to grow excess crops to manage prices, while producing staggering amounts of food waste. Meanwhile, we still have millions, if not billions, of people on the planet living in food scarcity.
The-Sun-God t1_j0sowt5 wrote
That’s all good and true. But what is this form of organization that maintains efficiency of resources and allocation and also allows for abundance?
Surely not everything is or will always be abundant, so we must retain elements of both.
Is it AI Central Planning?
is AI China the new world order?
Omegalazarus t1_j0t16cr wrote
There isn't a point in maintaining elements of another socioeconomic system in the chance we need to change in the future. As it is now things are scarce, but they may not always be scarce. However, we don't retain elements of utopia for that chance.
When you are taking about needs being met, as long as whatever energy breakthrough that gives us abundance functions and there is federalized planning, resources production can be shifted as needed to fill regular gaps in the system.
Each system has methods of patching itself (we have subsidization and state welfare systems etc). There is no reason to think a future system we adopt won't have any. If that's the case, why would it be opted?
Edarneor t1_j0u9241 wrote
Well, if we're talking about the future where AI is so good to take most jobs then yeah, it has to be AI central planning or something like that.
Introsium t1_j0stuj8 wrote
I walked into a McDonalds literally two days ago and didn’t interact with a single human. Zero hyperbole.
norbertus t1_j0tphk4 wrote
>Who will buy the burgers and how will they pay?
The rich will just eat us and machines will cook us
Edarneor t1_j0u84wl wrote
>people at the top of the capital hierarchy must absolutely commit to making the world their playground, and kill everyone else off.
There are loads of conspiracy theories about this, but the more I think about it, the less improbable it seems. Why wouldn't they? Out of compassion? You don't earn billions with compassion. Most of them are sociopaths...
Doesn't mean they can or have an actual plan to, but I bet they'd LOVE to.
The-Sun-God t1_j0u946q wrote
I think the question becomes how many humans do you need to rule to feel like a king? And then add some number to that for eating.
AppleGeniusBar t1_j0sdv35 wrote
It already is. Maybe not entirely prepare food but definitely cook it. I’ve been to multiple non-chain restaurants which use conveyor belt-style grill (like a high quality hotel toaster or a similarly styled pizza oven). They just throw the meat onto the belt, and then grab it on exit to prepare the sandwich.
InterestsVaryGreatly t1_j0rkuxy wrote
We have robots that can do both of those. Stocking shelves may still have some work to do to be more generalized and safe around customers, but it already exists.
Introsium t1_j0stqp8 wrote
You check out ChatGPT, yet?
How many of people’s jobs are “read this text and then give someone else this other text”?
Built-in-Light t1_j0rwf0n wrote
It’s because they can make art that’s 90% what we want, and we’re happy about it… but 90% of groceries stocked properly is a shitshow.
Cinemiketography t1_j0plx9c wrote
Rich will get richer, maybe a small percentage of workers useful to maintenance survive, and everyone else dies.
Gubekochi t1_j0qf2gl wrote
If history serves as a referent... people don't tend to take kindly to being put in a system where they are expected to die en masse.
firewolf8385 t1_j0sfubt wrote
People say this every time a disruptive technology has come around. The economy didn’t end after the Industrial Revolution, it didn’t end with the invention of assembly lines, it didn’t end with computers, and didn’t end with industrial robots. People adapt, and new jobs take their places
Omegalazarus t1_j0t2jiq wrote
The economy DID end after the industrial revolution.
For many, it went from a subsistence based living where barter and trade of different staple goods and textiles among small to mid sized communities where leisure was often a shared activity among the different houses and organized by those houses or local governments.
That economy died and was replaced by one where a specific specialized or basic labor was performed at a business for wages in cash. That cash was used to buy staples, textiles, and leisure from other businesses.
firewolf8385 t1_j0t4rvq wrote
Fair enough, the Industrial Revolution was more of an idea for societal change based on new technologies rather than the technology itself. Probably should have said the steam engine there instead
njm123niu t1_j0tbc3r wrote
But all of your examples... the steam engine, the assembly line, the computer, etc...are new technologies that facilitate labor growth, not replace it. That seems to be the disconnect you're missing in this argument.
AI has just started and will continue to decimate the need for labor across nearly all industries. Unlike other previous technological innovations, it doesn't enable humans to do human work more efficiently, effectively, cheaper, or at better scale. It enables non-human systems to do human work efficiently, effectively, cheaper, and at scale.
People here are arguing that "someone still has to stock shelves, maintain machines, interpret context and meaning." Those people don't understand that AI can do literally everything. I could be responding to an AI bot right now. I could be an AI bot myself.
firewolf8385 t1_j0tcrp6 wrote
You’re thinking of AI in the wrong light. AI is a tool for humans to use. It facilitates humans to create and do tasks, but can’t do them on its own. Some examples that ChatGPT have shown is programming, art, writing, etc. ChatGPT makes those much easier, but it needs a human to guide it to the answer we want. Technology for AI to truly think for itself and require no human intervention at all is easily 100 years away at best, if it ever comes at all.
Edit: Also, those examples did replace labor. We used to have entire office buildings full of people dedicated to crunching numbers all day. A single farmer today can cover an area that would take hundreds of farmers 200 years ago. The jobs didn’t just “disappear”, they shifted to other industries. Every new technology just allows humans to diversify more.
njm123niu t1_j0tdu35 wrote
First, the technological singularity you're referring to may happen much, much sooner, the general expert consensus is by 2045, maybe sooner.
Second, it doesn't take sentient technology for AI (which yes, is a tool for humans to use) to replace human jobs. It's not even a 'futuristic' concept, it's literally happening today. Humans are being replaced by AI that is able to do human work.
So it's not a even a question of "if" it will happen, beacuase it's already happening. The question is when does it replace human work at a scale that totally realigns our economy in an irreversible way.
firewolf8385 t1_j0te7wi wrote
See my edit above: The jobs won’t disappear, they’ll change industries, just like every time before
njm123niu t1_j0tsu3v wrote
The other innovations drove the need for human labor up. AI drives the need for human labor down. There is no "changing industries" when AI can do (nearly) everything humans can do, cheaper. I'm sorry but it's a very basic concept.
firewolf8385 t1_j0ue7uk wrote
They didn’t bring the need for labor up though, it’s not like people just didn’t have jobs beforehand. First most people were farmers, then most people become factory workers, and now most people are part of the information economy. Those technologies replaced human labor and allowed other jobs to form. AI will likely much automate the Information economy, and we’ll enter a new era. I’d imagine we’ll either switch to more of a service and leisure economy or a more research and development economy(with AI as a tool to make that stuff easier), but we won’t know until we get there.
If AI could do absolutely everything, we will be made obsolete and humanity will die off anyways.
ImthatRootuser t1_j0sr5ke wrote
Computers made life easy for humans to process their work. Will AI gonna make life easy so humans don't work at all? Capacities of AI is increasing everyday. There will be a time where you don't need people to cook you food basically. AI is getting better at writing code by itself. I don't think we will need many IT people in future also. AI will be able to monitor systems and fix it by itself on issues. I think this will be real in 10 to 15 years. Maybe less. But not sure what humans will do when it takes a place.
Edarneor t1_j0v04dr wrote
>Maybe less. But not sure what humans will do when it takes a place.
Sex workers, I assume ;) Unless robots take that over too... :D
But seriously - any profession, where you want to see a human. Entertainment, sports, etc...
How would this kind of economy be sustainable is the question.
firewolf8385 t1_j0t4jei wrote
AI of course will take some jobs, but it will never be able to do everything, especially by itself. The furthest AI can ever really get programming-wise is as an assistant for example, you still need someone pulling the strings. As AI improves it’ll definitely drastically change industries, and learning how to use it will be a desired skill, but it’ll still need a human involved somewhere in the process.
flecknoe t1_j0pg0qr wrote
People will still pay money to each other but not for shitty jobs
Benny_Lava760 t1_j0qmhpj wrote
Humans will be obsolete, hopefully they will let all remaining humans live out their natural lives as they slowly decrease fertility rates. Eventually leaving only the privileged behind to own the entire planet with an army of AI/Robotic servants.
Charming-Coconut-234 OP t1_j0pge5a wrote
Yes, but the whole population needs to be fit into that small set of jobs.
If you own a store, you get the products and sell. But for common people how will it be? These people earn and runs the money to business owners which runs economy. This cycle starts breaking from one end breaking the loop we built.
Grazedaze t1_j0pm6bj wrote
This is why so many people are adamant about basic income. We are reaching an era where all things can be automated through renewable energies.
It should be our goal as a people to free up our time for creation, philosophy, and discovery. We were never meant to sit at desk all days but to explore our local lands and be with our families.
We now have the means ( or are close to having them ) to make this possible for the general population.
User_Neq t1_j0q6qq6 wrote
It's a nice vision. Current lookaround says it's gonna look different
Grazedaze t1_j0q6vz3 wrote
We’re still facing the wrath of the selfish baby boomers. Once they’re dead let’s reevaluate.
User_Neq t1_j0q7jfb wrote
Agreed. So nearly 20yrs we "wait" for them to die?
Grazedaze t1_j0q7v32 wrote
We’ll they’re in their 60s and 70s so much sooner than that especially in the spots where it counts, leadership in government. A new progressive wave will hit soon enough that could potentially flip the script as we know it.
User_Neq t1_j0q959s wrote
Letting some them reach old age and retirement doesn't seem fitting.
[deleted] t1_j0qhnlp wrote
[deleted]
dediguise t1_j0qr0fi wrote
There are a lot of possibilities, but most of them are unrealistic. The most important thing is that AI wouldn’t take all job, but it could take most. Physical capital will also remain an essential feature of any economy, AI driven or not.
In an ideal world workers would have ownership over the AI, or equipment that replaced them. They would be able to earn passive income over the productive function they serve in the economy, and the free time of those workers have would lead to both leisure and ingenuity. Mix in political power dynamics between corporations and people though, and you could just as easily turn this into an economic caste system. It is easy to imagine scenarios where the value of worker owned AI assets depreciates overtime.
The more likely situation is that it will be adopted by business owners. Instead of uplifting workers by granting them property rights or public goods, it will likely be weaponized by firms to maximize output while reducing the bargaining power of workers globally. This would lead to the same outcome as the depreciation of worker owned assets overtime, but without the benefit of any passive income.
The most likely social outcome in pretty much all cases is an increased demand for highly skilled labor in niche fields. Whether or not the public maintains access to this is a social question that depends on geopolitical conflicts, culture wars and local concentrations of wealth.
In the likely event that AI result in even further concentrated wealth, the relationship between government and corporate interests will be even more important than it is now. The government may act as an employer of last resort to compensate. Authoritarian Nationalistic countries will likely expand their active military enlistment for example. Militaristic democratic countries may even do the same, albeit differently. Automation taxes could be levied to maintain public goods. Otherwise, the government could allow them to be privatized and AI maintained.
It really depends on how we politically evolve to meet these challenges. The more hierarchal our society remains, the more concentrated the benefits of AI automation will be.
Edarneor t1_j0ul98u wrote
>Authoritarian Nationalistic countries will likely expand their active military enlistment for example. Militaristic democratic countries may even do the same,
Does that mean the only use for live humans will be serving as cannon fodder? Man, that sucks...
FIicker7 t1_j0q4b2b wrote
When the 40 hour work week was passed into law, the average factory worker worked between 60 and 70 hours a week.
A house hold had one income earner. Today we have 2 income earners per household. That's 80 hours of work per household.
Add to that the fact that AI will make 10s of millions of jobs obsolete.
https://www.businessinsider.com/obama-warns-congress-about-robot-job-takeover-2016-3
Education and a 30-24 hour work week are necessary.
Andy_Who t1_j0qyg3l wrote
A work hour reduction rollout that eventually ends up under 20, or even 10 hours per week as a full time job. I think the majority of companies could get by with 20 hour weeks being law right now. Investors would hate it, but people would love it and also end up spending more on various things because they now have the time to do whatever it is.
FIicker7 t1_j0qysaj wrote
Plus, couples need two to things to start a family and raise children. Time and money. Reducing labor availability will increase wages and give households more time to raise kids.
OlyScott t1_j0t5zzb wrote
If 20 or 10 hours was a full time job, I could work two or three! Lots of income!
Andy_Who t1_j0uzqms wrote
I would just work that single job as long as it paid all my bills and entertainment expenses and have a lot more time for my hobbies.
oxichil t1_j0qvoct wrote
It depends on who controls the AI, the data that powers it, and programs it. Right now capitalists control everything, so it’ll be used to profit off people as much as possible. If we lived in a moral world people would be compensated for their contributions to AI intelligence. The translators that make translations google scrapes off the web deserve something for powering Google Translate for free. AI is not actual intelligence. It’s just processing human intelligence on a massive scale. All the data comes from humans. If we live in a world run on AI that uses our data, hopefully we can make a living selling our data to the AI rather than having it stolen while we’re put out of work.
Edarneor t1_j0uzcz4 wrote
I can't agree more. If the artists' work is used to train AIs, why aren't they paid royalties? There should be legislation.
Stillwater215 t1_j0pu34m wrote
There would be a lot of upheaval for a while when the rich continue to profit while there aren’t enough jobs for the displaced poor. Probably some kind of revolution, and then either some form of UBI utopia, or Mad Max style post-technology apocalypse where the only law is ThunderDome.
Edarneor t1_j0v1n2g wrote
Ha! I'd imagine with the numbers of guns owned in the US, if people suddenly had no jobs and nothing to eat, it would indeed quickly turn into a Mad Max kind of thing
KidKilobyte t1_j0potk2 wrote
It seems that all these speculations about what happens after AI get powerful enough assume that things just reach some status quo. This is the whole reason for calling it a singularity, we don’t know what comes on the other side and things don’t quit changing.
[deleted] t1_j0qpqle wrote
Eventually an automated economy would implode because no one can afford to buy the products. We are actually approaching such a point already.
Blockhead_Dad t1_j0rap5g wrote
Humans will be replaced by AI in creative areas, film, marketing, writing, (including code), most management positions, along with regulatory and long distance transport. This will relegate humans to low wage service, and physical labor positions, since we're way better at those kinds of roles and will be for a long time. Is this the future we want?
gaudiocomplex t1_j0spm67 wrote
This assumes that robotics doesn't catch up fast when AGI is at the helm. Those jobs will be largely automated too.
Advanced-Depth1816 t1_j0ryqau wrote
People will have no purpose but to be ad watchers. People will get paid to be zombies and watch ads because they no longer are needed. Other than to create ad revenue by watching their screens all the time. It’s the real life matrix that social media has been creating for a while now
Agitated_Narwhal_92 t1_j0q7ky9 wrote
If AI takes our jobs, one thing that would happen for good is that the medication for cancer would be developed faster and more efficaciously.
John-Sobieski t1_j0qmps4 wrote
Absent AI run robots most jobs will still be done by people.
Zeniphyre t1_j0rdxh1 wrote
Who fucking cares this is like the 70th AI post in 3 days
[deleted] t1_j0sa9iq wrote
[removed]
Default-Name55674 t1_j0sx1ey wrote
I would love for AI to take the c-suite and board jobs! Think of how much money that would save for shareholders!
[deleted] t1_j0pmilo wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0pw6aj wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0q1lnq wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0qcgcv wrote
[removed]
universalrifle t1_j0qtsgk wrote
Let AI take over and just deliver the stimulus checks so we can still go shopping.
[deleted] t1_j0qttc8 wrote
[removed]
VermontZerg t1_j0qumkn wrote
Economy will be fine, look how amazing it was during the period of time where more people had more money to spend, and weren't working.
Anyone demonizing AI is probably afraid of change, or has an agenda.
The biggest change from it will be that rich people feel less important because they have less wage slaves, and more people will be able to do exactly what they do for hobbies, because they have time to do it, just with less money.
Look what happened with work from home, middle managers HATE that shit cause they don't have people to micromanage.
The rich will just be irritated like usual cause leisure life wont be a rich only privilege.
People acting like the rich will cull the world because of AI, are absolutely deranged, not all rich people are evil.
Their is massive groups right now campaigning ANTI-AI because it will usher in a new era of equality, but instead they try to spin that its the end of the world, humanity will be culled, only war will happen ETC, just to cause fear.
Just like the huge Anti-UBI narrative that keeps getting spun here, pay attention to what you read, question everything, and don't allow people to spin their ideas in your head because it "sounds scary".
TheGnomeWizard t1_j0rafm4 wrote
A lot of people want to work because they feel it gives their life meaning. You aren’t looking at all the people that fell into depression when they had nothing to do. And I’ve worked with a lot of wealthy clients. Very few (if any) come across as “good” people.
[deleted] t1_j0r0pxa wrote
[removed]
JaxJaxon t1_j0r84x8 wrote
Anyone remember what feudal society was? Thats your answer.
You will only be needed for what you are capable to contribute.
If you have no usefulness in the society then you will not be supported by it.
If it is found that you can still survive without society's help they will come and find you and make you do what it is that made you survive for them and give back to you what they deem, you need to survive with.
[deleted] t1_j0rg309 wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0rvzad wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0s0o45 wrote
[removed]
AdvocateViolence t1_j0s178c wrote
The economy needs to die. Something else is needed.
[deleted] t1_j0s83i1 wrote
[removed]
Frequent_Example_167 t1_j0sf4e4 wrote
All I can say is that if production is completed entirely by AI and if that amount of production stays at the current level prices would be so low it would be cartoonish. The situation where humans no longer have to produce breaks the concept of current economics. You’ll have a situation where goods are produce so efficiently there costs will plummet. In my academic years I described it as the sword that cuts the knot. It would require an entirely new way of economic thinking. The deflationary pressures on production are already enormous, current inflationary trends are caused almost entirely by logistical problems. That’s why OPEC cuts production. If you figure out a way to produce everything without labor, prices will become cartoonishly low. The core cost of production will be raw materials and even they would theoretically be produced or acquired via AI.
embracetheinfinite t1_j0smvdr wrote
Ultimately this boils down to what types of meaning and values we inhabit during the moment when it becomes real. Under the present order (salvation religions / dominion ethos) it is more of the same, the exclusion of many to serve the few. Under a alternative set of values (e.g. alignment w/ the single truth and the relational universe) it would support collective prosperity.
[deleted] t1_j0sobmi wrote
[removed]
Grasshopper5050 t1_j0spxe4 wrote
Peter Drucker vs Milton Friedman
all for One, none for All
[deleted] t1_j0srbn5 wrote
[removed]
HenryCWatson t1_j0t40iq wrote
I have only given my opinion on this ?? times. I would liken it to the slave state of ancient Rome. The slaves were valued greater than most citizens, because most citizens didn't do anything. They for the greater part were poor slum dwellers. Nero didn't burn Rome, but a large slum area. He also had the exits closed off to kill off the residents. Now think of ancient Rome on a global scale with 8 billion plus people. Maybe 4 - 5 billion plus people doing nothing but consuming the fruits of the machines labors. That can't be good, and I'm sure the Bilderberg group, or some other illuminati types would be making plans to copy Nero.
[deleted] t1_j0t4bwd wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0t4krw wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0t4oo8 wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_j0tblpp wrote
[removed]
jadams2345 t1_j0tcxys wrote
AI + Capitalism = Catastrophe. Capitalists love reducing costs, and since they elect politicians to serve their agendas, it would mean that many people will find themselves out of jobs. I assume a tax on using AI will be imposed on companies to improve social welfare, but only for bare minimum. The whole political/economic system would have to be rebuilt.
[deleted] t1_j0tdza8 wrote
[removed]
Slop_em_up t1_j0tft5e wrote
well, in capitalist society, unemployment would rise to an insane level. In a communist society, people would work less in general, and let machines handle work that doesn't require a human to be present.
tripodal t1_j0th04c wrote
It will be fine for the ones controlling the ai. The rest will figuratively be soylent
[deleted] t1_j0ti6y0 wrote
[removed]
yinyangpeng t1_j0tiamu wrote
Not to burst your bubble, nobody wants to open a cafe or farm commercially. Even as a hobby, it requires a lot of money to buy tools, fertiliser, pesticides, soil, gravel, cuttings, seeds and so on. To your premise, without work - a relaxing hobby to while away time isn’t as exciting, it’s more a distraction and discipline, akin to a coping mechanism.
I think you’d be surprised how little people would want to work for others given full freedom to do so.
JonnyRottensTeeth t1_j0tiqp2 wrote
Read the short story "Flatline" from the anthology Surfacings by Walter Jon Williams. I always thought it was a good example of what it might be like.
Gobiparatha4000 t1_j0tjg62 wrote
There's no reason to assume the universe came into being for any purpose at all, let alone for mankind to exist. When you make any assumption about the way things "have" to be, it's possible you're committing the sin of anthropocentrism to some extent.
The economy can be literally anything we want. Just because meritocracy SEEMS to be implied by nature, doesn't mean it's the way things have to be. Naturalness itself is an arbitrary criteria on which to base ethics. It's literally just a placeholder for "the chronological structure of particle physics".
If we want to have a post-scarcity society where not everyone has to work, we can do that. From a sustainability standpoint, not everyone was going to be able to have a job anyway. At some point this insistence on making sure everyone participates in the economy is going to be outweighed by the damage devoting resources required to create those opportunities creates. That time may already have passed. Assuming you think its ethically important to attempt to forestall the damages of having an unsustainable relationship with the environment. Ignoring non-Western migrant crises, which I assume most people do, there's the serious issue of the dwindling amount of arable land. There's also the biodiversity crisis, which could have extreme consequences in ways we can't even predict. Reduced water availability is also a problem. If you think it is.
Nature did not come into existence for every person to have a job. Automation can solve this problem. We need to get over ourselves. We need a Copernican revolution away from anthropocentrism. Assuming you think have a livable world in the future is ethically required. I can tell you right now a lot of rich people don't give a shit.
Smithersink t1_j0tl3zn wrote
It doesn’t take actively culling the poor in the world to kill off the poor. It can easily be done by just cutting off their access to resources, which the rich have very little incentive not to do when labor is not needed.
[deleted] t1_j0tmkdh wrote
[removed]
JamesTKierkegaard t1_j0tmvlm wrote
This will be the second greatest challenge of the next century, after climate change. Many of the problems we face now are already a result of this trend and the next twenty years will be the most telling. At the moment, systems like democracy function because human labor still has value, though that value is already deteriorating. Whether or not this advent will be a catastrophe will come down to what decisions we make now as a society as it will set the trajectory for generations to come.
I've read quite a few books and articles on this subject (and even started writing one of my own until I discovered someone had already done a better job), but haven't seen anything that looks like a believable definite prediction. The biggest x factor is unfortunately our current political schism and the relative calcification of public policy. It might change, but our current path is leading to massive unemployment with no safety net to protect those disenfranchised. Presumably some policy will need to be put in place to prevent millions from starving in the streets, but whether that is a functional system that gives real quality of life or merely subsistence living for millions beholden to public assistance remains to be seen.
[deleted] t1_j0tqw59 wrote
[removed]
DocMcCracken t1_j0tzy8f wrote
AI won't be a universal replacment. They are only computers after all, we cannot program them for every situation and even if AI is advanced sufficently it would have a difficult time learning espcially if there are dire consequences.
Never trust a computer you can't throw out the window.
[deleted] t1_j0u0rqn wrote
[removed]
[deleted] t1_j0u0xuz wrote
[removed]
philocoffee t1_j0u16hd wrote
I come across at least one article a day that reminds me of an idea or concept from this short story. This is an awesome read if you haven't before.
Jeff_Rouny t1_j1tqeec wrote
The "economic system" never considered human dignity (for real). Artificial intelligences will have as a priority their profitability for the benefit of a few, nothing new.
BushWookieViper t1_j0pw0e3 wrote
The thing is that if AI is handling most or all of the jobs then production of things we need to live is probably handled exclusively by ai so we wouldn't need money anymore our world could change for the better but since ai will be controlled by a small subset of the population I doubt ai will take over most jobs gotta keep the plebs in line.
Sorry for the formatting I'm on mobile and educated by the public school system...
Current_Side_4024 t1_j0qcfwk wrote
Gonna be hard to convince plebs to dedicate most of their lives to little tasks that machines can easily do. Plebs will demand freedom, and they shall have it
BushWookieViper t1_j0qmk7w wrote
I'd argue that we already devote our lives to meaningless tasks for less money then we need to thrive I work full time and can't afford to live in my own apartment while also paying for food electricity and the means to get to work.
lexliller t1_j0se2fs wrote
Universal basic income. Or can we just do the start trek universe already?
[deleted] t1_j0sqmkx wrote
[removed]
rhodia_rabbit t1_j0ssyp3 wrote
If all jobs are taken by AI then hanity would be close to Star Trek levels of prosperity. People wouldn't be working to sustain themselves but for self determination etc.
[deleted] t1_j0t6l8h wrote
[removed]
vasjpan02 t1_j0syqnq wrote
ai misunderstood. been around half a century. when it becomes commonplace they stop calling it ai. my uncle tested voice recognition dictation in 1970s (it failed when operator fot new dental work). he also used ocr back then. (newspaper engineer). in the 1970s they called file recognition (tab or esc) ai.
Alwaysanita t1_j0t0f2w wrote
Our society will collapse. Small versions will exist. People still need their humanity.
flochaotic t1_j0t4s40 wrote
Actually I just made a playlist on this exact thing: Autolistic Economies made possible with Universal Systems
https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL-EzNhbcSw81tfiBO9QBuPp0gBLxolktS
DefNotAPodPerson t1_j0ta5ej wrote
We could just abandon capitalism. It's trash anyway.
ToughVinceNoir t1_j0smdgd wrote
r/communism will be very pleased with this comment section. Great successemote:free_emotes_pack:thumbs_up
Emberashh t1_j0pi7hy wrote
New jobs will emerge. Plus, not a lot of jobs are actually suited to AI management and its going to be a growing pain of adapting to the technology as it matures learning what does and doesn't work.
It isn't the magic do everything technology its hyped up to be.
panguardian t1_j0q21u2 wrote
This is the standard line. I've researched and sampled studies and there is no data that realistically supports this point. Studies show that robots will take more jobs than it makes.
[deleted] t1_j0qactj wrote
[removed]
Emberashh t1_j0qdq49 wrote
Which is why I noted that theres going to be growing pains. Just because a robot can take a job doesn't mean its actually appropriate or desirable for one to do so.
Gubekochi t1_j0qfnwt wrote
I'd argue that it most likely is both appropriate and desirable unless human interaction is at the core of the job in question. Society and economy should be reworked so having a job isn't the unique criteria to determine one's worth. We should recognize that human life is inherently valuable and move to a society of leisure where we have more time to connect with friends and family and improve who we are through learning and pursuing our interest/actualization.
TL;DR : fully automated luxury communism
Emberashh t1_j0qj22d wrote
>Society and economy should be reworked so having a job isn't the unique criteria to determine one's worth.
Most jobs aren't being taken on that basis to begin with. Economic prudence takes precedent, and its the jobs that get abandoned when economics are no longer a factor that are likely to be at their best automated.
But theres nuance there. Many jobs would only be so readily abandoned because they're managed poorly. The service industry is rife with this, and while robots could replace these jobs, it actually isn't likely going to be desirable to do so, and that would eventually rebalance the industry towards sustainable employment and management practices.
And more than that, theres no shortage of people that do inherently find worth in simply achieving at whatever their job is, and they're not wrong for doing so. These are people that would still be doing their jobs even with all of the economic exploitation that capitalism induces being removed.
And as always, I like to point out that Star Trek got this vision right. Computers and robots do not do everything, and theres a strong cultural bent towards recognizing the inherent value in a humans labor regardless of what it is they're doing.
panguardian t1_j0rwbe2 wrote
Depends what you mean by "appropriate or desirable". I believe profit is king in the adoption of automation. If a general purpose robot can be programmed to perform multiple tasks, then I fail to see what will stop business owners embarking on mass automation.
Emberashh t1_j0rwl8t wrote
>Depends what you mean by "appropriate or desirable".
On part of society as a whole, not just business owners.
Keep in mind that the idea that these people can't be held accountable is propaganda spread by them. They want you to spend your energy doing anything but hold them responsible. Don't fall for that crap.
panguardian t1_j0rytj7 wrote
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean in most of your post.
The decision to begin the process will not be made by society as a whole, because society as a whole is not in a policy-making position.
Emberashh t1_j0rzh3p wrote
Its not a question of who gets to decide to begin automating. Its a question of what society is willing to tolerate.
And fyi, your brainwashing is showing yet again in your inability to concieve of the idea that business owners don't get to unilaterally do this.
They'll try, and many will fail when the automation fails to maintain a profitable business or when they're forced to abandon it.
panguardian t1_j0so81e wrote
Wow. You descended. Bye.
Emberashh t1_j0sobv1 wrote
Yeah Im sure confronting yiur cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.
slickhedstrong t1_j0q83ch wrote
i am delivering a big fat downvote for such a half assed thought. do your own thinking and research and come back with a full assed thought that has some experience and knowledge and context behind it.
CalebCrawdadd t1_j0r0x1a wrote
Here's a big fat down vote for a half assed comment
Wcuprz1 t1_j0qbbr4 wrote
How it should happen: we all work less on things that “must” be done, giving us more time for leisure and innovation. People are happier and can more easily meet their basic needs as items produced by ai are cheaper.
How it will happen: in the grim darkness of the early 2nd millennium…..