With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, whose expertise in theoretical physics is undoubted, how would he be in a position to "confirm" this?
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed.
> Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution.
> So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
When you start with ridiculous premises, you're going to reach ridiculous conclusions.
Not necessarily - and even so, the work left to be done by humans might only cover a small % of the population.
Except we don't live by their standards -- we live by our standards. And even if they had lived to see today, their standards would have immediately readjusted to want more. That's why it's ridiculous to assume we will ever have "everything we need".
AI + Space = everything we need
Machines have been labor saving entities since the invention of the wheel. Inevitably, one day they will perform all labor.
This is not true of many tribal or "uncivilized" cultures. Conspicuous consumption, luxury, and economic advantage/inequality as moral value systems are taboo for close knit tribal communities.
>Before our white brothers arrived to make us civilized men, we didn't have any kind of prison. Because of this, we didn't have any delinquents. Without a prison, there can't be no delinquents. We had no locks nor keys therefore among us there were no thieves. When someone was so poor that he couldn't afford a horse, a tent or a blanket, he would, in that case, receive it all as a gift. We were too uncivilized to give great importance to private property. We didn't know any kind of money and consequently, the value of a human being was not determined by his wealth. We had no written laws laid down, no lawyers, no politicians, therefore we were not able to cheat and swindle one another. We were really in bad shape before the white man arrived and I don't know how to explain how we were able to manage without these fundamental things that (so they tell us) are so necessary for a civilized society.
-Lame Deer
Whilst I certainly want things that my iron-age ancestors wouldn't even have known they could want, my actual physical needs are not greatly different from theirs.
Part of the "challenge" a capitalist society faces is making sure there are jobs despite that only a tiny fraction of the population needs to work to provide everyone's basic biological needs, but that without work everyone else can't pay for those needs to be satisfied.
Unless we reach the singularity, there will always be the need for something.
And if you think of needs as something as abstract as "power over the universe" (which is still a limited resource, even after the singularity), you cannot ever reach the state where machines produce everything we need.
Hence, the premise can be unreachable, or - in parent's words - "ridiculous"
Inequality will always be with us because humans compete. If they don't compete directly economically they compete for social status.
Providing a base level of food, shelter, and medical assistance is achievable. I just don't think it will be enough when envy is factored in.
> machines produce everything we need
There's a difference between need and want. People want iPhones, but they don't need them, so they can decide themselves whether working more is worth it.
On the other hand, people need food. The only choice is work or die, which isn't really a choice. There is an infinitely large jump between extremely cheap food and free food (and energy/shelter). As food gets cheaper, wages decrease as well, so you still need to work about as long to survive. When/if food becomes free, people won't need to work any longer.
It is cynical and ignorant to assume the dollar is the monotheistic deity of motivation for everyone. There are and have been countless cultures across the world who don't require monetary payment to produce the requisite food for the community.
The things that people think they need. Be it plain consumerism or something cultural or social like honor, an iphone, a beautiful wife, a car for boys to impress girls or to go to work, a marriage before losing virginity.
In each of the above cases need in the survivalist sense and need in the subjective sense cannot be more different.
One will have a hard time arguing that those people don't need what we think they don't need.
Yeah, the physicist is out of his depth on capitalism. Just ask the forum full of computer nerds and wantrepreneurs!
I told my friend: "Hacker News: The place where people can call bullshit to someone as smart as Stephen Hawking..."
Is there anything you are aware of that would prevent it, other than "it might not happen, for some reason"?
Nope, I don't mean that. Are these the only two things going on in the world? Is capitalism the sole driver for these two? Just trying to get a feel for why you would guess so horribly badly.
> Why would anyone want to prevent/change that?
What makes you think I have to defend myself against your straw man?
edit:
And you know what, the fact that I get shit for a snarky reply to something that doesn't warrant one, is extremely lame. Here's what Hawking said
> If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed. Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared, or most people can end up miserably poor if the machine-owners successfully lobby against wealth redistribution. So far, the trend seems to be toward the second option, with technology driving ever-increasing inequality.
In the context of that, no, I obviously mean more than just peaches and unicorns with "current trends", to suggest otherwise is, given the level of literacy on this site, flat out not arguing in good faith. At least I stand behind for dealing with it as such, I don't play nice with sophistry.
Trade (which is to say, markets) and globalisation are largely responsible for driving this. Capitalism (private ownership of the means of production) is currently the most successful model we have for facilitating these.
In the 1930s US almost all the jobs were in agriculture. Then robots took those jobs. Happened all at once, which hurt, but then what happened?
Picture the future as a few dozen capitalist overlords who own all the robots selling each other robotic goods and services (because no one else has the means, right?). Where's their value add? What's everyone else going to do? Sit on their hands and wait to starve to death?
Every year something like 10% of jobs (IIRC) disappear and are replaced by other, different jobs. That's a trend we can extropalate and economists do. The projected impact of 'robots taking our jobs' is (again, IIRC) single digits per annum.
Of course it's possible to argue that the rise of the machines or the on rushing singularity make it impossible to reason about this with any certainty, but then that applies to Dr Hawking as well, no matter how much smarter than the average bear he is.
The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society. This also arises simply from extrapolating current trends. Not that long ago the bulk of humanity was grubbing around in the dirt trying not to get killed by bears or die of disease. The proportion of the population for whom this an everyday reality gets thankfully smaller every decade. The long term trend of human history is that things consistently get better, usually because of technology. Why should that change?
Well, if there is anyone who knows about singularities, it's Dr Steve :-)
Right now, the "value" is basically just there to get other people to work for you. That and exchanging goods is all money does. When you have robots to build anything you want, cure all your ills, and don't need human servants, you don't need money. Robots get paid in energy, so to speak, and then there's only resources and control over them.
> The optimistic view is that automation will liberate humanity from all forms of drudge labour and eventually usher in a post scarcity society.
Right, and people who until now don't want to share, will suddenly change? That's not current trends, that is the opposite of current trends. The gap between rich and poor is growing, not closing.
Also, just because something is irrational, destructive and self-destructive, doesn't mean it can't happen or isn't already going on. Powerful people aren't necessarily the most intelligent or wise. I'd even say to reach some levels of power mental health defects are a necessity. Which, to me, is also part of common sense and things I'm surprised I even have to point out.
Here's a comment I bookmarked:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4428673&cid=453...
> The main part of the economics that don't make sense is trusting a secretive technocratic savior, wielding trillions of dollars of resources, to actually give a shit about helping out all the low-level peons who initially funded the system. It's an extremely elitist vision, that, by people's parents handing over investment money to a small cabal of technological geniuses, their kids will be handed a post-scarcity utopia on a platter --- instead of the wealthy technocrats simply joining forces with the rest of the oppressive oligarchy, laughing at the suckers who gambled away their children's futures on promises of technology serving the people rather than vice-versa.
No one is in a position to "confirm" this statement or prove it irrecusably wrong. More or less tenable arguments may be made, more or less well. I think Hawking does well here, behind the poorer commentary, but I'm unwilling to engage in or let lie propaganda for any end, particularly on a forum on which we are to default to respect for others' ability to engage in thoughtful dialogue. The source for this article is not easily to be dismissed, but the article's title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline that suggests one reading over another while pretending to fact is propagandistic.
Yeah, and that goes both ways. You can't wave away the apathy that exists by disagreeing on other grounds.
> This article is not easily to be dismissed, but its title is misleading - a straight fib - and a misleading headline to suggest one reading over another is propagandistic.
There is not much leeway in how to read Hawkings' actual comments, and as for title, that is the word "confirm":
> 1. to state or show that (something) is true or correct
> 2. to tell someone that something has definitely happened or is going to happen : to make (something) definite or official
> 3. to make (something) stronger or more certain : to cause (someone) to believe (something) more strongly
Notice the last meaning. So this is just a high-ranking comment with nothing to add, splitting hairs about the title. What Hawking said is not easy to dismiss, but that doesn't stop people from trying now does it.
edit: yep, it's already getting buried. Someone of the smarter people on the planet is talking about one of the more serious things in life, but let's talk about gadgets some more.
The inspiration for many of these entries: Stephen Hawking, perhaps one of the most famous scientists in the world today, who as the result of Motor Neurone Disease (also known as ALS and Lou Gehrig's Disease) is quadriplegic and uses a wheelchair, and who, since a 1985 tracheotomy, has used a computer voice synthesizer to speak. Somehow, though, he was able to have an extramarital affair, so apparently not everything is paralyzed.