What will humans do if technology solves everything?
economist.com
economist.com
The comment on AI parenting isn't as revolutionary as it sounds: wealthy people raising their own children (rather than employing a dedicated nanny) is a 20th-century innovation, at least in the West. But I think people will feel unsettled about their children being raised by robots, regardless of the quality of the tech - Norlands College has little to worry about, I think.
But the central issue of this article is the issue I have with Universal Basic Income. If a person's labour is worthless, then the State has to provide some sort of income for them by taxing the business for which they would otherwise have worked. If this becomes ubiquitous throughout the economy, then the State becomes a dominating force in the economy, and the principles of the market economy start to break down. The idea that nothing can be produced without labour is a fundamental assumption to all economic models, and without it, we're in very dangerous territory.
If there are 1M in the catchment area, and 50% want to see them, and there is seating for 50k, then prices will increase to what's affordable for the top-10%
If there are 3M in the catchment area, even if just 33% want to see them, seating is still 50k, then prices will increase to what's affordable for the top 5%
> But the central issue of this article is the issue I have with Universal Basic Income. If a person's labour is worthless, then the State has to provide some sort of income for them by taxing the business for which they would otherwise have worked.
Tax the land. Land value has massively increased over the years, everyone needs at least some land to live, even if it's just 100 square feet. Everyone has a fair claim to the land, unless you're a fan of feudal lords.
Your taxable business will not have a great business if nobody has any income. Doesn't matter how many widgets they make if nobody can afford them.
But isn't that the second element of this? The principles of the market economy break down because most people won't have anything to offer in the market, not because the government is over-reaching by trying to provide support for people who no longer have any legal means of supporting themselves in a market where their value is now zero.
We're going to be in very dangerous territory, but it's not because of government meddling (which is how I read your comment as viewing UBI - sorry if this isn't the case, but there are quite a few free market opinions on here, so again sorry if I'm misrepresenting your views). It's because the very thing that all economic models are based on is about to have the rug pulled from underneath it. The models will need to be altered as production without labour is about to become much more common.
I believe with AI we will see future similar to self-driving cars: they will improve work, and some mundane repeated tasks (the tasks that might take 60-80% of time) - but they won't fully replace need for workers. Just that workers gonna be different - instead of repeatedly doing stuff they will have to make decisions, spot issues etc.
And then there is whole artisan theme. You can take for example bakery. One can purchase anything in super-market cheaper, but there are bakeries where it's just better and more preferred for those who can afford. Or coffee. Or whatever else that is already automated but we prefer to be served by human.
And for some reason this is valued and rewarded more than ROI generation tasks. We are truly fucked as a species.
<5 years = sensible
5-10 years = JIRA incursion, agile factions
>10 years = Project manager and bureaucrat hostile incursion
I quite like the latter if you're working from home. You can get a LOT done on shit you actually care about when you're on conference calls just as part of a faction to make it look bigger against another corporate faction.
But I give this article points for bringing up Greg Egan and Permutation City.
We might invent jobs for each other, but the earning potential of them will not be very high if the labour can be readily done by a machine.
Those who can live with their parents or have joint ownership with packs of friends could probably surf by paying the mortgage on gig work.
Of course, if housing suddenly becomes plentiful and cheap, renters might enjoy this gig economy too.
Seems like a weird metric to overfit to. Maybe because it's easily measurable.
Less people to employ, for the same or greater output equals more profits.
I am not a proponent of this development, just a realist.
Companies are under no obligation to employ people just because they exist, so they can already employ less people if they choose to. I don't see why anyone has to die.
Being fired and being unable to find employment elsewhere often has serious financial, physical and mental consequences for people. Often times it can completely ruin a persons life.
Not everyone has savings, or even the possibility to create savings, making the impact of being made redundant even that much more harder to handle.
Severe life changing situations can often lead to drug and substance abuse which carry with them higher chance of death. These situations can often directly lead to suicide.
Not every society around the world has systems in place to capture those that fall down, and even those that do are going to have a difficult time handling the large influx of people needing assistance if the techno dystopian future in the article comes to pass.
I would recommend checking out the excellent book "The Body Economic: Why Austerity Kills by David Stuckler & Sanjay Basu" on the societal impact of austerity.
> Being fired and being unable to find employment elsewhere often has serious financial, physical and mental consequences for people. Often times it can completely ruin a persons life.
Yeah, and that's because we've tied a person's survival needs to their ability to find "work". And in many cases "work" is not really a productive activity; it's just a facade we've all bought into. It's a useful facade though, because if we were all perfectly efficient and only rewarded true productive work then we'd be in deeper trouble.
So our challenge, it seems, is to somehow keep finding new "work" when technology makes it harder and harder for us to trick ourselves into believing we're working. "Prompt engineer" comes to mind.
The whole thought experiment of “what if AI makes humans obsolete” is pointless because it assumes there is some universal goal that transcends human existence which there is not. We are not here to do anything but maintain our own existence, and existing with as little effort as possible is actually our end goal. The universe has no other purpose than for us to exist in it.
Which would mean discontent and rebellion. I don't think any significant portion of the population would just die quietly. And from what you described, you are probably talking about 50-90% of the population.
Of course if you are cynical, you could just say that technology could "solve" this problem as well.
Meanwhile, the efficiency with which capitalism (and war) created an angry, resentful underclass sowed the seeds that allowed fascism to bloom in the run up to WW2.
Each person supported by a near limitless amount fusion energy and robot assistance, 500 years into the future, a long time after the cleansing of the undesirables. Sort of like what happened to the native americans, or the natives after any conquest really.
Interesting premise for some philosophical musings, but terribly unrealistic. In fact, I think the first assumption is easier to achieve than the second.
The whole point of money is lubrication under scarcity. If you don't have a job, you don't have money. No lubrication.
So no difference from current conditions, then, except the objectively better quality of life.
Plus, of course the physical limitation that no one can ever be rich enough to share endlessly.
Then the super-rich will start sharing their wealth, because if they don't, their competitors will do it first and take all the fame. It is not from the benevolence of the super-rich, the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
I don't think I'll be holding my breath waiting for ultra rich to be motivated by fame of this type. In fact, I think it's wishful thinking in its finest form.
They live a post-scarcity life, but not everyone does -- or can (probably, still). Once everyone could, the greedy hoarder mentality they (and pretty much all of us) operate under right now might (hopefully?) come to be seen as pathological, not ideal.
thing is, that lifestyle has been here for some ever since trust funds have existed. all the singularity will do is let the rest of us live that lifestyle.
We will find new stuff to keep us busy, no doubt.
It's utterly ridiculous to think we are at the end of the tech tree, just because we haven't seen the future yet.
It's because people tends to forget the problems and it's solution when a technology entirely solve it without creating new problems. ATMs for example doesn't create problems and solve a lots.
Is it getting easier or harder over time to make meaningful contributions to storytelling, science, mathematics, etc?
Even with crude street drugs right now many people forego fulfillment in life for hedonistic indulgence. Bring that down to a level of direct neural stimulation and a balanced out supplementation to avoid burnout and I seriously doubt that most people would actually miss the activities we think of as fulfilling in themselves.
Now, whether or not it's actually practical to ever get that far is another question -- one more for the bioengineers than for the philosophers.
I mean, what is a Snickers or a Big Mac ? Food ? Or a compound of the highest rewarding substances (sugar, fat and salt) for the human brain ?
(Also smartphones and social networks but I’ll stop there before writing a paper)
Then it activates the same reward mechanisms in your brain and then you are stuck.
Yes it’s short time relief, but that’s no different than any other drug and this one is legal and cheap.
Weekly working hours per job, sure... But reading about how many Americans seem to need to work two or more of those jobs in parallel, the article's thesis doesn't feel like the whole truth.
Heck I'm not even talking dirty here -- I'm talking about direct stimulus at the neural level.
Though for as bad as they were as movies this may get into some of the matter of what they touched on in the Matrix sequels. Humans actually want some degree of adversity.
We are already cyborgs. Sitting on bicycles, using a handheld computer and headphones.
After a few decades or centuries, there might be no organic cells left. We might be made completely from silicon. And look nothing like we do now. But we will continue to do what we always did. Work hard to optimize our survival and reproduction.
“What if all the roombas decide to band together and unionise? That would be a disaster!”
When humanity gets wiped eventually, maybe the robots will keep the tradition going?
“Traces of human DNA discovered in Alaska! Any chance they could come back?”
Edit: actually, not working anyway.
Some would do just science, innovation, because "solve everything" means nothing in practice, means just solving current problems as we know how to solve them in an automated fashion, some other will live like Virtual Revolution (movie) "connected life", some will have sex as much as their body allow etc.
A day we hope to became able to evolve after our body, substituting it with machines, to reach formal immortality, meaning "we live as long as we like, no suffering, no illness etc". That's an old dream of the humanity, ancient Greek's have called it "the Gold age".
Just learning math or musical improvisation can fill a lifetime. Etc.
(I thought a great challenge would be the sport of starting with an empty field, just the clothes one is wearing, and access to wikipedia, and see how quickly one can develop technologies from survival up to smart phones, while trading only with others similarly engaged.)
The article suggests these things. But, so much more could be said. I believe our spirits are children of God, with infinite potential, and much to learn...
Immediately die of profound shock and embarrassment, on the discovery that a robotic hand made of cold titanium hyperalloy could be both willing and able to replace toilet paper.
But as others have mentioned, there will be no shortage of stuff to do, even if we end up immortal. That in itself would be a contradiction of the problem statement.