Hacker News Reader

Comment by whatever1 | Hacker News Reader

The machines will have owners; likely, these owners will be very few due to the concentration of wealth that they will have accumulated by the time we reach full automation.

So, probably a guy will own all the agricultural automation, another one the warehouse automation, another one the software, etc.

Then there will also be the resource owners (probably states or big landlords). Since resources are finite (land, minerals), the automation owners will need to pay for these.

Among these folks, there will be an exchange of money.

So, for the rest of us, if we don’t own some resource, the outlook does not seem very bright. Maybe prostitution to the owners will be the only available job.

View on HN

Property rights require legal framework supported by a legitimised monopoly on violence (which is, almost universally, a nation state). Disenfranchising people means delegitimising the state means wrecking the frame of ownership rights. That's probably the biggest conundrum ahead.

1. Capital owners need us as labour units. 2. Capital owners need nation state as the guarantor of their rights to accumulated capital. 3. Nation state needs us to legitimise itself.

AI/robotics kills (1). How the system will rebalance from here?

Someone will own and rent out all the killbots to people looking to protect their stuff.

That would work until the first security incident, then everything is owned by the hacker. Albeit with some cleanup necessary to take out the expired humans.

I wrote about this a bit on my blog [1] but to add to this idea,

> Maybe prostitution to the owners will be the only available job.

Pre industrial revolution, labor was in a sense cheaper than it was during the industrial revolution, and one genuinely interesting set of professions that existed then was house servants. Butlers, maids, cooks, under butlers and so on. It would not be inconceivable to see the return of these kinds of jobs? Ones where the value of human labor is so low that working for someone with wealth in their own home is common?

[1] https://wilsoniumite.com/2024/09/09/how-do-we-fix-it/

I suppose that house servants performed two functions - menial tasks, and emotional labour. Competence at both was essential. A house servant who was great at making beds but super annoying or had no emotional intelligence probably didn't last very long.

The menial tasks component will probably be automated away. Which leaves the emotional labour. Put another way, our job will be to be liked by the people with power. Liked enough to be kept around.

The only job left in the future is that of the pet.

> our job will be to be liked by the people with power.

So, for most people, no change from the job they are already doing?

I approve of this implication

They were appliances. a kitchenaid at the farm of my great uncle did one job.. that of a kitchenaid. whisk and kneed all day+ gossip

I'm not sure if you are confirming or rebutting my argument. In the future, no whisking. Gossip better be saucy if you want to stick around.

Maids already are common in barely upper middle class homes. They don't live there but.

> Maybe prostitution to the owners will be the only available job.

I wonder, I wonder... I think there is certain prestige companion jobs that might exist. But your AI girlfriends and why not sex dolls with perfect bodies tailored to taste can do lot of the lifting.

Then again, child bearing and rearing might be viable "occupation". After all having lot of kids have been always been popular in certain classes.

That sounds a lot like what we already have, the HN crowd is just lucky to be in the top 30% earners

I think there would be open-source machine variants that many people could own and modify. As population growth is slowing, finite resources should hopefully have a better and wider distribution among people as they would not be constraints.

We'll have to seize it all by then.

It’s seems pretty obvious that in that scenario that’s what will happen. Hopefully it won’t be too dramatic…

How do you propose we do the seizing?

Historically that never had good results, because the people who want to seize the wealth and the power are exactly those who shouldn't have it and be trusted with it, so you're exchanging one set of oligarchs with another set of despots.

It's hard to make predictions for such a hypothetical future, but let me try anyway.

If we ever reach 100% unemployment, the working class (in which I inlcude all that depend on wages to live) will lose its only leverage in today's world: its labor. This is bound to make the situation very dire, very quickly for the vast majority of the population (>99%). I see only two solutions:

* Either the owners push for some kind of UBI to buy social peace, leaving us with just enough that we don't hang them.

* Or they rely on robocops (or regular cops) to keep us in line. In which case it's either rebellion or slow extinction for us.

My preferred solution would be to install a new political system that ensures fair redistribution of products and good management of natural resources, which I think is easily achievable in a world of AGI and robots.

How will you hang the billionaires? It's not like they'll live next door to you instead of on their Billionaire Island with private security.

The billionaires can always do what they've always done and pay half the poor people to shoot and oppress the other half if things don't go their way. As long as you keep the people with guns well paid, you're good.

Dividing the lower classes and pitting them against each other has always been successful in conquering them and preventing them from uniting and rising up again the ruling elite because collectively, people are stupid and easy to manipulate against their own interests, like cattle.

Yes, that was my second scenario. Truthfully, I don't know how it will go down, I can only hope we get a good outcome.

In my mind, I still think 100% unemployment would mean a lot of people who live today in relative comfort, and are therefore complacent with oligarchy, would get very mad. Even if bought by billionaires, I doubt they'd retain the same quality of life as when the economy needed them.

And I don't see billionaires isolating themselves forever in gated communities, what's the point of being this powerful if you live in a golden cage? Look at Musk, he's the richest man in the world, and could just chill in the shadows but is constantly seeking attention and recognition.

> I still think 100% unemployment would mean a lot of people who live today in relative comfort, and are therefore complacent

My prediction if we get there is that the "AI" will present us with a seemingly 'benevolent' solution.

"AI has solved everything. Climate change. Limited resources. AI can fix it all. Everyone except a select few must stop ... reproducing."

It's like when a large organization wants to reduce headcount and they do it with buyout packages and retirement.

Violence can also be taken over by robots, it's another job that they can do better

Yes, this is frightening. Hopefully the large number of people that will be disenfranchised by 100% unemployment are enough to fight back before it's too late.

> Maybe prostitution to the owners will be the only available job.

or something new that an ai or machine hasn't managed yet, and something that have not been imagined today. And why not prostitution, if it comes to it?

And with the automation being so widespread, goods would be so cheap that the meagre taxes paid would sustain the costs of food stamps, basic living necessities, etc.

there's two ways to face this situation, the pessimistic one is to just die. Futuristic sci-fi stories usually have endangered human or even human extinction aspect in there, with / without harsh climate and / or war / conflict.

The optimistic? Hold out until the chance come. In thousands (millions) years of human civilization, not a single civilization can stay eternal. That kind of civilization will perish too, if not the humanity to perish first, especially because Murphy's law (if something can go wrong, it will, and usually at the worst time).

And IMO that kind of civilization will still have a long way to arrive, and we're more likely already dead before it arrive. Because that one Murphy's law, and limited resources for automation. In an area where infrastructure is not yet sufficient, usually human are the best to handle the job.

Or we just rob the resource owners and burn the automation.

Or tax their capital with income redistribution purposes, as we are already doing with more down to earth means of production.

>Or tax their capital

You'd have to abolish tax heavens and loopholes first.

Works well until the security sector gets automated.

that's how you get terminators.

that or sunshine on planets

We can sell them safety.

society will nor be stable long enough to see this

that sounds like Mad Max tbh,

Reply on news.ycombinator.com