Hacker News Reader

Comment by 9rx | Hacker News Reader

> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods.

Do they? Money is simply the accounting of debt. You do something for me, and when I can't immediately do something in return for you, you extend a loan to me so that I can make good on my side of the bargain later. If we record that I owe you something at some point in the future, we just created money!

But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you. Money only matters in a world where: You want/need people to do things for you, they won't do something for you without a favour returned in kind, and you cannot immediately return the favour.

View on HN

Your landlord demands money every month. So do your local utilities - power, gas, water, sewage, garbage collection, phone, internet, etc.

Is magical AI going to materialize food out of nowhere for you, with no need for any raw materials to be consumed in the process? Will it make clothes out of nothing?

> Your landlord demands money every month.

As if the "AI champion" will have a landlord. Methinks you've not thought this through.

> So do your local utilities - power, gas, water, sewage, garbage collection, phone, internet, etc.

Unless he owns all that too. Even if that doesn't play out, safe to say that in said hypothetical future it will be owned by a very small group of people. And while they may still have some trade amongst themselves, there will still be no need to sell things to the average Joe.

> Is magical AI going to materialize food out of nowhere for you, with no need for any raw materials to be consumed in the process? Will it make clothes out of nothing?

The magical AI will, yes. But as it is magical, you are right that this future branch is unlikely. Much more likely is the future where people remain relevant.

From their view, if there is no need to extract work from the average Joe, there is no need for the average Joe at all.

Hence why the previously stated remembrance doesn't hold.

As before, money only matters in a world where: You want/need people to do things for you, they won't do something for you without a favour returned in kind, and you cannot immediately return the favour.

Direct trading kind of died out towards the end of middle age, are we supposed to go back in time?

No, why?

If people still want other people to do things for them, accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented. We don't have to un-invent it. But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.

If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade. The magical AIs, or whatever it is that someone has dreamt up that they think will eliminate the need to hire people, will provide instead. You only need people to buy things from you if you need to buy things from them as well.

whatever [...] they think will eliminate the need to hire people, will provide instead

the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others. if that doesn't work, then they won't do it. so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition. because that is hat will happen if we keep going as we are. less and less labor is needed, and the focus is on getting the money from those who still have an income while the rest are pushed into poverty.

i do not believe we will be able to make this kind of transition without a serious push in moral education. this can only work if we change our attitude towards those who can't find work.

personally though i do not believe we will ever need to eliminate work. there are so many worthwhile things we could do. i rather envision a future where the majority of jobs are in education, healthcare and research, almost everything else can mostly be automated. i believe humanity would benefit immensely if we took advantage of all of human potential instead of letting people stay at home.

> the problem is that whose who do that thinking want to enrich themselves and not provide for others.

That might be your problem, but isn't the problem being discussed.

> so the question is, how do we get from the current situation to this life of abundance without letting the majority of people suffer in the transition.

The question is, from the perspective of what is being discussed, who cares? "I got mine" applies.

> less and less labor is needed

If those with the magical AI no longer need labor, it is more likely, as counterintuitive as it may seem, to lead to more and more labor! How? Well, if those with the magical AI no longer need people to work for them, they'll simply disappear from the economy. Which means everyone else without the magical AI will be the economy, and labor is what they most have to offer, so that is what they will trade.

> labor is what they most have to offer, so that is what they will trade

What will they eat? Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on?

> What will they eat?

Each other, at least for a while.

> Whose land might they be allowed to grow their food on?

Labor will be used to develop technologies to provide food without land.

> ... accounting isn't going anywhere. It has already been invented

> But, if this our future, then humans remain relevant, so there is no concern about job loss or anything of that nature.

Relevant as what? Serfs and accountants? Even short of that scenario, there is a big concern if the primary technology of redistribution (jobs) becomes far more scarce.

> If, however, some future plays out where people aren't needed to work anymore, there will simply be no need for trade.

People will still need raw materials and resources, and those are not evenly geographically distributed.

Time to fight for fertile land then.

wait-- do you have historical evidence that "money" replaced "direct trading" at any point in time? Why do you pick "end of middle age"

suggest reading Debt: the first 5000 years.

Never mind history. There is no evidence of "money" replacing "direct trading" today, so there would be no need to go back in time. But obviously it wasn't meant to be taken so literally. The "between the lines" intent is understood.

Ok so let’s see

You need a roof over your head and some food to eat

But whoops, no one is willing to pay you enough to do that.

This was already in 2013:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/80-percent-of-us-adults-face-ne...

And this is now:

https://www.acainternational.org/news/2024-paycheck-to-paych...

> You need a roof over your head and some food to eat

The magical AI will (hypothetically) provide this for you.

> But whoops, no one is willing to pay you enough to do that.

You seem confused. The question wasn't posed from the perspective of those who don't have the magical AI.

>> except they forget people also need money to buy their goods.

>Do they?

Yes they absolutely positively really do.

They’re not too bothered with a part of humanity starving. Why do you think they’d care about you more?

What for?

Because of how society works? Because currency is even more inherent to society than literacy?

That's how a society that needs (delayed) trade between people works, but the setting was a hypothetical future where a magical AI exists, that can provide for someone without needing to rely on other people.

Did you, uh, forget to read the thread?

? how does one pay for a good, without money?

Well, as of right now, the only way to pay for a good is to pay for it with another good or service. As before, money is merely the accounting of debt. It only signifies a promise to provide a good or service in the future. You aren't really paying for something with money, you are delaying payment with a promise to actually pay later.

Given that, why do you think debt is necessary in the hypothetical future situation that was presented?

> But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you.

I really don't want to believe that people leading these huge corporations are dumb enough to actually think this, but at the same time I know better.

Sure if AI could make small communities autonomous and provide everyone with everything they would ever need, there would be no need for money.

But we are far away from this utopia, this utopia will require a ton of energy to be produced just to run the AI supervision layer, so hopefully by then we'd have fusion energy or something else figures out, and to achieve this utopia there will be a transition period.

I am actually worried about the transition period in your fictional world. Some people will be replaced long before the deprecation of money. It's a lot of people that is going to suffer from extreme poverty if we don't think this right, which I believe is what the OP comment was about.

> and provide everyone with everything they would ever need

It doesn't need to provide for everyone. Imagine a single Jeff Bezos type who conquers the world with the magical AI with no need for anyone else to do anything for him. With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else. This is where the "they forget people also need money to buy their goods" falls apart. There is no such need.

You just forget that the transaction part of consuming is just a portion of it. AI could provide bezos with everything material he'd need, just not the power and status. That's where your argument falls apart. We are social beings, and for those in power they won't be satisfied with the illusion of power. Consumption is the driving force that maintains power in capitalism. You could replace the system, but never the need for power humans have.

> That's where your argument falls apart.

Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?

Then why did you claim the argument falls apart, but then proceed to retell the very argument you claim fell apart?

If you read the comment in isolation I could at least understand your confusion, but you state that isn't the case.

Because "But if I don't need anything from you — because, say, magical AIs are already giving me everything I could ever hope and dream of — I have no reason to become indebted to you" and "With no need for someone else to do something for him, there is no need for him to sell to anyone else" implies that consumption is purely transactional which I argued against.

In other words, AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for.

> AI can't ever give you everything you need and hope for.

And magic isn't real. Perhaps the problem isn't that you are reading a comment in isolation, but rather that you aren't reading them at all?

I could say the same for you.

Seriously though, I don't know what you are thinking when you say "Are you aimlessly reading comments in strict isolation?". I don't know what's unclear and what I should expand. If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.

> I could say the same for you.

It, like every other followup response I have written, was a question. Do you mean that you would ask the same thing?

> If you treat everyone this way there is no way people will talk to you or take you seriously.

If asking questions means people will not talk to me or take me seriously, that's fine. What purpose would continually asserting random statements serve?

Not all questions are born the same. All questions you posed so far had this arrogant air to them like I'm missing something so obvious it doesn't have to be stated. If you can't bother to express yourself better why should I make this effort of guessing what you mean? You'd be surprised how far a bit of benefit of the doubt can take you.

> All questions you posed so far had this arrogant air to them

Arrogance has nothing to do with anything, so this seems logically flawed, no? However, in the interest of trying to better understand your take, how would you have alternatively phrased them to not have that "air to them"?

> If you can't bother to express yourself better why should I make this effort of guessing what you mean?

Why make a foolish guess when you can simply ask more about what was intended to be meant? Now that I have introduced you to the concept of asking a question, you've sensibly started doing exactly that, but if we look back at earlier comments...

I'm sorry. I lack the patience and the interest in continuing this conversation, but I deemed impolite to just ghost you. I won't be responding anymore.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com