Hacker News Reader

> post-scarcity wealth where people pretty much spend their time how they want

In a true post-scarcity society where Musk et al are off colonizing Mars while you're stuck on Earth on UBI, doing what exactly? In such a future, AI has automated boring chores but also everything else. Art, movies, cooking, everything you might find enjoyable. So lots of free time to do what? Work on yourself? Nobody will care. Engage with your hobbies? Nobody will care to see them, so unless you're the kind of person who enjoys their inner life without interaction with others, be aware nobody will read your AI novel nor watch your AI movie, because they can make one specifically tailored for themselves.

To me this seems like a hellish future, a mix of "Farenheit 451" with people staring at wall screens (only AI-tailored for them) or the "basic income but restless" people from Earth in "The Expanse". It's even worse than "A Brave New World" because human workers will be mostly unneeded. Their basic necessities covered, but nothing for them to do, no real struggle other than boredom. Any challenges that remain must be artificially self-imposed, because the real challenges will be for a chosen few.

> Work on yourself? Nobody will care. Engage with your hobbies? Nobody will care to see them

But this is already the case now, no? The only person you do self-improvement or hobbies for is yourself or your closest social circle. We are already worse at everything than the professionals in the respective fields and also do not despair about it.

> To me this seems like a hellish future, a mix of "Farenheit 451" with people staring at wall screens (only AI-tailored for them) or the "basic income but restless" people from Earth in "The Expanse".

I think a more optimistic take people usually bring up is the Culture series. But yes, of course ultimately it all boils down to us being obsolete. That does not give me worse existential angst than life (to which there's no real point) already does, however, so I don't see it as worse than the status quo.

> But this is already the case now, no? The only person you do self-improvement or hobbies for is yourself or your closest social circle.

Well, you could be a professional in the field instead of a hobbyist. But not anymore (in this scenario). And even your closest social circle won't care about your hobbies, when they can easily produce the same. Even hobbyists have a (small) audience -- unless they are completely self-absorbed, which I know some people are, but let's leave them aside for a second -- and that'll be gone.

> We are already worse at everything than the professionals in the respective fields and also do not despair about it.

Yes, I'm saying in this dystopian future the professionals will be gone too. And then you won't be able to aspire to becoming a professional either, nothing left for you to look forward or aspire to. So what will we do with all our free time? Learn to cook? Nobody will be impressed, the Cook-bot in every kitchen will do it way better than you.

> But yes, of course ultimately it all boils down to us being obsolete

This depresses me a lot.

All nerds/top performers I know are that way because their dopamine pathways fire when they learn and/or perceive self progression. That's it. It's the same for artists and musicians. All these types will do what they do regardless. They can't help it.

Hm, anyone who's a nerd, artist or performer will tell you that's only partly true. There's intrinsic motivation, sure, but artists and performers also have an idealized audience in mind; someone to share with. It could be a spouse or family, it can be friends, but there's almost always someone. There is for me, for my performer friends and family, there's for musicians I know.

Motivation is a fickle mistress. It can definitely be killed if you feel what you're doing is pointless.

Even more, motivation often arises from struggle. If you remove all struggle, if everything worth doing is done by AI/machines, and everything exciting is happening someplace else inaccessible to you, that will be catastrophic.

I'm also reminded of Philip Dick's "Autofac".

I don't know about this one. For me, at least, the reward of "self progression" is intimately tied to external systems. I would not care about getting better at programming if there wasn't a social and financial reward attached.

Sounds like you're a professional software developer. Profession does not make a nerd. ;)

> It's basically like someone in the pre-industrial age complaining that the industrial revolution will lead to the permanent underclass of people who currently live on welfare in developed countries. But this is surely a wonderful outcome from the pre-industrial peasant's perspective - even poor people in the western world live better than middle age kings!

Wow, it took more than a century to get to live better than middle age kings. Do you think the people that lost their means to make a good living in 1800s care that we live so much better today ? It is incredible how so many tech people lack empathy for how regular people think or want to live.

I liked the Culture series too, but how they got to the presented post scarcity world is never described. How many generation lived a worse life than their predecessors? Do you think the current or future bi and trillionaires are willing to pay everyone a decent wage to live through this transition period ?

> Wow, it took more than a century to get to live better than middle age kings. Do you think the people that lost their means to make a good living in 1800s care that we live so much better today ? It is incredible how so many tech people lack empathy for how regular people think or want to live.

I noticed that comes more from a place of not imagining themselves being the subject of the possible terrible consequences.

Many tech people think in abstract terms, they look back in history without thinking much about how the life of a normal person during a major transitional period was impacted, it's just a sequence of facts, not a collection of human stories.

It's sad because it completely detaches many of these folks from having empathy, yes, change is the only constant but if our aim is to progress as a species we should also be progressing on how to make inevitable changes less miserable for those impacted. I see a lot in tech people the thinking of technological advancement for the sake of technological advancement, not for building a better world for every human, humans tend to get in the way of major technological changes so in their minds they prioritise the advancements without caring much about the human aspect.

It's quite baffling to me because those are usually smart people, I'd expect smart people to have better holistic thinking.

In my view, UBI basically puts me, an upstanding citizen with hard skills that AI made obsolete, on the same playing field as the average junkie off the street in SF. Why on earth would I want that? People are different, the modern economy is a great stratification mechanism at putting you near people of similar conscientiousness, and getting rid of that is a recipe for misery.