Hacker News Reader

Comment by Marha01 | Hacker News Reader

> Nobody benefits by having less time to adapt

Not exactly true. If AI goes from 0 to 100 quickly (human level AGI in a few years), we will all lose our jobs together and will have to confront this fact. There is no ignoring such massive societal elephant in the room.

If instead AI improves slowly, lots of people will lose their jobs, but majority will not. Those still with jobs may not be persuaded by the sizable jobless minority to support any societal changes, since they are still OK. This means the jobless will be screwed.

View on HN

Firstly, this generation of AI is not going to take away all jobs

Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help

Accelerationists want to see their jobs go up in smoke because they think that if enough white collar workers are impoverished, everyone who was formerly poorer than them, will chip in to rescue us

Just like they didn't in 1985...

In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment! It's completely bananas thinking that only survives on internet brainrot forums

> Firstly, AI is not going to take away all jobs

Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs.

> Secondly, we already know what happens when sectors face mass unemployment from the 1980s, when steel and coal workers were laid off en-masse: nobody came to help

There is a massive difference between 20-30% of people in a country being unemployed (historical sector-wide collapses), and 80-100% of people in a country being unemployed (human-level AGI unemployment). The second situation is completely historically unprecedented and will *not* lead to the same results.

> In a context where the state already has less tax revenue due to mass unemployment!

If human-level AGI is an actual reality, taxation (and money itself) is no longer relevant. Only energy and resources may still matter.

> Human-level AGI is by definition able to take away all human jobs.

What definition is this? At best it would be able to take jobs that currently rely on human intelligence. There's a lot of ditch diggers, prostitutes, athletes, models, acrobats, painters, etc, etc out there who have nothing to fear from the first-order availability of disembodied intelligence. (There may be impacts from second-order and higher effects, but this is hard "by definition.")

> ditch diggers

AGI-level robots can do this.

> prostitutes, models, acrobats, painters, etc

You have a point. Perhaps I should have said "overwhelming majority of human jobs", instead of "all human jobs".

> 80-100% unemployed

This would mean that there are no AI companies at all, because there is no one to buy their products. So, they have nowhere to get money for whatever they want to sell.

at human-level AGI there would be no need for people to 'buy' when the machines can just do

If people dont buy, company does not have money nor income. Simple as that. There will be no need to use those machines, because you cant sell the output of those machines.

So, you have starwing hopeless population not buying your products. Which means you cant produce. Which means, you eventually become part of that starwing population (or they kill you in some outburst).

You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed.

In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robots to make it (including making more robots). No money involved at all.

Money is just an abstraction for resources. You'll still need land, energy, minerals etc.

Robots can mine minerals and build power plants.

They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

In this speculative scenario, robots could do that, but they can't just do it anywhere as it depends on where the minerals and land is at and who owns it, where power plants can be built, how supplies get shipped.

The idea that economics goes out the windows in a post-AGI world is highly speculative and not a situation that has ever happened in the real world.

I did not say economics goes out of the window, I said monetary economics.

With cheap robotic labor, many resource mines that are currently not economically viable will become viable, so basic resources will become much more plentiful.

The new economics will probably be based on needed energy, direct tally of needed material resources, or the number of robot-hours something takes to do.

> Robots can mine minerals and build power plants.

On who's land? With who's energy?

> They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

Weren't we just saying money was gonna be obsolete?

> Weren't we just saying money was gonna be obsolete?

Land is an inherently limited resource, so some kind of money might still exist for that, even after the singularity. The point is: whatever process exists to obtain land after the singularity, the robots can do it.

> Land is an inherently limited resource

Yes, that's my point exactly.

> whatever process exists to obtain land after the singularity, the robots can do it

Who's robots? Who will get all this land? And its spoils, and the robots that multiply them?

Because your utopia sounds like a recipe for making our oligarchs even more powerful at the expense of the rest of us. It sounds like a slide into neofeudalism. The already existing don't even need labor to multiply their riches anymore, the rest of us will be robbed of being able to trade our labor for even basic subsistence.

You are missing the point: robotic labor does not create anything "at the expense of the rest of us". It's not some stock market speculation, but real productivity increase. The pie of wealth is not fixed, the robots actually enlarge it, massively. The robot owning class wil not be some exclusive billionaire club: as the price of robots comes down (inevitable, with any technology, doubly so with one that can make itself), essentially everyone will own one, just like almost everyone owns a car today (or could own one if they needed it).

Worst case scenario: you will live exactly as you live today, with one change: instead of you having to do your job, your robot will do it for you, and you gain more free time.

I believe you are missing the point.

You've already conceded that there is inherently limited resources like land. These are going to be the limiting factor in any economic system, the key question is always how you distribute these.

Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then extract the resources from there to build even more robots etc.

No resources for you and me. No robots for us either. Why are you talking about prices going down? We're making money obsolete, remember? Why would they even sell us robots when they already own all the land and all the resources to make as many robots as they want? Sure, the pie will get bigger. But you ain't getting a slice.

What leverage would the vast majority of people have? If the oligarchs own all the robots and land and resources, how do we even ensure basic subsistence? Our labor is worthless. Our money is worthless. What stops them from... simply not sharing? The goodness of their hearts?

> Robots will not magically produce more land. What they will do is that the ones with the capital to buy many robots will be able to use those robots to then buy up all the land and then extract the resources from there to build even more robots etc.

The speed at which the availability of the robots to the general population increases will be much faster than the speed at which the initial robot owners would be able to buy land, and exclude others from using it. There are trillionaires today, extremely rich people have existed for a long time, yet they still own only a small fraction of all available land.

There could be a class of people who do not own any robots and thus are dependent on the goodwill of the robot owners to get anything they need to live, but this will be a small fraction of the population, equivalent to the homeless today. Definitely not the majority.

> The speed at which the availability of the robots to the general population increases will be much faster than the speed at which the initial robot owners would be able to buy land, and exclude others from using it. There are trillionaires today, extremely rich people have existed for a long time, yet they still own only a small fraction of all available land.

What are you basing this prediction on?

If you're a robot maker, already part of the oligarchy class, and you knew that robots would rapidly accelerate resource acquisition, why sell the robots at all? Money is about to become useless, remember? Why let the plebes have robots? They'll just use up resources you could hoard.

I feel like you predict the end of market economics, but at the same time make a bunch of assumptions based on them. Why would availability increase, price decrease etc etc if we're ending that whole resource allocation system? It'll be a giant landgrab by the ultra rich to grow and cement their empires, why wouldn't it be?

Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing? Of course not, you will need to barter for those if there are no money.

Will they create also water that will be getting more expensive due data center consumption?

This is absurd.

> Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing?

Not from nothing. How do humans create metal and food? Mining and farming. You ask your human-level robots to do the same. Human-level robots can by definition do everything humans can do, including gathering basic resources and growing food.

> Will they create also water that will be getting more expensive due data center consumption?

Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.

Even if there is still monetary economy, and you come to the conclusion that buying something is the best way to get it, you simply ask your robots to think of a way to earn you money by performing work for others, or making things to sell on the market. If they are truly human-level, they can do it.

> This is absurd.

This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.

> Mining and farming.

So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? If your actual plan is such fascist takeover where AI companies bully everyone else, then everyone else is entirely valid to wage war against you before you are close to that goal.

> Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.

The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the most expensive part of this.

Same with energy. So, you plan to take over the power plants by force? And take over the land to build them on? These AI companies could be building power plants, could even pick places where they dont give kids asthma already ... but they are choosing not to.

> This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.

No, it is not reality. You are ignoring reality. Robotics does not imply end of economics. The end of economics will happen only if you win war and install an odious violent autocracy. Which I understand is an intentional goal of current CEOs and their fans. I both disagree with that goal and find it, frankly, stupid.

> So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff?

What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

> The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the most expensive part of this.

Because human-level robots do not exist yet. And human work is very often the most expensive part of any advanced technological endeavour. It is the limiting factor. Good, qualified workers are very expensive.

> Robotics does not imply end of economics.

Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work, especially educated human work is currently in limited supply, so we need to allocate this limited resource efficiently. Remove this limitation and there is no longer the need for monetary economics.

> What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

There are no money in your world, they cant buy them. Why would the owners sell anyway? Selling the land would mean they have absolutely nothing except money they can not start new business with.

>The water is getting too expensive now. [...] Because human-level robots do not exist yet

We are not carrying water in buckets. It is all done with technology now.

> Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work

No. It exists because people who have thing too much of a thing A and a little of the a thing B. Before money, people would barter - I will give you 5 eggs and you will give me 10 apples. Money were invented to facilitate the barter.

money is just an abstraction over value, it is not value itself. if AGI is achieved, the AI labs will just use AGI to produce what they need instead of trading for it, which would include full vertical integration on all products.

No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence". AGI itself produces nothing.

Also, if there are no money so 80%-100% of people move to barter instead of money to trade stuff. Same thing, just less effective.

> No they wont, because producing requires more then just "intellingence".

What more does it require?

Spoiler: now you tell me what more is needed, and I would then tell you how to use intelligent robots to obtain it.

Land to mine from. And yes, you can use robot to beat up the owner and steal it. Then again, you dont need it to be intelligent to be violent.

They will still need land, energy and resources. They will also be subject to the wrath of voters and angry unemployed mobs.

> They will still need land, energy and resources.

Human-level robots can mine resources and build power plants.

Perhaps you need some initial land to build your first robotic base, but robots can also perform work to earn you money to buy more land afterwards.

Everyone is not just going to be able to tell their robots to buy land where the precious minerals are.

its basically the end of capitalism... for better or worse...

To compare, great depression had 25.6 unemployment rate. It helped the WWII to happen. It wont be the end of capitalism. But, it would mean major outbursts of violence and major civil war or revolution. Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets.

But my point really was that it is economic nonsense.

> Where AI companies will be (deservely) the hate targets.

That depends on what those companies do in response. Giving away robot-produced stuff for free could quicky earn them praise, instead of hate. If human-level robots enable massive increases in efficiency and production, at least one of the companies will decide to mitigate any risks in this way.

You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference. To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners.

And they will be hated, because they stripped people of future and bought in violent hellscape for literally everyone.

> You are severely underestimating how much free stuff would 349,163,268 of American citizens need to make a small difference.

You don't need to persuade all of them.

> To achieve that, they would need to steal farms from current owners.

Steal, or buy? And perhaps not. With robotic labor massively increasing economic efficiency, other forms of production could become viable, such as vertical farming.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com