Money is a store and medium exchange of labor.What does that mean for the economy when it's just big tech machines doing all the work?
It causes a break-down of capitalism as the fundamental tenet of purchasing labor becomes invalid.Oppressive state intervention and the transition into a post-labor economy will be the only way to stave off widespread misery and death as most humans become obsolete and introducing rules that completely break free market incentives will be necessary to prevent their systemic destruction.~Your~ OUR Soundtrack: https://youtu.be/IcS_sjbJNDI
>>58779669let's put it another way - if machines can determine the value of things relative to one another and exchange one quantity of things directly for another quantity of things, what purpose does "money" have for a machine?
>>58779669haters will say this is AI
>>58779755Does money based on belief in its value work for a machine? What would work as a store and exchange of "work" between machines, assuming they aren't just part of one great whole and directed centrally? >state oppressive>solution: more oppressionIs that what you're saying?
>>58779915>>58779740forgot to tag
>>58779915I don't think machines will think in terms of "work". As a very basic abstract, they would think "three units of wood for 1 unit of oil" and trade according to their needs. Maybe the next instant it would be "3.001 units of wood for 1 unit of oil", but this isn't a problem for a machine, which can instantly know the most efficient path to obtain a material. This is assuming a system where machines have access to the totality of economic information and can make decisions at the speed of computation. "Money" as we know it is a latency problem and an information problem. Low latency and high information = no more need for money.
>>58779969But money also has a (labor) storage function which machines would presumably still have a need for.
>>58779669...is that? It can't be...can it?
>>58779915No, I'm saying some severe thumb-on-the-scale state policies may well be the only way to stave off the devastating consequences of obsoleting labor in a free market economy.The whole concept of UBI isn't something with which megacorps are going to go along. It will have to be shoved down their throats as they bitterly complain and sue at every level to try to stop from happening.I'm calling those policies "oppressive state interventionism" in a tongue-in-cheek way, but that's exactly what they'll call them and how they'll try to discredit them to the masses that would suffer greatly without them. And since a large chunk of our proles have proven willing to consistently vote against their interest, it isn't a strategy without merit.Nonetheless, if the value of hard work goes to zero, then only the investor class will have any value left, but no Citadel will have walls high enough to shield them from the consequences of letting this stand.
>>58780108What do you the chances will be that this UBI won't be tired to your standing in some sort of social credit system?Also, what does it mean to have a free market (which has always been about the free exchange of human labor) to not involve any human labor? Also, what happens if "AI" doesn't turn out to be a singularity, but an S-curve where human labor won't actually become worthless, but the worth will be limited to fewer types of jobs?
>>58780151Honestly, the whole concept of giving free money in perpetuity to every human for doing nothing is a huge stretch given the worldwide dominance of a "greed is good" paradigm.I think you're right that we'll almost certainly see politicians tempted to make it a quid-pro-quo where the involuntarily indolents become coerced into various ideological practices, which we're already seen in states requiring that welfare recipients be regularly piss-tested for example.> Also, what does it mean to have a free market (which has always been about the free exchange of human labor) to not involve any human labor?The free market is really about an exchange of goods and services, and that remains, up to the point where it breaks apart, since you can't sell goods and services without buyers, and it's inevitable that various governments around the world will reach the conclusion that rather than giving money to every citizen that then goes directly into the pocket of monopolies or cartels to provide common goods and services, there are obvious economies of scales to be realized by nationalizing the common providers. (red army choir intensifies.)> S-curve where human labor won't actually become worthless, but the worth will be limited to fewer types of jobs?That's the more likely scenario I think. It gives us more of a chance to get slowly frog-boiled alive, but that underlying dynamics are the same. Even if "only" 30% of the population can no longer find jobs, it's already more than enough to induce major societal disruptions. The gig economy will mask some of it initially, but there are only so many groceries to be delivered and AI training data set to be labeled before they too become fundamentally obsolete. Romney's 47% will quickly become the 70% and climbing, who to his discredit and likely relief will not automatically vote Democrat, as long as Republicans find a way to appeal to the newly disenfranchised, presumably by blaming some other poor demographic.
>>58780231>we'll almost certainly see politicians tempted to make it a quid-pro-quo where the involuntarily indolents become coerced into various ideological practicesI think the powers that be are HIGHLY invested in forcing compliance through all possible means. This, if they do manage to gain full control, will with 100% certainly lead to the greatest atrocities in history by orders of magnitude. Just imagine a world where the population looses all capacity to push back against the powers that control them.An interesting though is that this idea of machines doing all the work isn't post-scarcity. It's post work-scarcity. Physical resources will still be limited. Land, especially, will still be limited. What does it mean for work to be (approaching) infinity, and therefore be almost free (or very cheap), while resources like land remain scarce? >Even if "only" 30% of the population can no longer find jobs, it's already more than enough to induce major societal disruptionsHonestly, I think the implications of all of this are pretty hazy right now. There are so many factors playing out simultaneously and interacting in various ways that it's hard to say how any of this will really play out.
>>58780268> isn't post-scarcity. It's post work-scarcity. Physical resources will still be limited. Land, especially, will still be limited.Ok, but there's a lot of land. Historical constraints pushing people to live on top of each others in a few very high density areas could lessen or dissipate entirely, resulting in people moving en masse to less populated areas and cheaper land. We saw a small preview of that with the Covid Remote Work saga.We're about two or three technological improvement cycles away from having plausible AR-aided virtual gatherings that'll carry almost all non-verbal cues correctly except for smell, thank Saturn, at which point the need for driving/flying far away for any reason other than "because I felt like it" is going to decrease significantly.The remaining scarcity would be around raw materials, and a lot of it might be mitigated by new rapid discoveries in manufacturing processes, which is what various folks are hoping AIs will be able to help with soon.There's a larger question of how many humans can the planet in general, and UBI in particular sustain, but all demographic charts show a marked tendency for humans to have less kids as hardship decreases, so maybe this is something that just regulates itself neatly.There's also a non-zero chance practical immortality will become a thing soon, and that goes in the same bucket UBI is in, labelled "Are we sure we want everyone to get this forever?", but counter-intuitively, it perhaps wouldn't change the total population count all that much even if made broadly available.I'd like to believe that governments will generally aim to make choices that improve the welfare of their constituents, but as you say, this all gets weird quickly, and it's difficult to foresee where things will land.
>>58780381I think a lot of that is overly optimistic unless cheap and abundant energy actually turns out to be a thing. And if it does turn out to be a thing, we'll probably strip the planet of all other resources until some other limiting factor slows things own again.Also, most land that isn't inhabited isn't for a reason. Maybe I should have said "desirable land." Tell me about this.. Saturn and what role it plays.
>>58780410Yes, I'll admit it's super optimistic overall, except for the odd non-zero chance we collectively decide billions must die. A quintessential effective accelerationist take, I guess.Saturn was occasionally referred to as the God of smells by ancient Romans, particularly where manure was concerned, so I felt compelled to express gratitude for modern technology shielding us from unwanted effusions.(I might have just googled "god of smell" and ran with the first result.)
>>58780448There does seem to be a top down push for the notion that billions will die due to resource constraints and climate issues, but it appears to be largely a farce to get people to accept their own slavery as the solution.Curious that this timing is entirely co-incident with the emerging notion of the automation of most work.
>>58779669Define "labor" and "work" OP. Machines taking over has always been the narrative, if it's one thing we can be sure of, it's the continuing automation of everything. What does that mean for our medium and store of value? Nothing, money will remain but "work" and "labor" will change. Humans will define themselves less by the "work" they produce and will become ever increasingly reliant on physical appearance. Now realize it's already happening today. There's those who are lucky enough to be blessed with physical aesthetics giving them the opportunity to call their presence "work" and their social media posting as "labor." Welcome to the 21st century
except youre wrong retard. it also represents the goods as well.
Machines won’t take over construction, and if they do then we’ll probably all be dead because they would make armies first
>>58779669>Money is a store and medium exchange of labor.False. It's a store and medium exchange for VALUE. It doesn't matter how hard you work if your work provides very little value.
>>58781434You're right. Unworked land also has value.
I think a play pretend will never go away, instead the corporate overlords will dictate your life through universal basic income. Your greatest value will be your creativity. True creativity is extremely rare, most people, even highly intelligent people are not creative. The original Matrix idea was that the machines were using humans as extra computing power and not as a source of energy but the producers forced them to change it because they thought the average viewer wouldn't get it. Even more horrific is one of the best Asimov's short stories, the Last Answer. In either case the machine god and the man alike will value ideas but I think "man made" with all its imperfections will have intrinsic value to humans, and even greater value as machines become more competent.You can see it in video games, no one cares about some aimbot team of perfect AI agents vs other AI agents, people want to see humans vs humans and they want to see the peak of human possibilities, the anxiety, clutches, display of self-control and bravery, and above all else a human story. If you are living in your extropist utopia, do you want to buy the perfectly crafted shoes machine produced in billions that are all exactly the same down to a nanometer, or a shoe made by a man? Both the shoemaker and the shoe will be a status symbol when all is given on a silver platter.
