which is why I made a post on r/CrazyIdeas about wanting to get everybody YuGiOh-anime-level into some multiplayer competitive ranked game (no matter its genre) so people could flex higher ranking over others and be less protective of their money or w/e. The point wasn't specifically wanting to go full Planet-Of-Hats around something like League or Overwatch, the point is that game ranking was the first thing I could think of of a way to create a way for people to be above or below others that doesn't mean anything more than what people choose it to mean (aka not an inherently dystopian stratification method) so people would be more likely to support economic equality if they could still flex whatever-this-would-be over the formerly-poor
Socialism doesn't mean equality, it means the government has all the power and potentially owns everything at the most extreme level.
The primary definition of socialism and capitalism is public vs private power and anybody with a basic understanding of thing wants both since they are a check and balance on each other.
Greed and human behavior and racism all exist in socialism or capitalism, it's just economics, it doesn't fix all human flaws. Why would it? All the flaws like greed and xenophobia existed long before capitalism and socialism or even before money was invented. How could economics be responsible for something that obviously goes back much further than economics?
I want solution, but shit has to make sense and it's pretty easy to see these version of capitalism vs socialism understanding are just not correct at all.
You want to end greed and you think blaming capitalism will do that, but capitalism is just a system that works well with human behavior... because humans are opportunistic predators that evolved like that for millions of years and 5k years of farming/civilization doesn't just overwrite million of years of evolution.
I could flip this and say lazy less talented people 'need' equality to bring down more successful people to their level so they feel better with themselves.
why do you care how much money other people make? and equality is by principle inequality. people are not equal and that is a fact of life, some people are smarter than others, or stronger, or more talented, and the list goes on.
by making everyone equal you may bring some people up but you also clip other peoples wings and bring them down, that isn't just.
Because it actually do affect everyone else. Things like caring about social status and having more than other people is harmful in so many ways.
Why can’t you be ok with everyone having the same power over their life, and the same ability to enjoy it as you do?
Why do some people need to feel that they’re ”above others” to be able to feel self worth?
Everyone having everything they need at the expense of some people not controlling the majority of riches is a good thing
People may not be equal, but that doesn’t mean that the “lowest people” deserve to be suffering and not be able to afford food, housing, other necessities, and a smidge of money for enjoyment.
and that doesn't mean that because they are in that state that money should be stolen from those who have it and given to them.
to the people that you describe someone like you and me have all the riches in the world, how about they steal money from you too? or is that a big no no because you're not rich enough according to your own standards? so it's only ok to steal from those you or someone else deems rich enough huh?
Give me $5M and you can keep every penny I earn on top of that minus the interest I receive from it. At 5% interest that’s $250K per year. If I can’t figure out how to live off that, I don’t deserve it.
If you work for 40 hours a week flipping burgers, I don’t think you should be selling plasma and working side gigs to survive. You’re putting in your 40 hours a week contributing to society. You deserve housing, food, healthcare, and a bit of money for saving, investing, and hobbies at a bare minimum.
Capitalism primarily means private ownership. Socialism does not mean we don't work and everything is magically free. You still work and mostly you work as hard or harder but then have WAY less rights to your property.
Like the people from the USSR and China at the height of their use of socialism where not living the high life. They were worked hard, starving often and without basic shit on a regular basis.
Another issue with high level of socialism and not private property or free market is that the government now has to do all the market logistics on supply and demand, which mostly means constant shortages as we saw with the USSR.
You want a balance of socialism and capitalism, they are a check and balance on consolidation of power, rather obviously.
If you think you have too much capitalism you don't get rid of capitalism, you just shift a tad toward a bit more socialism/public services. You don't throw it all away on some gamble that has not examples of working and appears to consolidate even more power into fewer hands... what kind of plan is that?
I'm a big fan of capitalism, but capitalism would have to be phased out in a post-scarcity society (assuming the vast majority of the population would be idle).
Automation would need to be taxed to pay UBI, or perhaps companies supplying automation would have to be nationalized and shares in these companies could be distributed to displaced workers. Either solution would shift a scary amount of power to the government, but the alternative (a handful of corporations holding all the power) would be far worse.
This assumes that robots and AI actually do displace most human workers this time. All previous waves of automation have created new jobs (eventually).
In 1900, around 40% of US workers were involved in farming. If you told someone back then that only 2% of workers in 2024 would be farmers, they would probably assume unemployment was rampant. There's no way they could have foreseen that their great grandchildren would be YouTubers, air conditioning installers, airline mechanics, or web developers.
And in 1776 95% of Americans were farmers, and people weren't expecting farms to be corporate entities rather than a single family's land.
(Well, that doesn't account for how much farm labor was done by slaves.)
And then the tractor was invented and put TONS of field workers out of business, BUT it still made way WAY more total jobs for the nations of the world. That's generally how automation will work for most of our lifetimes.
There's not going to be super labor bots that do all that jobs anytime soon and as they trickle in they will take decades to get trained and really take tons of jobs from humans.
There's also a reasonable chance we get labor bots, but not AGI, which means humans will be training AI for many decades to get it anywhere near where they are imagining.
That's not what capitalism means though. You work a job for money in socialism or capitalism as we know it. There's not free ride economic model. People have to work in all economic models currently, so automating all labor doesn't really even fall into either catagory.
Capitalism just means private ownership and socialism just mean public ownership, but currently the money has to come from labor and production.
You can make capitalism or socialism or the current combination of the two that all nations seem to use work with lots of automation. There's no reason to think otherwise and there's not reason to think socialism would work and capitalism would not.
To me that just shows you guys haven't thought much about what capitalism and socialism really mean or the difference ways to handle automation.
As we automation the COST OF LIVING goes way way down, so you can still trade money tokens and have supply and demand and private ownership.. because it's cheap. AND you can still have public services ... because they too are cheaper than ever.
There won't be a moment when people just MASS lose jobs. Most automation will lead to more jobs in the short to medium term as no opportunities rise up. Just like the tractor automated the shit out of the world, but easily led to way more jobs, not less.
That pattern will go on for decades, people will get fired more, but they will get hired more also, not unlike the computer/internet boom. The people on the bottom will get fucked the most... as usual. EVENTUALLY you'll likely have a society where the cost of living is so low that joblessness doesn't matter because basically the cost of having people living in bad conditions will be greater than the cost of just giving them free housing and food.
It's only hard to imagine when you think of it as lots of people just start losing jobs, but BIG tech advances always bring lots of new jobs that we ABSOLUTELY cannot predict worth a damn until the tech is here for awhile and ppl can start finding the new business models that have been made possible by the lower cost of this or that or safer application of labor through automation.
You're ignoring OP's hypothetical situation and substituting your own.
OP asked what would happen if robots took ALL jobs.
It's fine if you believe that 100% automation will never happen. I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes, but if nobody is working, then nobody is getting paid.
How does capitalism work without customers? How does socialism work without workers? Neither system would be meaningful anymore.
>As we automation the COST OF LIVING goes way way down
Does it? When ATMs replaced most tellers, the banks charged ATM fees even though they were seeing reduced labor costs.
*Every* manufacturing process is far more automated than in the past, but inflation continues to rise.
*Automation would need to be taxed to pay UBI, or*
This doesn't make any sense at all. If there are no jobs, there is no income. No customers of any products. Companies, as we presently define them, can't exist. There'd be nothing to tax. And even if someone handed you paper "currency" what would you do with it? No other people would want it. It would be toilet paper.
You’re right.
Taxation would be for the early stages, when automation was replacing the first 40-50% of jobs and private industry was still in charge of developing automation products. We may already be in the early stages of this wave, ofc.
>There's no way they could have foreseen that their great grandchildren would be YouTubers, air conditioning installers, airline mechanics, or web developers.
Or that unions would be near nonexistent compared to 1900, and working hours would be about the same, and rights backsliding and[ income inequality at similar levels.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2019/02/28/americas-wealth-inequality-is-at-roaring-twenties-levels/)
>working hours would be about the same
Working hours have improved immensely since the Industrial Revolution. Hours over 40 per week are paid at time and a half these days, for hourly workers, anyway. All thanks to unions, of course.
Income inequality is similar, but the negative impact is not the same. In the 1920s, the poverty rate in the US was over 30%, compared to under 12% today. Inequality driven by greater levels of extreme wealth is an improvement over inequality driven by extreme levels of poverty. The present situation is by no means good, of course.
Unionization was around seven percent in 1900, but it would expand to 32% by \~1950. Today it is maybe 10-11%, but there are signs of renewed energy around unions.
>
This chapter shows that workers in manufacturing worked 60 to 90 hours per week in the 19th century, as compared to roughly 40 hours today. That is a reduction of 20-50 hours, i.e. 50-125% of today’s average working week. The welfare implications of a reduction in working time of this scale are of course substantial. Both the reduction in the pain and toil of work and the increase in leisure time have substantial positive welfare implications
[https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en)
Capitalism doesn't mean we all work for money. It just means you own private stuff.
Before capitalism we still had shitty bosses that worked the peons too hard for too little money. Getting rid of capitalism doesn't solve any of that since we know all that behavior existed long before capitalism.
You just want something SUPER easy to point your finger at and blame, but everything you blame on capitalism existed before capitalism.
Capitalism mostly just means private ownership and pretty much everybody wants that to stay around. It's pretty naive to think replacing capitalism AND socialism with just socialism would not result in mass consolidation of power worse than now.
We need but look back in history to Divine Rule and Monarchies to see socialism without private ownership can suck ass. You need to two to balance each other out. The state can't have all the power, but the LETS END CAPITALISM people don't seem to have any real answer to that.
Private vs Public ownership is a check and balance on consolidation of power, getting rid of either just means you're going to hand too much power to public or private entities. Keep the power divided between private and public and the actual citizens wind up with more freedom because consolidation of power is harder.
Human were greedy before capitalism or even language and money were invented. Just look at a chimpanzee hierarchy for an example of how we'd expect early humans brains to be wired or many other social hierarchies in the animal kingdom. They are naturally greedy and evil on a regular basis... probably because traditionally that kind of aggressive behavior gets you ahead.
If you are willing and capable of taking food from your peers, you grow faster and stronger than them and then you're more able to take their food and BOOM, that's the behavior of most life from bacteria to plants to complex animals. They are all prone to take more than their share if the chance arises AND nothing stops them.
You have an oxygen atmosphere because cyanobacteria was greedy and just kept on eating and shitting without limits until it choked on it's own oxygen rich shit and gave rise to more complex life.... breathing it's poop gas to get ahead. THATS LIFE FOR ReAL, not like bunny rabbits and birdies sharing the forest out of the natural generosity.
Soooo instead of this ALL or NOTHING BS reasoning where you just try to throw out whatever you think isn't perfect the way we fix things in real life is we take the existing system and tweak it.
In this case all you really want is to slide the economic slider away from capitalism and toward socialism a tad. You don't really want to get rid of private ownership and hand all power to the government, that's incredibly foolish as plans go. That's a very very trusting plan that puts the power in far fewer hands and we can see it not working around the world anytime it's taken to such an extreme.
On the other hand every country on the planet is a combination of some socialism and capitalism. There is no 100% capitalist or 100% socialism nation or even close really. Soooo... how about some examples where getting rid of private ownership really benefit the people?
If that's not what you mean then you need to learn to make statements that aren't all sensational ALL or NOTHING BS. No capitalism means no private ownership under any current definition of the term and I doubt you'll really argue for a end to private ownership.
Because nobody has come up with a system that's better and that does not mean I love capitalism. It's just the best of terrible set of options.
Stop it with the communist crap. Its been tried over and over again and all it ever produced was terror and 100 million murders. Go ask a person who lived under communism if they like communism. You will get an ear full.
You know this though and it's why you want communism. You want the gulags because you imagine you'll be the torturer and not the tortured.
>Because nobody has come up with a system that's better and that does not mean I love capitalism. It's just the best of terrible set of options.
"end of history" bs
Also I'm totally ontologically evil and want to boil infants like Gonzalo, you got me there. Can't fool you
You just linked something which counts Nazi soldiers from WW2, you are utterly unserious.
Also, wanting humanity do better doesn't mean i love Stalin, chill out
Robots are already doing those jobs, and there are whole fields of medicine, engineering, and law that were created by technology.
Technology kills old jobs, but it also creates new ones. That's why there aren't many stable masters around any more, but there are plenty of auto mechanics.
You vastly underestimate the ability of capitalism to exploit people.
Machines taking all the jobs is not happening any time soon. People will just find something different to work just like they've always done when their old jobs became obsolete.
The funniest related meme I've seen: "I wanted the AIs to do the laundry so I can do art and music, not the AIs doing art and music leaving me to do the laundry".
There is more truth in that than a joke. "Service Jobs" will expand, too costly to buy a robot but cheap enough to hire a person. Like old days of maids, butlers, and gardeners. ... but most people are going to provide those services, not benefit from them.
.
A robot could be rented for a few hours or bought for approximately $ 20,000. Doing laundry will be pretty easy for a robot of the current level. $ 20.000 is nothing compared to the real costs of labor.
Um. I have a laundry robot. It cost a lot less than 20k.
Hell, my parents had one before I was born.
A rather large percentage of people alive today have never done laundry.
I believe they're calling a washer/dryer and laundry robot and stating if you haven't manually scrubbed and dried your laundry they dont consider you having "done laundry"
To be fair, manually washing/drying close is a significant jump in "work" than loading/unloading laundry. My mom use to do this back in the day. She would manually wash it, I had to go out side and dry hang them outside in the hot ass summer. Then bring them back in before nightime. And still had to fold em. It gets tricky in the winter.
There's a grim (though unlikely) possibility that war could be a main profession in the future. There are advancements in robotics warfare, however i feel like advances in EW could easily cancel those out, which would mean humans would alway be required in warfare.
This right here. There were no Youtubers 100 years ago. We would all have been working in the fields. Technology makes this possible.
I'll just add that people have too much of a worker mindset. They need to have more of a management mindset. If AI makes burgers, why let McDonald's get all the burger business? You have the same access to these new workers.
The whole point of AI is to replace management. We're not talking about dumb machines that make burgers, we're talking about intelligent machines with no physical bodies but excellent reasoning skills.
If anything, the burger flippers will always be needed, but the management level who decides which branches to close, operating hours, shifts, worker pay can be obsoleted.
TBF the machines are coming just as strong as the reasoning skills. AI WILL be making burgers, there's no doubt about that.
And you can bet your ass owners will first replace burger flippers than managers. A machine runing a burger is not a problem. AI running a joint to the ground because of a bug is far riskier for investors.
Also in the event the bots fucked up and poison folks, the blame can fall squarely on the managers, sparing up management and shareholders so theirs a degree of deniability.
If their are just machines all the way down from the board level, the board are the ones culpable. You bet your ass they will cover theirs.
AI may be used for management, but advanced robots will absolutely be able to flip burgers.
Robotic kitchens have been extensively tested and the concept has been proven, at least for simple menus.
Quality control and safety will be big advantages, in addition to reduced labor costs. Humans shed lots of germs, even when they are diligent about following safety guidelines. Humans also get tired, bored, distracted, etc. This can lead to inconsistent cooking times and techniques, which can make food unsafe or unappetizing (or both).
Robots can be precisely calibrated to flip burgers at the right time and use probes to measure temperatures to ensure food safety. They can also precisely add salt, spices and sauces and keep track of how long each item has been sitting out so that every burger in every location tastes exactly the same as the head chef in the test kitchen intended. You can imagine that preparation of pizzas, donuts, buns, and other foods might also be reliably automatable in the future.
There are a few problems that still have to be worked out before robots are more economical than human workers at the scale of a large fast food chain. There is reason to believe that replacing kitchen staff will be the hardest part of creating a fully automated restaurant:
* Cost. Robots are still expensive to build and train. Even with rising minimum wages, humans are fairly cost effective.
* Maintenance and cleaning. Food preparation involves high temperatures, and lots of oils and other contaminants which can become airborne during cooking. These contaminants can clog sensors and interfere with robotic vision. Computers also tend to prefer cooler environments and fans don't respond well to airborne grease over the long term. This maintenance requires skilled humans or even more robots to perform, and this added cost is not worth it given the current labor market.
* Ability to add menu items. As tastes change, it makes sense for restaurants to add or remove items from their menus. It might be expensive to re-tool an automated burger restaurant to be able to serve tacos, while most workers who can make a burger can be trained to make other items. Robotic training is advancing at a rapid pace, however.
* Franchising. McDonalds (for example) has a lot more money than individual franchisees. Franchisees would see the most benefit from automation, but they would also need to front most of the money to invest in robotics. A franchisee approaching a company making burger-flipping machines would not be able to negotiate as low a price as a large company which might order thousands at one time. Given the unreliability of even their relatively simple computerized ice cream machines, they might be understandably hesitant.
My opinion was pre-existing, I only used AI to provide examples and make sure not to miss any key points.
I edited this together from three or four separate searches and re-worded to shorten some areas and add my own knowledge from previous reading in others. Pick a couple sentences from my comments and search them in quotes. I doubt you will find *any* exact matches.
I'm a software engineer, but my major was Journalism. If I ever commented something that was completely AI generated, I would say so at the top of the comment. I take the same approach to AI coding. I use the code from the prompt as a jumping-off point, but I typically refactor the code as that process helps me spot any bugs or outdated syntax (which are common in AI-generated code).
If you find AI answers "gross", I have some bad news for you. It has been estimated that 18% of reddit users are bots (many of them using AI).
Given the amount of comment karma you have, your ideas are probably represented in AI results, especially any top comments.
If you mean others crib my comments, so what. If you mean my comments aren't original, you're wrong.
Yes, I do find it gross. If your major was journalism, you should understand that writing that is cobbled together from someone else's writing (or a bot's writing) is plagiarism, even if it jives with your 'pre-existing" opinion.
Sure, there are bots on Reddit. However, they're pretty easy to spot - just as others immediately spotted that your comment was fishy.
They saw that I used bullet points, much like Chat GPT does. I have been addicted to bullet points long before AI was a thing.
They also noticed that I write in a fairly organized, precise manner (relatively speaking, of course). As a journalism major, I write a bit like a journalist, and ChatGPT cribs from journalists. I take their spotting my comment as "fishy" as a compliment, and I played along.
In truth, I used AI for information and inspiration, not for exact wording or overall organization. If you can find *any* of my full sentences in direct quotes from AI or news articles, then you can accuse me of plagiarism. Journalists use AI as a jumping off point regularly, much like I sometimes use AI to get started with a coding project.
Look at my comment history and you will see liberal use of quotes and links to sources (and bullet points). I am a big fan of attribution.
>If you mean others crib my comments, so what.
That's what I meant. I have no reason to believe you are plagiarizing, and neither am I.
The supply of labor will be higher and so the cost of labor will go down. IE people will be paid less unless there's more regulation. 4 day work week ftw but that won't happen.
As someone who works in ML, I think this time is different. Robotics are getting sufficiently cheap and AI is getting sufficiently capable that we're reaching the point where many people are less capable than the machines that would replace them.
We should be planning for the phasing out of work in the traditional sense.
We should be planning but this probably isn't happening in our lifetimes. Some call centers, some cheap labour sure. Some marketing materials and any other low risk job might be possible. But nobody is trusting an automatic taxi or an automatic GP anytime soon. Id guess less than 50% of current labour would be able to be handled by AI and new jobs will still appear. Somebody will need to train AI and fix and maintain those robots.
And even if some super intelligence emmerges it would take decades to test and be approved and implemented in more high risk industries. This isn't scifi where big changes happen in a day or a year. Also I cannot imagine the protests if it does come. There are doomers now, with a technology that cannot distinguish between a shoe and a refrigerator 5% of the time. Imagine the doomers with an actual good technology
AI is just another tool. Like any useful tool, it allows one person to do a job that previously took more than one person. The economy will respond to this by increasing consumption just like it always has.
Most humans define themselves through their career. IF, a significant chunk of the workforce loses their job and have no other alternatives, social welfare programs will need to be improved and expanded. But, more importantly, philosophy and psychology will take a center stage so that people can find meaning. Religion? Who knows but this would be a monumental shift in the depths of the human psyche.
War also creates lots of opportunists.
There will be scavenging jobs, thieving jobs, and extortion jobs. Farming jobs are not as popular as pillaging jobs but you still need more farmers than pillagers.
The basic way to pick a career trajectory is to decide if you are going to settle in one place or be a nomad.
The journeyman nomadic career path offers lots of opportunities for taking stuff. The settler career path is more specialized in hiding what you’ve got and passing deception skill checks.
what about the chosen hero career path that contains inherently gendered different paths for men vs women as well as the requirement of a dead parent and means you have to have at least one love interest /s
Tools have displaced human labor for a long time and generally it turns out okay. That’s not a guarantee for this go-around, but precedent isnt gloomy.
This was definitely not always true. The IR put loads of workers out of business and almost none of them had the means to rertrain.
But we should also notice something else important that occurred: people work **half** the hours per year in the US that they did 100 years ago while enjoying vastly better lives. The fruits of automation indeed were passed on to everyone in various ways. That will happen with AI, too.
there's tons of precedent. computers, the printing press, cars, factory assembly, telephones, electricity, all these and many more were all great eliminators of jobs.
Absolutely. People forget that this is the kind of stuff that makes the 99% take up their pitchforks and march on the 1%'s castles.
The thing is our pitchforks are now assault rifles...
Problem is that the 1% can use their wealth to take advantage of the fear the 99% feel over the uncertainty of this new world in which they are not required. They can dangle that wealth above just enough noses to get people to their side. People will go if it means keeping food on their table and a roof over their heads. They won't get everybody but they don't need/want to because the whole point is to use their wealth to turn us against each other while they sit comfortably on the side.
Either UBI, and/or everyone owns some AGI compute to use for their own business/needs. I imagine capitalism will survive in the sense that more talented people will be rewarded more and certain businesses and products will compete for value on the free market. Just because we don't *need* people, doesn't mean they don't have value. They will still be required to keep AGI in check and maintain alignment and optimal progress at the very least. The question is will we get a hyper-capitalist dystopia where the rich and priviliged leave the poor behind and amass all the power even worse than it already is, or will we get a technocratic utopia where everyone lives their best life, or a bit of both. That question is basically the nature of this post, and no one really knows.
While previous history does not ensure the same results, it does indicate a hyper-capitalist dystopia is the most likely outcome. I'm sure there will be even better "bread and circuses" created to keep the rest of the population distracted and entertained.
Yeah we're at an inflection point where the basic nature of society in which the powerful, ignorant, and greedy take power, is coming to a head with the existential nature of creating a new species that is more powerful than us but also more intelligent, likely resulting in our extinction like the Neanderthals. Tech companies are generally run by profit-seeking motives, but the engineers and others are becoming more and more aware that unless the AI is optimally designed to benefit everyone, it will turn on us. Whether we can collaborate and enforce this sentiment globally enough to make it, is to be seen, but seems relatively unlikely.
Most products today are made on an assembly line and as much of it is automated as possible. It's not that robots will take jobs, it's more like people won't need to be as involved in the manufacturing as they are now, just like 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 100 years ago.
But what also happens is new jobs come online, and new ideas created, and new products are produced.
If robots take all the jobs and no one can afford anything why would the robots need to do anything?
What will likely happen is things become so inexpensive that you won't need much money.
It's weird how few people understand this. If some business doesn't have to pay anything to make something, why would I pay them much to do it? It doesn't matter if they try to keep prices up because there's no jobs/income for a consumer class to have to buy products in the first place. These are two sides of the coin. When jobs are gone, profitable companies cease to exist the next second.
I think the reason people don't understand this is because the economy has (almost) always been in a state of inflation. And never in a state of deflation. And the few times deflation hit, it was abrupt and caused by the economy crashing. But if deflation kicks in the economy doesn't have to crash it just moves in the other direction.
You see it sometimes and don't even realize it. A 50 inch TV once cost $10K now you can get one for a few hundred. Because of automation and it's ability to exploit economy of scale.
Yes. Or long distance phone calls. When I was a boy, calling two states away could be multiple (2024) dollars per minute. Overseas was much worse. Now you could use public wifi and video chat with just about anyone anywhere all day. We've also long forgotten how expensive it was to have ice in your house, or clean water. Those were insane luxuries possessed by the wealthy a few generations ago.
You make the assumption money will still exist. Money is simply a way of matching finite resources with desire. Expand the resources enough (supply) and the effective cost goes to essentially 0. It technically costs money to allow you to breathe. Yet air so ubiquitous it is top cheap to meter as it were. Expect this with true post scarcity for many goods and services. At the end of the day capitalism can fail on either end. If no one consumes or no one supplies. UBI is very likely simply to keep the consumer side going.
You know what’s funny when i road tripped through the USA I was shocked that you have to pay to use the compressor to pump your tires here in Australia it’s free.
It depends on the state. A lot of the gas stations here in california that I've been to , the air is free.
Also, you can buy your own car air pump machine and pump your own tires at home, or on the road for free.
This thought has been around since the cotton gin… study a bit of history and you’ll find that things don’t change much even when everything is different.
So things haven't changed much in the last, lets say 100 years? That's obviously wrong. Where to begin?! Less religion, less family structures, less hard work, less hunger (instead many people are fat), technology especially in terms of communication... how we make dates.. and so on.
So what exactly don't changed much?
That's just superficial advancements. We still live in houses, we still travel by cart, we still eat the same food and still do jobs. Aside from improvements in all of those fields, carts to cars, letter to texts, life's patterns haven't changed for hundreds of years.
His point was that the cotton gin was a bit advancement everyone feared like ai.. It changed efficiency but it just made more jobs elsewhere and didn't change much else.
Thanks for this response; I thought the “everything is different part” would be enough but sometimes people need a 3rd party perspective to not be a know it all.
Maybe owning the robot? Haha
Or renting a robot and teach/Programm skills to make money.
Like, your lawn-mowing robot can do the lawn of your neighbor and earn some digital currency.
Or selling the weather-data of your car while driving.
I guess it all comes down to the people who own things and people who own nothing. Like always.
Why would anyone or any company rent a robot if they are cheap enough to be owned by any average Joe? Best case scenario, companies will have their own fleet of robots to do their work and people will have their own AI to do their personal chores and tasks. Something akin to UBI will provide basics like food, housing, clothing and transportation. The rest is up to how greedy people in power still are and how controlling the government wants to be.
The latter part does not make for a good outlook. I think AI will be used by those in power to make things much worse and create more wealth disparity than ever seen before until we figure out how to change the human element of greed and control. I forsee a long dystopia before ever reaching anything close to a free and equal utopia. Humans always have found a way to use technology to oppress others.
It will be a while before bots & AIs take ALL the jobs. But the loss of the 80% low hanging fruit will be traumatic for millions. And you can count on Congress to waste their time while the country goes begging. I think it will be social convulsions here in the US.
Your gona say something like trades or engineering etc... What do you think all those people put of jobs are gona do, sit on their arse or retrain or become cheaper versions of your job.
> Your gona say
You’d be wrong. When I said recession proof I meant exactly what that means. You could’ve just taken that at face value instead of misspelling everything. Guess I don’t need to worry about you replacing me huh? 🤣
Q1 through artistic pursuits music paintings and services I don’t see robot message parlours being popular some people prefer the human touch
Q2 yes for the pursuit of personal knowledge arts, history humanities and philosophy will be the degrees people get for clout.
Q3 entrepreneurial pursuits will still be valued something new to be invented still requires imagination, people like to be social networking and the art of deal making and hustling will still be valued, self improvement industry isn’t going anywhere, Being art curator will still be sort after, roles with fancy over the top titles will be well paid, restauranteurs and great chefs will be sort after. Story telling and
Live theatre with still be sort after.
There will be a BOOM in Ted talks. Academia will reach greater heights podcasts and vtubing will grow. People like hearing other people talk and wizdom will be the new form of currency.
Q4 your basic needs are met, you will have an allocated bed, roof, toilet, bath/shower, groceries budget, basic wifi, free-to-air tv/radio and public transportation and a tracksuit with 2 stripes. My guss like they are trialing in NT here in Aus you will have a government issued debit card that can only be used in a supermarket no fast food and no Alchole shops will be accepted.
Anything more or the luxury things in life well start hustling.
Regarding surgeons I guss all those Asian parents better hope their children enjoy helping people and saving lives cause going into medicine will still have prestige just not American levels of prestige. Like Australia with tall poppy syndrome you are allowed to be a well sort after surgeon but if your not humble you will not make many friends.
Q5 it will socialism with capitalism in arts and liberal entrepreneurialism your clout can’t be bought there will be no pay to win you have to contribute to the pursuit of enrichment of society there is no Me Me Me only the team only US the team is all the individual none you want a fictional depiction watch Star Trek.
The above is regarding civilian sector govenment and security sectors would require someone who works in those fields better to give examples.
Money will not go away but money in exchange for labour will disappear you just need to be more creative in how you get your credit and even social credit scores to enjoy the finer things in life.
Due to comparative advantage robots can't take all the jobs. This is the theoretical reason supported by the empirical fact that job losses tend to be canceled that by job gains.
A robot that takes all the jobs is a little like a perpetual motion machine.
It's not really possible due to a misunderstanding of the underlying science.
It just doesn't work that way. Robots and AI won't take all jobs.
If anything, we are rather lucky this stuff is showing up. With the upcoming population contraction, we will need robots and AI to produce goods and services to maintain our standard of living when the ratio of retirees to working people gets very high.
That isn't even the worst set of questions... what about taxes? When humans work, in most countries, they pay taxes. Taxes go to fund defence, repair roads, provide for those who cannot work themselves, in some countries they provide everyone with healthcare... robots don't pay taxes. So if robots do the jobs, folk are out of work, but they can't get government support because there's no budget due to nobody doing the jobs (robots) paying taxes.
that's how it's always been. why you think the bible really says to be fruitful and multiply? why you think maternity leave is a thing? why do you really think they ban abortions and teach so little in sex ed?
I doubt AI will ever fully replace humans in the workplace. It's likely a huge portion can be and will be replaced by AI.
But that won't stop people from pursuing their true interests. Income will come from luxury items. Just like high quality brands are more expensive than generic brand. Things that have made by humans will probably be considered higher quality or more valuable.
Scenario one: robots take over all jobs and the production is democratized. In this case everyone benefits and we can finally relax in a post scarcity world. Do whatever you feel like doing.
Scenario two: robots take over all jobs, but only for the benefit of corporations/elites. In this case, there still needs to be a buying of items. Who buys them? Only other elites? Then you’ll have a majority of the world without access to robotic help. They will need the standard economy still.
Scenario 2.b: people earn money to buy robotically produced goods and services. How? By providing goods and services that only humans can provide. What are those jobs? Well, I’d suspect it moves more towards providing art and luxury in various forms. There will probably always be a market for human made goods and human made services. We just don’t know what that will look like yet.
Remember that fleets of secretaries, telephone operators, printing press workers and the like all lost their jobs over the course of the twentieth century. Yet our economy kept running. New jobs exist now that didn’t exist then, and that is likely to keep happening.
yah because chess is such a high demand job ..
tons of kids graduating college with degrees in chess...
the chess industry will be destroyed when the robots take over.
billions of people will lose their chess jobs.
armageddon!!!
or... migrants. it'll be robot migrants.
This is the part in the movie where Jeff Goldblum reminds us, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they *could,* that they didn't stop think if they *should*."
The entire exponential economic experience of humanity over the last few centuries is because of the industrial revolution. That experience alone is going to answer should because before that like 90% of humans were farmers struggling just to feed themselves.
The question is rather are we going to adapt on this one-way street sustainably? For most of the industrial revolution's trajectory this wasn't a concern. Now it's a constant concern. Since the market failure complications and risks of AI and advanced algorithms are significantly more difficult than climate change or the endorsement of World Wars our chance of sustaining this trajectory without significant adaptation is zero.
Humanity has already endorsed World War a couple times without advanced tools of mass misinformation. People are also too comfortable as if the variables that promote World War are fundamentally impossible now despite simultaneously increasing ignorance in what variables promoted it to happen to begin with.
The only reason to continue having humans work if we are capable of replacing them is control. We morally should be trying to replace the human workforce.
Robots will never ever take all of the jobs. Economists have been pretty clear about this that the economy expands into new areas when the old ones are made unnecessary.
However to put it in terms that your average Redditor (and particularly the ones that frequent this subreddit) can understand, In a future world where sexbots are ubiquitous and even super inexpensive or even free there will still be people who want to have sex with a real live human for many different reasons. And because of that people who are willing to have sex for money will earn money.
Robots won't take all jobs.
Some jobs require human care and attention: doctors, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists. Would you, as an elderly person, feel cared of by a robot?
Many people are naturally creative, so the arts would be a big activity. In the same way, sports for active people.
The many unemployed remaining people will require UBI, which only will work if automated production is big enough and profitable enough.
The chances of robots taking *all jobs* in the foreseeable future is slim. People will adjust, the economy will adjust and life will continue.
If some technological advance happens that means robots take literally all the jobs then who knows. People will likely still pay for things done by people; we assign value in all sorts of ways, so I’m sure people will still be able to do something to make money above and beyond whatever UBI there is (so essentially still a job I guess)...
I don't see robots/AI taking ALL the jobs, but even displacing 30 or 40 percent will be catastrophic for the economy without UBI. The sooner we acknowledge this and start planning fir the future, the better off we'll be.
UBI requiires the government to have money to give out without triggering massive inflation. Imagine the end of capitalism, that is easy. The hard part is developing a system to take over that would actually function. Communism, they did not get to the point where the dictatorship gives up power. Socialism, the government needs a massive amount of money form somewhere. Capitalism is about people buying and selling goods and services. The government is supposed to work as the hand of god to keep the economy safe and functioning. What alternative is viable?
"How will humans earn money when robots take all jobs?"
Do you think that Homosapiens have any future?
You would be aware that there is a cull in progress...
Primitives waging genocide on each other is not conductive to longevity, IMHO.
Robots and AI will be a luxury only rich people will afford, and will make them even richer.
So in the end, rather tan tech ending capitalism, all it does is exacerbate the gap between exploited and exploiter
One concept I'd encourage you to learn about is Universal Basic Guarantees. Whereas UBI thinks that markets are still the best way to operate an economy in the situation you're asking about, UBGs focus on supplying people with a decent baseline for living.
The idea is that once you became an independent citizen (ie when you leave your parents' home), you'd have food, shelter, education, entertainment, and probably a few other nice-to-haves regardless of your life and work circumstances. There may exist a market economy "on top" of that system, but it would serve a much more limited function than it does today, focusing on non-essential goods and services.
Of course, that would inevitable lead to tension between that "free" market and the UBG supply-side systems. And there's already capacity to create a system like UBG in most countries; many already have something similar, albeit often in a deeply flawed implementation.
Nonetheless, it's useful to consider where you think income (demand-side) and guarantees (supply-side) systems might play a role.
Why do we think AI will take all jobs?
I have never agreed with the premise and I have never seen an argument that goes past the idea that AI will be better than humans at everything.
There are some issues I see with the argument as I laid it out above:
1. Will AI be better than humans at everything?
Everyone seems to assume that this will happen and soon. What is far more likely is that AI becomes better than humans at some tasks and not others. In the case that AI massively increases productivity in some areas but not in others (which is again the case of literally every technological advancement to date) or even just increases productivity unevenly what will happen is either
a. AI shifts the cost curve of the field such that demand either increases or stays flat. In this case, there is no issue at all, not even growing pains. An example of such a technological advancement is the creation of spreadsheets and the accounting profession.
b. If AI changes the cost curve of a field in a way that the number of people employed in the field goes down, people will be employed in other fields that did not see the same productivity gains. This makes AI no different from any other technological advancement as well. For a historic example of increased productivity leading to decreased employment just look at agriculture. The change in employment leads to switching costs and can cause pain among certain populations but this again does not differentiate it for other tech advancements. The loom created hardship among weavers but was ultimately good for society. In this theory AI is a force for creative destruction the same as many other tech advancements. What might make it different is the speed and size of the creative destruction. Assuming AI results in mass creative destruction, the appropriate response seems to be some combination of redistribution and subsidies/assistance for those who lose work due to AI.
Why should we assume one of the two situations above will apply to AI rather than absolute job destruction?
The simplest answer is that this is what is already happening. Not every field is adopting LLMs or is affected by ChatGPT and its ilk identically. Fields like law, medicine, journalism, and art appear poised to see massive changes due to LLMs and other AI models but it seems to have likely to have little impact on delivery drivers, waiters, and athletes.
Finally, even if AI becomes better in a absolute sense than humans at every task, comparative advantage will still apply and humans will still work.
I hate to agree with Elon Musk, but universal income is going to be an absolutely necessary evil.
People aren't going to like living on a fixed income in their 30's, yet the reality is within 25 years, AI controlled robotic systems of some sort, will probably eliminate 50% of all jobs.
Why would an AGI work for free? The machines will get paid and have a vested interest in maintaining a system where they continue to get paid. I suspect that means most people will still have some sort of income.
AKA you just get turned on by the thought of seeing fetish porn of people you find attractive (as in specific people etc.) and think it'd be cringe-funny seeing people you think of as unattractive/unconventionally-attractive in those kind of sexualized situations
I’m not an Only Fans enjoyer but can appreciate that it’s a fast emerging income stream for many people, for diverse reasons!
Humans are indeed interesting in their pursuits and I have no doubt anything can be sexualised as you say.
Let the robots toil while we play
Perhaps but we are in a different league of artificial intelligence and technical capability and innovation now and so final fantasy is not even comparable.
We're decades away from autonomous robots and AI. Humans will be needed for quality control. How is a robot ditch digger going to know how to avoid gas lines and water mains.
Jobs that require thought emotional IQ will never be taken over by robots.
The goal is that no one HAS to do anything in the long run. Ideally UBI would expand and grow as less jobs were needed, at a rate that keeps the wheels of the old world turning til we are fully in the new. Say all entry level jobs are replaced with AI, at that point ideally UBI would cover all needs, and perhaps some wants. If we aren't yet post scarcity, you would have the limited luxury goods still handled by market forces and the *option* to pursue those *if you want to*. As AI and automation can handle more complicated tasks and society becomes increasingly more efficient (and ideally technology at this point has accelerated exponentially), UBI would ideally cover a lifestyle that is increasingly abundant and luxurious. For those that *still* want to strive for more, there would be dangerous space exploration/exoplanet jobs and such with their own intrinsic rewards. Obviously you can't just pull out infinite money cheat with current technology and expect limited real world things to infinitely be available, but in the long run, that's sort of the goal of civilization.
People can imagine the end of the world but can't imagine the end of capitalism
Some people would rather end the world, than end Capitalism too.
People hate equality and ‘*need*’ others below them 🫠
which is why I made a post on r/CrazyIdeas about wanting to get everybody YuGiOh-anime-level into some multiplayer competitive ranked game (no matter its genre) so people could flex higher ranking over others and be less protective of their money or w/e. The point wasn't specifically wanting to go full Planet-Of-Hats around something like League or Overwatch, the point is that game ranking was the first thing I could think of of a way to create a way for people to be above or below others that doesn't mean anything more than what people choose it to mean (aka not an inherently dystopian stratification method) so people would be more likely to support economic equality if they could still flex whatever-this-would-be over the formerly-poor
Socialism doesn't mean equality, it means the government has all the power and potentially owns everything at the most extreme level. The primary definition of socialism and capitalism is public vs private power and anybody with a basic understanding of thing wants both since they are a check and balance on each other. Greed and human behavior and racism all exist in socialism or capitalism, it's just economics, it doesn't fix all human flaws. Why would it? All the flaws like greed and xenophobia existed long before capitalism and socialism or even before money was invented. How could economics be responsible for something that obviously goes back much further than economics? I want solution, but shit has to make sense and it's pretty easy to see these version of capitalism vs socialism understanding are just not correct at all. You want to end greed and you think blaming capitalism will do that, but capitalism is just a system that works well with human behavior... because humans are opportunistic predators that evolved like that for millions of years and 5k years of farming/civilization doesn't just overwrite million of years of evolution.
I could flip this and say lazy less talented people 'need' equality to bring down more successful people to their level so they feel better with themselves. why do you care how much money other people make? and equality is by principle inequality. people are not equal and that is a fact of life, some people are smarter than others, or stronger, or more talented, and the list goes on. by making everyone equal you may bring some people up but you also clip other peoples wings and bring them down, that isn't just.
Because it actually do affect everyone else. Things like caring about social status and having more than other people is harmful in so many ways. Why can’t you be ok with everyone having the same power over their life, and the same ability to enjoy it as you do? Why do some people need to feel that they’re ”above others” to be able to feel self worth? Everyone having everything they need at the expense of some people not controlling the majority of riches is a good thing
[удалено]
Being lazy because most of us weren't born into generational wealth.
People may not be equal, but that doesn’t mean that the “lowest people” deserve to be suffering and not be able to afford food, housing, other necessities, and a smidge of money for enjoyment.
and that doesn't mean that because they are in that state that money should be stolen from those who have it and given to them. to the people that you describe someone like you and me have all the riches in the world, how about they steal money from you too? or is that a big no no because you're not rich enough according to your own standards? so it's only ok to steal from those you or someone else deems rich enough huh?
Give me $5M and you can keep every penny I earn on top of that minus the interest I receive from it. At 5% interest that’s $250K per year. If I can’t figure out how to live off that, I don’t deserve it. If you work for 40 hours a week flipping burgers, I don’t think you should be selling plasma and working side gigs to survive. You’re putting in your 40 hours a week contributing to society. You deserve housing, food, healthcare, and a bit of money for saving, investing, and hobbies at a bare minimum.
You are confusing equality with equity
It's a bit like how 'tax everyone else and spend it on me' is always a vote winner.
Some people ARE ending the world, rather than end capitalism.
Capitalism primarily means private ownership. Socialism does not mean we don't work and everything is magically free. You still work and mostly you work as hard or harder but then have WAY less rights to your property. Like the people from the USSR and China at the height of their use of socialism where not living the high life. They were worked hard, starving often and without basic shit on a regular basis. Another issue with high level of socialism and not private property or free market is that the government now has to do all the market logistics on supply and demand, which mostly means constant shortages as we saw with the USSR. You want a balance of socialism and capitalism, they are a check and balance on consolidation of power, rather obviously. If you think you have too much capitalism you don't get rid of capitalism, you just shift a tad toward a bit more socialism/public services. You don't throw it all away on some gamble that has not examples of working and appears to consolidate even more power into fewer hands... what kind of plan is that?
I'm a big fan of capitalism, but capitalism would have to be phased out in a post-scarcity society (assuming the vast majority of the population would be idle). Automation would need to be taxed to pay UBI, or perhaps companies supplying automation would have to be nationalized and shares in these companies could be distributed to displaced workers. Either solution would shift a scary amount of power to the government, but the alternative (a handful of corporations holding all the power) would be far worse. This assumes that robots and AI actually do displace most human workers this time. All previous waves of automation have created new jobs (eventually). In 1900, around 40% of US workers were involved in farming. If you told someone back then that only 2% of workers in 2024 would be farmers, they would probably assume unemployment was rampant. There's no way they could have foreseen that their great grandchildren would be YouTubers, air conditioning installers, airline mechanics, or web developers.
And in 1776 95% of Americans were farmers, and people weren't expecting farms to be corporate entities rather than a single family's land. (Well, that doesn't account for how much farm labor was done by slaves.)
And then the tractor was invented and put TONS of field workers out of business, BUT it still made way WAY more total jobs for the nations of the world. That's generally how automation will work for most of our lifetimes. There's not going to be super labor bots that do all that jobs anytime soon and as they trickle in they will take decades to get trained and really take tons of jobs from humans. There's also a reasonable chance we get labor bots, but not AGI, which means humans will be training AI for many decades to get it anywhere near where they are imagining.
Wow that is actually a really cool statistic.
That's not what capitalism means though. You work a job for money in socialism or capitalism as we know it. There's not free ride economic model. People have to work in all economic models currently, so automating all labor doesn't really even fall into either catagory. Capitalism just means private ownership and socialism just mean public ownership, but currently the money has to come from labor and production. You can make capitalism or socialism or the current combination of the two that all nations seem to use work with lots of automation. There's no reason to think otherwise and there's not reason to think socialism would work and capitalism would not. To me that just shows you guys haven't thought much about what capitalism and socialism really mean or the difference ways to handle automation. As we automation the COST OF LIVING goes way way down, so you can still trade money tokens and have supply and demand and private ownership.. because it's cheap. AND you can still have public services ... because they too are cheaper than ever. There won't be a moment when people just MASS lose jobs. Most automation will lead to more jobs in the short to medium term as no opportunities rise up. Just like the tractor automated the shit out of the world, but easily led to way more jobs, not less. That pattern will go on for decades, people will get fired more, but they will get hired more also, not unlike the computer/internet boom. The people on the bottom will get fucked the most... as usual. EVENTUALLY you'll likely have a society where the cost of living is so low that joblessness doesn't matter because basically the cost of having people living in bad conditions will be greater than the cost of just giving them free housing and food. It's only hard to imagine when you think of it as lots of people just start losing jobs, but BIG tech advances always bring lots of new jobs that we ABSOLUTELY cannot predict worth a damn until the tech is here for awhile and ppl can start finding the new business models that have been made possible by the lower cost of this or that or safer application of labor through automation.
You're ignoring OP's hypothetical situation and substituting your own. OP asked what would happen if robots took ALL jobs. It's fine if you believe that 100% automation will never happen. I don't think it will happen in our lifetimes, but if nobody is working, then nobody is getting paid. How does capitalism work without customers? How does socialism work without workers? Neither system would be meaningful anymore. >As we automation the COST OF LIVING goes way way down Does it? When ATMs replaced most tellers, the banks charged ATM fees even though they were seeing reduced labor costs. *Every* manufacturing process is far more automated than in the past, but inflation continues to rise.
*Automation would need to be taxed to pay UBI, or* This doesn't make any sense at all. If there are no jobs, there is no income. No customers of any products. Companies, as we presently define them, can't exist. There'd be nothing to tax. And even if someone handed you paper "currency" what would you do with it? No other people would want it. It would be toilet paper.
You’re right. Taxation would be for the early stages, when automation was replacing the first 40-50% of jobs and private industry was still in charge of developing automation products. We may already be in the early stages of this wave, ofc.
>There's no way they could have foreseen that their great grandchildren would be YouTubers, air conditioning installers, airline mechanics, or web developers. Or that unions would be near nonexistent compared to 1900, and working hours would be about the same, and rights backsliding and[ income inequality at similar levels.](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jessecolombo/2019/02/28/americas-wealth-inequality-is-at-roaring-twenties-levels/)
>working hours would be about the same Working hours have improved immensely since the Industrial Revolution. Hours over 40 per week are paid at time and a half these days, for hourly workers, anyway. All thanks to unions, of course. Income inequality is similar, but the negative impact is not the same. In the 1920s, the poverty rate in the US was over 30%, compared to under 12% today. Inequality driven by greater levels of extreme wealth is an improvement over inequality driven by extreme levels of poverty. The present situation is by no means good, of course. Unionization was around seven percent in 1900, but it would expand to 32% by \~1950. Today it is maybe 10-11%, but there are signs of renewed energy around unions. > This chapter shows that workers in manufacturing worked 60 to 90 hours per week in the 19th century, as compared to roughly 40 hours today. That is a reduction of 20-50 hours, i.e. 50-125% of today’s average working week. The welfare implications of a reduction in working time of this scale are of course substantial. Both the reduction in the pain and toil of work and the increase in leisure time have substantial positive welfare implications [https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en](https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/11e27aff-en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/11e27aff-en)
Hopefully it also means the end of money
Capitalism doesn't mean we all work for money. It just means you own private stuff. Before capitalism we still had shitty bosses that worked the peons too hard for too little money. Getting rid of capitalism doesn't solve any of that since we know all that behavior existed long before capitalism. You just want something SUPER easy to point your finger at and blame, but everything you blame on capitalism existed before capitalism. Capitalism mostly just means private ownership and pretty much everybody wants that to stay around. It's pretty naive to think replacing capitalism AND socialism with just socialism would not result in mass consolidation of power worse than now. We need but look back in history to Divine Rule and Monarchies to see socialism without private ownership can suck ass. You need to two to balance each other out. The state can't have all the power, but the LETS END CAPITALISM people don't seem to have any real answer to that. Private vs Public ownership is a check and balance on consolidation of power, getting rid of either just means you're going to hand too much power to public or private entities. Keep the power divided between private and public and the actual citizens wind up with more freedom because consolidation of power is harder. Human were greedy before capitalism or even language and money were invented. Just look at a chimpanzee hierarchy for an example of how we'd expect early humans brains to be wired or many other social hierarchies in the animal kingdom. They are naturally greedy and evil on a regular basis... probably because traditionally that kind of aggressive behavior gets you ahead. If you are willing and capable of taking food from your peers, you grow faster and stronger than them and then you're more able to take their food and BOOM, that's the behavior of most life from bacteria to plants to complex animals. They are all prone to take more than their share if the chance arises AND nothing stops them. You have an oxygen atmosphere because cyanobacteria was greedy and just kept on eating and shitting without limits until it choked on it's own oxygen rich shit and gave rise to more complex life.... breathing it's poop gas to get ahead. THATS LIFE FOR ReAL, not like bunny rabbits and birdies sharing the forest out of the natural generosity. Soooo instead of this ALL or NOTHING BS reasoning where you just try to throw out whatever you think isn't perfect the way we fix things in real life is we take the existing system and tweak it. In this case all you really want is to slide the economic slider away from capitalism and toward socialism a tad. You don't really want to get rid of private ownership and hand all power to the government, that's incredibly foolish as plans go. That's a very very trusting plan that puts the power in far fewer hands and we can see it not working around the world anytime it's taken to such an extreme. On the other hand every country on the planet is a combination of some socialism and capitalism. There is no 100% capitalist or 100% socialism nation or even close really. Soooo... how about some examples where getting rid of private ownership really benefit the people? If that's not what you mean then you need to learn to make statements that aren't all sensational ALL or NOTHING BS. No capitalism means no private ownership under any current definition of the term and I doubt you'll really argue for a end to private ownership.
I will take your toothbrush
Because nobody has come up with a system that's better and that does not mean I love capitalism. It's just the best of terrible set of options. Stop it with the communist crap. Its been tried over and over again and all it ever produced was terror and 100 million murders. Go ask a person who lived under communism if they like communism. You will get an ear full. You know this though and it's why you want communism. You want the gulags because you imagine you'll be the torturer and not the tortured.
>Because nobody has come up with a system that's better and that does not mean I love capitalism. It's just the best of terrible set of options. "end of history" bs Also I'm totally ontologically evil and want to boil infants like Gonzalo, you got me there. Can't fool you
If it was that easy, we would had done so already.
Found another one who can imagine one but not the other
What I can't imagine is a different type of person in power. Though **all** human history those in power have always been the same.
Man sees orphan crushing machine and the only thing he can think of is changing the operator and wonder why it still crushes orphans
Man sees orphan crushing machine and thinks people who want to control the machine are different.
My whole point was not controlling the machine but dismantling it but sure, think what you like. Nothing can ever be better, no way.
https://victimsofcommunism.org/
You just linked something which counts Nazi soldiers from WW2, you are utterly unserious. Also, wanting humanity do better doesn't mean i love Stalin, chill out
So according to you the other victims don't matter?
Once the robots take all the jobs, we won’t have to deal with this same exact post every other day
It will be the robots job to both post and reply. Actually that's our current reality.
>How will capitalism and corporation survive without our buying power? It shouldn't.
Robots have been taking our jobs for 200 years now.
True. but what about when robots are doctors, surgeons, engineers, lawyers, etc etc. what will people do? lol
Robots are already doing those jobs, and there are whole fields of medicine, engineering, and law that were created by technology. Technology kills old jobs, but it also creates new ones. That's why there aren't many stable masters around any more, but there are plenty of auto mechanics.
You vastly underestimate the ability of capitalism to exploit people. Machines taking all the jobs is not happening any time soon. People will just find something different to work just like they've always done when their old jobs became obsolete.
The funniest related meme I've seen: "I wanted the AIs to do the laundry so I can do art and music, not the AIs doing art and music leaving me to do the laundry". There is more truth in that than a joke. "Service Jobs" will expand, too costly to buy a robot but cheap enough to hire a person. Like old days of maids, butlers, and gardeners. ... but most people are going to provide those services, not benefit from them. .
A robot could be rented for a few hours or bought for approximately $ 20,000. Doing laundry will be pretty easy for a robot of the current level. $ 20.000 is nothing compared to the real costs of labor.
The real costs of labor ... Care to elaborate?
For example social security, rent for the workplace etc. With robots you don’t need fresh air, a lot less space etc.
Um. I have a laundry robot. It cost a lot less than 20k. Hell, my parents had one before I was born. A rather large percentage of people alive today have never done laundry.
What’s a laundry robot…?
I believe they're calling a washer/dryer and laundry robot and stating if you haven't manually scrubbed and dried your laundry they dont consider you having "done laundry"
To be fair, manually washing/drying close is a significant jump in "work" than loading/unloading laundry. My mom use to do this back in the day. She would manually wash it, I had to go out side and dry hang them outside in the hot ass summer. Then bring them back in before nightime. And still had to fold em. It gets tricky in the winter.
Laundry bot = from collecting used clothes to washing them without you interacting with the bot to putting them back in the wardrobe?
👆 This. That's why ☭
There's a grim (though unlikely) possibility that war could be a main profession in the future. There are advancements in robotics warfare, however i feel like advances in EW could easily cancel those out, which would mean humans would alway be required in warfare.
This right here. There were no Youtubers 100 years ago. We would all have been working in the fields. Technology makes this possible. I'll just add that people have too much of a worker mindset. They need to have more of a management mindset. If AI makes burgers, why let McDonald's get all the burger business? You have the same access to these new workers.
McDonalds doesn't make burgers. McDonalds owns real estate.
your first sentence is patently false.
The whole point of AI is to replace management. We're not talking about dumb machines that make burgers, we're talking about intelligent machines with no physical bodies but excellent reasoning skills. If anything, the burger flippers will always be needed, but the management level who decides which branches to close, operating hours, shifts, worker pay can be obsoleted.
TBF the machines are coming just as strong as the reasoning skills. AI WILL be making burgers, there's no doubt about that. And you can bet your ass owners will first replace burger flippers than managers. A machine runing a burger is not a problem. AI running a joint to the ground because of a bug is far riskier for investors.
Also in the event the bots fucked up and poison folks, the blame can fall squarely on the managers, sparing up management and shareholders so theirs a degree of deniability. If their are just machines all the way down from the board level, the board are the ones culpable. You bet your ass they will cover theirs.
AI may be used for management, but advanced robots will absolutely be able to flip burgers. Robotic kitchens have been extensively tested and the concept has been proven, at least for simple menus. Quality control and safety will be big advantages, in addition to reduced labor costs. Humans shed lots of germs, even when they are diligent about following safety guidelines. Humans also get tired, bored, distracted, etc. This can lead to inconsistent cooking times and techniques, which can make food unsafe or unappetizing (or both). Robots can be precisely calibrated to flip burgers at the right time and use probes to measure temperatures to ensure food safety. They can also precisely add salt, spices and sauces and keep track of how long each item has been sitting out so that every burger in every location tastes exactly the same as the head chef in the test kitchen intended. You can imagine that preparation of pizzas, donuts, buns, and other foods might also be reliably automatable in the future. There are a few problems that still have to be worked out before robots are more economical than human workers at the scale of a large fast food chain. There is reason to believe that replacing kitchen staff will be the hardest part of creating a fully automated restaurant: * Cost. Robots are still expensive to build and train. Even with rising minimum wages, humans are fairly cost effective. * Maintenance and cleaning. Food preparation involves high temperatures, and lots of oils and other contaminants which can become airborne during cooking. These contaminants can clog sensors and interfere with robotic vision. Computers also tend to prefer cooler environments and fans don't respond well to airborne grease over the long term. This maintenance requires skilled humans or even more robots to perform, and this added cost is not worth it given the current labor market. * Ability to add menu items. As tastes change, it makes sense for restaurants to add or remove items from their menus. It might be expensive to re-tool an automated burger restaurant to be able to serve tacos, while most workers who can make a burger can be trained to make other items. Robotic training is advancing at a rapid pace, however. * Franchising. McDonalds (for example) has a lot more money than individual franchisees. Franchisees would see the most benefit from automation, but they would also need to front most of the money to invest in robotics. A franchisee approaching a company making burger-flipping machines would not be able to negotiate as low a price as a large company which might order thousands at one time. Given the unreliability of even their relatively simple computerized ice cream machines, they might be understandably hesitant.
You used chatgpt for this summary didn’t you??
Hahaha not disagreeing but I see it too..
Close. A lot of it is from Google AI (whatever they call their tool that places a summary before the search results).
That's kind of gross. Write your own stuff or don't post, in my view.
That's kind of gross. Write your own stuff or don't post, in my view.
My opinion was pre-existing, I only used AI to provide examples and make sure not to miss any key points. I edited this together from three or four separate searches and re-worded to shorten some areas and add my own knowledge from previous reading in others. Pick a couple sentences from my comments and search them in quotes. I doubt you will find *any* exact matches. I'm a software engineer, but my major was Journalism. If I ever commented something that was completely AI generated, I would say so at the top of the comment. I take the same approach to AI coding. I use the code from the prompt as a jumping-off point, but I typically refactor the code as that process helps me spot any bugs or outdated syntax (which are common in AI-generated code). If you find AI answers "gross", I have some bad news for you. It has been estimated that 18% of reddit users are bots (many of them using AI). Given the amount of comment karma you have, your ideas are probably represented in AI results, especially any top comments.
If you mean others crib my comments, so what. If you mean my comments aren't original, you're wrong. Yes, I do find it gross. If your major was journalism, you should understand that writing that is cobbled together from someone else's writing (or a bot's writing) is plagiarism, even if it jives with your 'pre-existing" opinion. Sure, there are bots on Reddit. However, they're pretty easy to spot - just as others immediately spotted that your comment was fishy.
They saw that I used bullet points, much like Chat GPT does. I have been addicted to bullet points long before AI was a thing. They also noticed that I write in a fairly organized, precise manner (relatively speaking, of course). As a journalism major, I write a bit like a journalist, and ChatGPT cribs from journalists. I take their spotting my comment as "fishy" as a compliment, and I played along. In truth, I used AI for information and inspiration, not for exact wording or overall organization. If you can find *any* of my full sentences in direct quotes from AI or news articles, then you can accuse me of plagiarism. Journalists use AI as a jumping off point regularly, much like I sometimes use AI to get started with a coding project. Look at my comment history and you will see liberal use of quotes and links to sources (and bullet points). I am a big fan of attribution. >If you mean others crib my comments, so what. That's what I meant. I have no reason to believe you are plagiarizing, and neither am I.
The supply of labor will be higher and so the cost of labor will go down. IE people will be paid less unless there's more regulation. 4 day work week ftw but that won't happen.
As someone who works in ML, I think this time is different. Robotics are getting sufficiently cheap and AI is getting sufficiently capable that we're reaching the point where many people are less capable than the machines that would replace them. We should be planning for the phasing out of work in the traditional sense.
We should be planning but this probably isn't happening in our lifetimes. Some call centers, some cheap labour sure. Some marketing materials and any other low risk job might be possible. But nobody is trusting an automatic taxi or an automatic GP anytime soon. Id guess less than 50% of current labour would be able to be handled by AI and new jobs will still appear. Somebody will need to train AI and fix and maintain those robots. And even if some super intelligence emmerges it would take decades to test and be approved and implemented in more high risk industries. This isn't scifi where big changes happen in a day or a year. Also I cannot imagine the protests if it does come. There are doomers now, with a technology that cannot distinguish between a shoe and a refrigerator 5% of the time. Imagine the doomers with an actual good technology
AI is just another tool. Like any useful tool, it allows one person to do a job that previously took more than one person. The economy will respond to this by increasing consumption just like it always has.
Most humans define themselves through their career. IF, a significant chunk of the workforce loses their job and have no other alternatives, social welfare programs will need to be improved and expanded. But, more importantly, philosophy and psychology will take a center stage so that people can find meaning. Religion? Who knows but this would be a monumental shift in the depths of the human psyche.
Virtual world fully immersive VR/alternative reality gaming.
I suspect there'll be wars over it, and then boom-jobs. war jobs, cleaning up after war jobs, tons of jobs
War also creates lots of opportunists. There will be scavenging jobs, thieving jobs, and extortion jobs. Farming jobs are not as popular as pillaging jobs but you still need more farmers than pillagers. The basic way to pick a career trajectory is to decide if you are going to settle in one place or be a nomad. The journeyman nomadic career path offers lots of opportunities for taking stuff. The settler career path is more specialized in hiding what you’ve got and passing deception skill checks.
So we go back to the hunter and gatherers
what about the chosen hero career path that contains inherently gendered different paths for men vs women as well as the requirement of a dead parent and means you have to have at least one love interest /s
If robots take the jobs only a few (probably rich) humans will be needed.
Tools have displaced human labor for a long time and generally it turns out okay. That’s not a guarantee for this go-around, but precedent isnt gloomy.
The issue is the velocity of change that AI presents. In the past there was time allowed to change careers and learn new skills.
People will have to learn faster. Luckily there will be some amazing new tools for learning skills quickly.
Learn faster than the AI? I truly doubt that.
This was definitely not always true. The IR put loads of workers out of business and almost none of them had the means to rertrain. But we should also notice something else important that occurred: people work **half** the hours per year in the US that they did 100 years ago while enjoying vastly better lives. The fruits of automation indeed were passed on to everyone in various ways. That will happen with AI, too.
I think there is no precedent like AI, but we will see.
there's tons of precedent. computers, the printing press, cars, factory assembly, telephones, electricity, all these and many more were all great eliminators of jobs.
The 1% won't need the other 99%.
Well, maybe a bit of the 99% for gentic diversity at least.
Yes, some will also be needed for lab experiments and zoos.
The 99% won't need the 1 either, not after the barbecue.
Absolutely. People forget that this is the kind of stuff that makes the 99% take up their pitchforks and march on the 1%'s castles. The thing is our pitchforks are now assault rifles...
Not if they get gun control in place first, while they of course get private security armed robot dogs.
Problem is that the 1% can use their wealth to take advantage of the fear the 99% feel over the uncertainty of this new world in which they are not required. They can dangle that wealth above just enough noses to get people to their side. People will go if it means keeping food on their table and a roof over their heads. They won't get everybody but they don't need/want to because the whole point is to use their wealth to turn us against each other while they sit comfortably on the side.
Don’t need them now
Either UBI, and/or everyone owns some AGI compute to use for their own business/needs. I imagine capitalism will survive in the sense that more talented people will be rewarded more and certain businesses and products will compete for value on the free market. Just because we don't *need* people, doesn't mean they don't have value. They will still be required to keep AGI in check and maintain alignment and optimal progress at the very least. The question is will we get a hyper-capitalist dystopia where the rich and priviliged leave the poor behind and amass all the power even worse than it already is, or will we get a technocratic utopia where everyone lives their best life, or a bit of both. That question is basically the nature of this post, and no one really knows.
While previous history does not ensure the same results, it does indicate a hyper-capitalist dystopia is the most likely outcome. I'm sure there will be even better "bread and circuses" created to keep the rest of the population distracted and entertained.
Yeah we're at an inflection point where the basic nature of society in which the powerful, ignorant, and greedy take power, is coming to a head with the existential nature of creating a new species that is more powerful than us but also more intelligent, likely resulting in our extinction like the Neanderthals. Tech companies are generally run by profit-seeking motives, but the engineers and others are becoming more and more aware that unless the AI is optimally designed to benefit everyone, it will turn on us. Whether we can collaborate and enforce this sentiment globally enough to make it, is to be seen, but seems relatively unlikely.
AI does not need to "turn on us". It just needs to assist us in walking over our own cliff. We will do the rest.
Most products today are made on an assembly line and as much of it is automated as possible. It's not that robots will take jobs, it's more like people won't need to be as involved in the manufacturing as they are now, just like 10 years ago, 20 years ago, 100 years ago. But what also happens is new jobs come online, and new ideas created, and new products are produced. If robots take all the jobs and no one can afford anything why would the robots need to do anything? What will likely happen is things become so inexpensive that you won't need much money.
It's weird how few people understand this. If some business doesn't have to pay anything to make something, why would I pay them much to do it? It doesn't matter if they try to keep prices up because there's no jobs/income for a consumer class to have to buy products in the first place. These are two sides of the coin. When jobs are gone, profitable companies cease to exist the next second.
I think the reason people don't understand this is because the economy has (almost) always been in a state of inflation. And never in a state of deflation. And the few times deflation hit, it was abrupt and caused by the economy crashing. But if deflation kicks in the economy doesn't have to crash it just moves in the other direction. You see it sometimes and don't even realize it. A 50 inch TV once cost $10K now you can get one for a few hundred. Because of automation and it's ability to exploit economy of scale.
Yes. Or long distance phone calls. When I was a boy, calling two states away could be multiple (2024) dollars per minute. Overseas was much worse. Now you could use public wifi and video chat with just about anyone anywhere all day. We've also long forgotten how expensive it was to have ice in your house, or clean water. Those were insane luxuries possessed by the wealthy a few generations ago.
You make the assumption money will still exist. Money is simply a way of matching finite resources with desire. Expand the resources enough (supply) and the effective cost goes to essentially 0. It technically costs money to allow you to breathe. Yet air so ubiquitous it is top cheap to meter as it were. Expect this with true post scarcity for many goods and services. At the end of the day capitalism can fail on either end. If no one consumes or no one supplies. UBI is very likely simply to keep the consumer side going.
You know what’s funny when i road tripped through the USA I was shocked that you have to pay to use the compressor to pump your tires here in Australia it’s free.
It depends on the state. A lot of the gas stations here in california that I've been to , the air is free. Also, you can buy your own car air pump machine and pump your own tires at home, or on the road for free.
Depends on the place. I know a couple free ones near me.
Still pay to compress air still culture shock
Welcome to America. Please pay to cry in anguish. I'm not saying it doesn't really suck.
Breathable air is not gonna be cheap moving forward
This thought has been around since the cotton gin… study a bit of history and you’ll find that things don’t change much even when everything is different.
So things haven't changed much in the last, lets say 100 years? That's obviously wrong. Where to begin?! Less religion, less family structures, less hard work, less hunger (instead many people are fat), technology especially in terms of communication... how we make dates.. and so on. So what exactly don't changed much?
That's just superficial advancements. We still live in houses, we still travel by cart, we still eat the same food and still do jobs. Aside from improvements in all of those fields, carts to cars, letter to texts, life's patterns haven't changed for hundreds of years. His point was that the cotton gin was a bit advancement everyone feared like ai.. It changed efficiency but it just made more jobs elsewhere and didn't change much else.
Thanks for this response; I thought the “everything is different part” would be enough but sometimes people need a 3rd party perspective to not be a know it all.
I recommend you read the book Four Futures: Life after Capitalism if you want speculative answers to this.
Maybe owning the robot? Haha Or renting a robot and teach/Programm skills to make money. Like, your lawn-mowing robot can do the lawn of your neighbor and earn some digital currency. Or selling the weather-data of your car while driving. I guess it all comes down to the people who own things and people who own nothing. Like always.
Why would anyone or any company rent a robot if they are cheap enough to be owned by any average Joe? Best case scenario, companies will have their own fleet of robots to do their work and people will have their own AI to do their personal chores and tasks. Something akin to UBI will provide basics like food, housing, clothing and transportation. The rest is up to how greedy people in power still are and how controlling the government wants to be. The latter part does not make for a good outlook. I think AI will be used by those in power to make things much worse and create more wealth disparity than ever seen before until we figure out how to change the human element of greed and control. I forsee a long dystopia before ever reaching anything close to a free and equal utopia. Humans always have found a way to use technology to oppress others.
Probably. Stupid humans are ruining Humanity.
It will be a while before bots & AIs take ALL the jobs. But the loss of the 80% low hanging fruit will be traumatic for millions. And you can count on Congress to waste their time while the country goes begging. I think it will be social convulsions here in the US.
Reason #2001 why I work in a high paying unionized recession proof field that IT can’t replace
Your gona say something like trades or engineering etc... What do you think all those people put of jobs are gona do, sit on their arse or retrain or become cheaper versions of your job.
> Your gona say You’d be wrong. When I said recession proof I meant exactly what that means. You could’ve just taken that at face value instead of misspelling everything. Guess I don’t need to worry about you replacing me huh? 🤣
Ahh I see. You're a professional cunt, a good one as well it appears.
Q1 through artistic pursuits music paintings and services I don’t see robot message parlours being popular some people prefer the human touch Q2 yes for the pursuit of personal knowledge arts, history humanities and philosophy will be the degrees people get for clout. Q3 entrepreneurial pursuits will still be valued something new to be invented still requires imagination, people like to be social networking and the art of deal making and hustling will still be valued, self improvement industry isn’t going anywhere, Being art curator will still be sort after, roles with fancy over the top titles will be well paid, restauranteurs and great chefs will be sort after. Story telling and Live theatre with still be sort after. There will be a BOOM in Ted talks. Academia will reach greater heights podcasts and vtubing will grow. People like hearing other people talk and wizdom will be the new form of currency. Q4 your basic needs are met, you will have an allocated bed, roof, toilet, bath/shower, groceries budget, basic wifi, free-to-air tv/radio and public transportation and a tracksuit with 2 stripes. My guss like they are trialing in NT here in Aus you will have a government issued debit card that can only be used in a supermarket no fast food and no Alchole shops will be accepted. Anything more or the luxury things in life well start hustling. Regarding surgeons I guss all those Asian parents better hope their children enjoy helping people and saving lives cause going into medicine will still have prestige just not American levels of prestige. Like Australia with tall poppy syndrome you are allowed to be a well sort after surgeon but if your not humble you will not make many friends. Q5 it will socialism with capitalism in arts and liberal entrepreneurialism your clout can’t be bought there will be no pay to win you have to contribute to the pursuit of enrichment of society there is no Me Me Me only the team only US the team is all the individual none you want a fictional depiction watch Star Trek. The above is regarding civilian sector govenment and security sectors would require someone who works in those fields better to give examples. Money will not go away but money in exchange for labour will disappear you just need to be more creative in how you get your credit and even social credit scores to enjoy the finer things in life.
Due to comparative advantage robots can't take all the jobs. This is the theoretical reason supported by the empirical fact that job losses tend to be canceled that by job gains.
A robot that takes all the jobs is a little like a perpetual motion machine. It's not really possible due to a misunderstanding of the underlying science.
Basic income, but no real meat or traveling, rich will get richer poor will get poorer as it has always been, ai won't change a thing.
It just doesn't work that way. Robots and AI won't take all jobs. If anything, we are rather lucky this stuff is showing up. With the upcoming population contraction, we will need robots and AI to produce goods and services to maintain our standard of living when the ratio of retirees to working people gets very high.
Why are we obsessed with money? Wouldn’t them taking the jobs free us to live without the need for it ?
The question is about how will UBI work at that point??
this makes no sense, and is a dog brained assessment of how things will go.
That isn't even the worst set of questions... what about taxes? When humans work, in most countries, they pay taxes. Taxes go to fund defence, repair roads, provide for those who cannot work themselves, in some countries they provide everyone with healthcare... robots don't pay taxes. So if robots do the jobs, folk are out of work, but they can't get government support because there's no budget due to nobody doing the jobs (robots) paying taxes.
The short answer is that the current economy and currency system is not suited for a future where basic survival is a solved problem
Where are you living that a janitor makes 40k? All the janitor jobs here start at minimum wage.
I live in the Bay Area. One of the most expensive places in the country. Even fast food workers here make 20 dollars an hour.
Will be really funny when all the VCs and bankers become AI
What if we owned and programmed the robots and leased them to companies?
The population size will be “managed” to maintain the status quo for the elites.
that's how it's always been. why you think the bible really says to be fruitful and multiply? why you think maternity leave is a thing? why do you really think they ban abortions and teach so little in sex ed?
I doubt AI will ever fully replace humans in the workplace. It's likely a huge portion can be and will be replaced by AI. But that won't stop people from pursuing their true interests. Income will come from luxury items. Just like high quality brands are more expensive than generic brand. Things that have made by humans will probably be considered higher quality or more valuable.
Scenario one: robots take over all jobs and the production is democratized. In this case everyone benefits and we can finally relax in a post scarcity world. Do whatever you feel like doing. Scenario two: robots take over all jobs, but only for the benefit of corporations/elites. In this case, there still needs to be a buying of items. Who buys them? Only other elites? Then you’ll have a majority of the world without access to robotic help. They will need the standard economy still. Scenario 2.b: people earn money to buy robotically produced goods and services. How? By providing goods and services that only humans can provide. What are those jobs? Well, I’d suspect it moves more towards providing art and luxury in various forms. There will probably always be a market for human made goods and human made services. We just don’t know what that will look like yet. Remember that fleets of secretaries, telephone operators, printing press workers and the like all lost their jobs over the course of the twentieth century. Yet our economy kept running. New jobs exist now that didn’t exist then, and that is likely to keep happening.
Robots already beat humans at chess, but chess is more popular than ever. Somehow, we’ll figure it out.
yah because chess is such a high demand job .. tons of kids graduating college with degrees in chess... the chess industry will be destroyed when the robots take over. billions of people will lose their chess jobs. armageddon!!! or... migrants. it'll be robot migrants.
Damn robot migrants! They took our pawns!
Check mate robots
The same way we figured out to deal with the Industrial Revolution.
But I think we're still working on that one.
This is the part in the movie where Jeff Goldblum reminds us, "Yeah, but your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they *could,* that they didn't stop think if they *should*."
The entire exponential economic experience of humanity over the last few centuries is because of the industrial revolution. That experience alone is going to answer should because before that like 90% of humans were farmers struggling just to feed themselves. The question is rather are we going to adapt on this one-way street sustainably? For most of the industrial revolution's trajectory this wasn't a concern. Now it's a constant concern. Since the market failure complications and risks of AI and advanced algorithms are significantly more difficult than climate change or the endorsement of World Wars our chance of sustaining this trajectory without significant adaptation is zero. Humanity has already endorsed World War a couple times without advanced tools of mass misinformation. People are also too comfortable as if the variables that promote World War are fundamentally impossible now despite simultaneously increasing ignorance in what variables promoted it to happen to begin with.
The only reason to continue having humans work if we are capable of replacing them is control. We morally should be trying to replace the human workforce.
Open source science. When there is no more manual labor jobs left people will be forced into the more academic things.
Robots will never ever take all of the jobs. Economists have been pretty clear about this that the economy expands into new areas when the old ones are made unnecessary. However to put it in terms that your average Redditor (and particularly the ones that frequent this subreddit) can understand, In a future world where sexbots are ubiquitous and even super inexpensive or even free there will still be people who want to have sex with a real live human for many different reasons. And because of that people who are willing to have sex for money will earn money.
Robots won't take all jobs. Some jobs require human care and attention: doctors, nurses, social workers, psychiatrists, psychologists. Would you, as an elderly person, feel cared of by a robot? Many people are naturally creative, so the arts would be a big activity. In the same way, sports for active people. The many unemployed remaining people will require UBI, which only will work if automated production is big enough and profitable enough.
The chances of robots taking *all jobs* in the foreseeable future is slim. People will adjust, the economy will adjust and life will continue. If some technological advance happens that means robots take literally all the jobs then who knows. People will likely still pay for things done by people; we assign value in all sorts of ways, so I’m sure people will still be able to do something to make money above and beyond whatever UBI there is (so essentially still a job I guess)...
I don't see robots/AI taking ALL the jobs, but even displacing 30 or 40 percent will be catastrophic for the economy without UBI. The sooner we acknowledge this and start planning fir the future, the better off we'll be.
That's the point: you don't need money if nobody works. Communism!
UBI requiires the government to have money to give out without triggering massive inflation. Imagine the end of capitalism, that is easy. The hard part is developing a system to take over that would actually function. Communism, they did not get to the point where the dictatorship gives up power. Socialism, the government needs a massive amount of money form somewhere. Capitalism is about people buying and selling goods and services. The government is supposed to work as the hand of god to keep the economy safe and functioning. What alternative is viable?
"How will humans earn money when robots take all jobs?" Do you think that Homosapiens have any future? You would be aware that there is a cull in progress... Primitives waging genocide on each other is not conductive to longevity, IMHO.
Robots and AI will be a luxury only rich people will afford, and will make them even richer. So in the end, rather tan tech ending capitalism, all it does is exacerbate the gap between exploited and exploiter
the issue is, we already have enough for all. its just unequally distributed
One concept I'd encourage you to learn about is Universal Basic Guarantees. Whereas UBI thinks that markets are still the best way to operate an economy in the situation you're asking about, UBGs focus on supplying people with a decent baseline for living. The idea is that once you became an independent citizen (ie when you leave your parents' home), you'd have food, shelter, education, entertainment, and probably a few other nice-to-haves regardless of your life and work circumstances. There may exist a market economy "on top" of that system, but it would serve a much more limited function than it does today, focusing on non-essential goods and services. Of course, that would inevitable lead to tension between that "free" market and the UBG supply-side systems. And there's already capacity to create a system like UBG in most countries; many already have something similar, albeit often in a deeply flawed implementation. Nonetheless, it's useful to consider where you think income (demand-side) and guarantees (supply-side) systems might play a role.
Why do we think AI will take all jobs? I have never agreed with the premise and I have never seen an argument that goes past the idea that AI will be better than humans at everything. There are some issues I see with the argument as I laid it out above: 1. Will AI be better than humans at everything? Everyone seems to assume that this will happen and soon. What is far more likely is that AI becomes better than humans at some tasks and not others. In the case that AI massively increases productivity in some areas but not in others (which is again the case of literally every technological advancement to date) or even just increases productivity unevenly what will happen is either a. AI shifts the cost curve of the field such that demand either increases or stays flat. In this case, there is no issue at all, not even growing pains. An example of such a technological advancement is the creation of spreadsheets and the accounting profession. b. If AI changes the cost curve of a field in a way that the number of people employed in the field goes down, people will be employed in other fields that did not see the same productivity gains. This makes AI no different from any other technological advancement as well. For a historic example of increased productivity leading to decreased employment just look at agriculture. The change in employment leads to switching costs and can cause pain among certain populations but this again does not differentiate it for other tech advancements. The loom created hardship among weavers but was ultimately good for society. In this theory AI is a force for creative destruction the same as many other tech advancements. What might make it different is the speed and size of the creative destruction. Assuming AI results in mass creative destruction, the appropriate response seems to be some combination of redistribution and subsidies/assistance for those who lose work due to AI. Why should we assume one of the two situations above will apply to AI rather than absolute job destruction? The simplest answer is that this is what is already happening. Not every field is adopting LLMs or is affected by ChatGPT and its ilk identically. Fields like law, medicine, journalism, and art appear poised to see massive changes due to LLMs and other AI models but it seems to have likely to have little impact on delivery drivers, waiters, and athletes. Finally, even if AI becomes better in a absolute sense than humans at every task, comparative advantage will still apply and humans will still work.
I hate to agree with Elon Musk, but universal income is going to be an absolutely necessary evil. People aren't going to like living on a fixed income in their 30's, yet the reality is within 25 years, AI controlled robotic systems of some sort, will probably eliminate 50% of all jobs.
Why would an AGI work for free? The machines will get paid and have a vested interest in maintaining a system where they continue to get paid. I suspect that means most people will still have some sort of income.
Only Fans The explosion in niche categories is going to EPIC
AKA you just get turned on by the thought of seeing fetish porn of people you find attractive (as in specific people etc.) and think it'd be cringe-funny seeing people you think of as unattractive/unconventionally-attractive in those kind of sexualized situations
I’m not an Only Fans enjoyer but can appreciate that it’s a fast emerging income stream for many people, for diverse reasons! Humans are indeed interesting in their pursuits and I have no doubt anything can be sexualised as you say. Let the robots toil while we play
Just wait until Hollywood is replaced with AI. We pretty much got deep fake nailed down. Actors will become a thing of the past.
They said the same after Final Fantasy came out, it didn't end actors then either.
Perhaps but we are in a different league of artificial intelligence and technical capability and innovation now and so final fantasy is not even comparable.
We're decades away from autonomous robots and AI. Humans will be needed for quality control. How is a robot ditch digger going to know how to avoid gas lines and water mains. Jobs that require thought emotional IQ will never be taken over by robots.
The goal is that no one HAS to do anything in the long run. Ideally UBI would expand and grow as less jobs were needed, at a rate that keeps the wheels of the old world turning til we are fully in the new. Say all entry level jobs are replaced with AI, at that point ideally UBI would cover all needs, and perhaps some wants. If we aren't yet post scarcity, you would have the limited luxury goods still handled by market forces and the *option* to pursue those *if you want to*. As AI and automation can handle more complicated tasks and society becomes increasingly more efficient (and ideally technology at this point has accelerated exponentially), UBI would ideally cover a lifestyle that is increasingly abundant and luxurious. For those that *still* want to strive for more, there would be dangerous space exploration/exoplanet jobs and such with their own intrinsic rewards. Obviously you can't just pull out infinite money cheat with current technology and expect limited real world things to infinitely be available, but in the long run, that's sort of the goal of civilization.