Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Surur t1_jd7m5vr wrote

Yes, if there is AGI and UBI, people will move from the cities, as they do not have to work for their money, and they would want to live where its cheapest.

We could have millions of people living in 3D printed houses on previous farmland, as farms are replaced with precision fermentation.

Energy would be via solar, data via satellite, water via extraction from the air and garbage via drone.

19

ExposingMyActions t1_jd831v3 wrote

Sounds utopian

7

Surur t1_jd84wf1 wrote

Well, either that or we are all dead.

8

ExposingMyActions t1_jd87awn wrote

I do believe some of us will die in the process, yup.

4

Surur t1_jd8cgzw wrote

Well, you know everyone is going to die.

3

ExposingMyActions t1_jd8irh1 wrote

Well I agree with that.

Or maybe I used to? The way tech is ramping up, and labor is decreasing, and the fact that the machines need to learn from something of diversified value..

Either babies will forced to be born or people will be forced not to die. Or both. Or yeah, we all die as scheduled.

4

AverageLatino t1_jd8n0m7 wrote

That's my motto too, in 10 years we will all be living like royalty or we're going to be dead.

3

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jd89l9f wrote

Eh.. not entirely true. People will still want to live somewhat in the city. Lots of people would hate living where I do "in a corn field" where you have to drive for 40 minutes to go to the closest resteraunt.

Also, MAYBE farmland is replaced by precision fermentation.. But you forget the point of agi is to allow people to do what they want.. Farmers will still exist because there will always be a demand by the masses for food grown by real people.

Cities need to spread out a bit, so people aren't stacked on top of one another.. But I think most city folks want to be close to their favorite restsraunt, and to not have to worry about their dog getting eaten by a rogue black bear or mountain lion.

Certain things won't change in the countryside, because people won't allow them to be changed. I'm not gonna be okay with you using agi to kill all mountain lions in the area, they are an important part of the environment, event if they are sometimes terrifying.

7

Surur t1_jd8csqp wrote

There will not be the need for masses of rolling hills of grains for example. If people want to hobby farm I am sure they could, but the whole world will become manicured by drones.

1

Smellz_Of_Elderberry t1_jd8eemw wrote

Might want to look out for environmentalalist extremists pushing for all rural towns to be "returned to nature" and everyone to be forced into new cities.

Read a book where that happened, and it stuck with me.

2

Surur t1_jd8eqvn wrote

That is what many environmentalists want to do right now.

3

isthiswhereiputmy t1_jd9upp0 wrote

I personally wouldn’t. There’s a big difference between not having to work to survive and money being no object.

If I had millions to build my dream home I might leave the city but I otherwise prefer urban life despite having been raised in a rural area.

2

Artanthos t1_jd9qphg wrote

Alternatively, UBI could be in the form of goods, not money.

People could be moved into massive dormitories, eat in cafeterias, and be issued basic clothing.

Population would then be centered within these dormitories and be very high density while being much more cost efficient for the government.

1

Surur t1_jd9wkjt wrote

That would not be UBI, though, would it?

UBI is universal basic income, which people would get irrespective of their needs. If you don't need your version, why would you need a dormitory bed and government cheese?

1

Artanthos t1_jdauvvo wrote

I highly doubt the government is just going to start handing out cash.

It's not how welfare is handled today, and today's welfare programs will be the model any future benefits are based off of. With the realization that there will be a very strong incentive to find cost savings as the scale and scope increases.

Today's welfare systems uses food stamps (EBT), WIC, subsidized housing (I've seen as low as $25/month, all utilities included), and even clothing vouchers for kids going to school.

The natural progression for cost saving is not giving cash instead of necessities, it's using economies of scale. The military provides models for cheaply housing and feeding large numbers of people, and I believe that is the direction government will move to save money.

1

Surur t1_jdbs42k wrote

Sure, but there is quite a bit of momentum behind the UBI movement, so if mass unemployment via AI comes, it seems likely it is UBI we will get.

1

Artanthos t1_jdco00z wrote

No.

The people who would be expected to pay for it are the same people you expect to enact it.

Try looking at it from the perspective of the people you expect to pay for it, then ask yourself what they are likely to do.

1

Surur t1_jdcpmee wrote

So I'm reasonably high earning, and a pretty big chunk of my money already goes on taxes. If you earn around the median wage you actually net negative when it comes to taxes paid vs benefits received. The well-off already pay the majority of taxes.

So say we get AGI in 2024, and companies start laying off people en masse in 2025, and unemployment is steadily increasing.

The people who make the decision on how to manage this are the politicians, and they rely on votes. So the first they will do (in Europe) is probably to put a moratorium on people being laid off because they have been replaced by AI.

Meanwhile unemployment will continue to increase, just a bit more slowly.

As the situation develops and companies complain that they are not being allowed to be as productive as they could be due to regulation (actually a common situation for any safety regulation for example) there will come a need for resolution.

Since 2024 everyone would have been discussion UBI, and the groundswell for this will increase. There will be marches for UBI in the street, and talking heads will raise it constantly on the TV.

So eventually the government agrees to implement a UBI tax on companies based on their revenue and pay a living wage stipend to everyone. Because everyone gets money there would be broad support from the populace.

Companies are allowed to freeze hiring and slowly empty out their offices, but maintain their revenue, and then we have UBI.

1

Artanthos t1_jdcumm1 wrote

Your arguments apply equally to health care, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc.

A lot of these programs are already underfunded to the point that they are expected to collapse in the next decade.

These are programs that are aimed squarely at helping the lower and middle classes.

And all is takes is the mention of raising taxes to change election outcomes.

1

Surur t1_jdd09e8 wrote

> Your arguments apply equally to health care, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, etc

Well, I live in a high-tax, high-benefit country.

1