MasterFubar t1_iseu9ku wrote
> hoarding generations of income
That word "hoarding" shows exactly where you stand and why you're looking at things from the wrong perspective.
Rich people don't "hoard" wealth. They invest. When someone says "Jeff Bezos has $200 billion" this doesn't mean he's sitting in a money bin with 200 billion dollar banknotes. He isn't sitting on a pile of things money can buy either.
I've heard people say "$200 billion is too much, let him keep one billion and give the rest to the poor". How does that sound to you? Each person in the world would get $25 worth of Amazon shares. Many people would opt to sell their shares, meaning the price would plunge. Amazon would become a penny stock, rich people would buy those shares at a bargain price and the situation would be back exactly like it was at the beginning.
Okay, that wouldn't work, so let's make those shares non-negotiable. Every person would keep his share. This would make Amazon a political organization. People would run for the office of CEO, promising to the people whatever they wanted in order to get elected. The end result, no more Amazon, the corporation would be destroyed and other organizations, like AliExpress, would take their place.
TL; DR: the situation is as it is because it works. The free market is the most effective way we know to run an economy.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isew4z2 wrote
>Rich people don't "hoard" wealth. They invest. When someone says "Jeff Bezos has $200 billion" this doesn't mean he's sitting in a money bin with 200 billion dollar banknotes.
Haha, yes I'm well aware of how that works. But they simply use their stocks as collateral to obtain essentially unlimited cash flow through loans anyway.
But that's not even the point, I'll try and explain it better. They hoard wealth in terms of general wealth, power, value, influence. They have a need to perpetually obtain more and more market share. They have an obsession to do whatever it takes to be on top of everyone around them.
If a diagnostic AI existed, and balanced that obsessive trait, then the market share from the companies could be used to fuel prosperity for all, instead of prosperity for some. If they were freed from those traits, they could focus on betterment for others.
This would be the beginning of the end for capitalism. If suddenly Walmart started offering everyone profit shares in the form of thousands of dollars worth of gift cards every year for free, for example. Do you think people would still go use amazon? Maybe here and there, but I would probably do all of my business at Walmart.
That's just a simple, dumb example. It'd be a transition from capitalism to whatever proves superior in an unemployed world with AI doing the heavy lifting.
michael_mullet t1_isf111a wrote
What you're describing is still capitalism, the competitive market where free actors can allocate resources in the manner that produces the best return.
Everyone right now can in fact own the means of production in this system. Everyone can invest some of their earnings in the stock market. Just buying QQQ guarantees ownership of the top 100 fastest growing large companies on NASDAQ.
QQQ has averaged 16%/yr for the past 10 years. A low end worker making $15/hr could invest 10% of earnings per year in QQQ and be a millionaire in 25 years even if he never got a raise.
You don't need UBI, or special training, expensive schools, a pedigree or the right background. You just need to save a little money.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfa3w8 wrote
I'm not down voting anyone here, fyi.
But I know what I'm describing is capitalism, I wasn't claiming it isn't. But I'm talking about the transition from it, toward a more sustainable system before AI becomes something only the "haves" get while the "have nots" fall into total poverty.
michael_mullet t1_isffhrk wrote
Gotcha.
I don't think there is a more sustainable system than capitalism.
All of the progress and wealth generated in past 200 hundred years has been from capitalism. Even perverted, not quite free markets in China have done more in 20 years than all of the five year plans of socialism combined.
I also understand that the portion of wealth flowing to labor has been declining since 1971 (https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/), but the average person's access to the other side of the ledger has increased too.
Maybe an option is having social security buy into capital markets and give non-investors upside access to capital gains. Whatever options are tested, the only guarantee is that systems with the freest markets where labor and capital compete to provide goods and services will be the most successful.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfizb1 wrote
Well the whole subject of transformative AI relates to some kind of revolution. Not in the sense of an over-throw scenario, but like the industrial and agricultural ones. We are in the midst of a revolution. Everyone here is focused so much on the date of AGI/ASI and the singularity, of course that's the sub, but we don't need those necessarily. I have no doubt they will be soon enough, but the next 5-10 years will be the most important in human history so far. The computational revolution or whatever you want to call it, probably something catchier than that. Of course that can be superseded shortly after by AGI or whatever, but regardless of people predicting the singularity in 15 years or 100 years, the revolution is already here, and transformative AI is "slowly" coming out every few months. We don't need 100% unemployment to reach a crises, we need like 10%.
Capitalism just simply cannot be sustainable when unemployment rates start rapidly rising. We can say things like history repeats itself, there were actually more jobs created from the industrial revolution, etc. But history doesn't *always* repeat itself. We are going to automate everything, or at least enough things that there just simply won't be a *reason* to work. The industrial revolution everyone feared being unemployed, this time around we should fear if we will still need to work.
Capitalisms has been exploited to see the gains we have so far, the wealthy still need the lower classes. Without us, they don't sell products. Currently they need our labour, shortly they won't. Do they think they can just take our labour and paychecks and we can still purchase their products? It just won't work.
stupendousman t1_isf7iix wrote
> Haha, yes I'm well aware of how that works. But they simply use their stocks as collateral to obtain essentially unlimited cash flow through loans anyway.
So? Other people are loaning them the money.
> then the market share from the companies could be used to fuel prosperity for all, instead of prosperity for some.
Translation: monkey's throwing rocks at a high pressure boiler.
>This would be the beginning of the end for capitalism.
Mystical nonsense.
The end of capitalism just means state control, infringing upon fundamental rights.
>to whatever proves superior in an unemployed world with AI doing the heavy lifting.
Mises wrote the economic calculation problem in 1920, and people still don't understand it. It's not that complex, the issue isn't calculation but not having the data to calculate. Not hard to get, not different methods to get, it's impossible to get without markets generating price information.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfdc6r wrote
Ok. Then capitalism will remain through transformative AI, only the powerful and rich will have access to AGI and later ASI. And they can go live in their mystical future, the rest of us can start from scratch or die.
I get it, you like capitalism.
stupendousman t1_isfkixn wrote
> Then capitalism will remain through transformative AI
Capitalism isn't a political ideology, it is not some centralized rule set. You're forcing the concept into your political framework.
Capitalism is the lack of the political. Like atheism is the lack of religion.
>only the powerful and rich will have access to AGI and later ASI.
Again, no. AI will exist as part of an intelligence explosion. AI will be everywhere. The individual will have their own AI, mostly likely multiple ones at different intelligence levels.
Again, you're forcing all these concepts through your centralized political authority framework.
If there a hard take off from an ASI it's all moot anyway.
>the rest of us can start from scratch or die.
No, capitalism is a situation where you don't have to associate if you don't want to.
There is no reason that you and others can't interact in your own markets. Again, don't push everything through a central control paradigm.
>I get it, you like capitalism.
Yes, I like it when people don't aggress against me.
You do to, you want to be treated according the ethical framework which supports capitalism: Self-ownership and derived rights, freedom of association, self-defense, and property rights.
You, like many, aren't thinking clearly about these things. You're uneasy, constantly pushed and pulled by state manipulation. But if you take a step back, consider how you'd like to be treated, apply it universally you'll see how this is the best, most ethical path forward.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfscof wrote
Man, you are coming in with assumptions about a lot of things I didn't say or imply. I'm sorry I don't have a rebuttal to discuss, I'm not sure where this debate went.
stupendousman t1_isfx3je wrote
> about a lot of things I didn't say or imply.
Your assertions require the implications.
MasterFubar t1_isezt8n wrote
> They hoard wealth in terms of general wealth, power, value, influence. They have a need to perpetually obtain more and more market share. They have an obsession to do whatever it takes to be on top of everyone around them.
There are people like that, yes, but it would be even worse without a free market. Look at Russia, North Korea, Cuba, China, etc. Economic power and political power should be separate entities, kept as far away from each other as possible.
But, of course, there are people who love power, they will work to achieve power, be it through political or economic ways, whatever is available.
The free market works so well because it's distributed intelligence. Every person makes their own choices. You can shop at Amazon or Walmart or at your favorite local shop, the decision is yours. I, for one, wouldn't want an AI making such decisions for me.
Where AI could make a big improvement would be in government. There are systems where we have no choice. The government is in charge of fixing the potholes in my street, if an AI took care of that it would be a welcome improvement.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isf8xuh wrote
Well capitalism strongly encourages economic powers to influence political powers. So much so, that to call what we have now as "decent" would be a stretch.
The free market only works because it's the best option we have, or at least that we came up with. And there's no opt out, so those of us at the bottom are kind of stuck being pushed further and further down. I would call our current system a system with no choice, at least for almost everyone.
Capitalism won't work forever, or even much longer most likely. Well, not if we're assuming a transformative AI is a matter of years away.
MasterFubar t1_isfes18 wrote
> capitalism strongly encourages economic powers to influence political powers.
That's not how capitalism works. Everyone who actually manages a company would prefer to keep the government at a distance.
> those of us at the bottom are kind of stuck being pushed further and further down.
People at the bottom can join each other and work together. They can form a cooperative or any other organization they want.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfjhy1 wrote
>That's not how capitalism works. Everyone who actually manages a company would prefer to keep the government at a distance.
You think CEO's aren't in bed with politicians? You're describing capitalism on paper, it's nothing like it was 100 years ago. Sure companies hate when politicians stifle their progress, but campaigns are funded by the wealthy.
MasterFubar t1_isfju1r wrote
They must adapt to the political situation, but every one of them would prefer less government, if you asked them.
sadboyleto2 t1_isf1r43 wrote
the free market only exists in liberal academic think tanks and anarco-capitalists 12yo brains, it's an utopia. In the real world, markets are heavily regulated by the state and the countries collecting the bounties today are the ones that enjoyed a huge boost in their base industries (all financed by the state of course).
I can see you're intelligent, your opinion is not wrong in its conclusion but I think your premises are wrong. If you allow me to make a suggestion, i'd tell you to try reading materialistic historical analysis of capital and its relations with the formation and consolidation of society throuhgout time. If anything, more education will absolutely not hurt and if you disagree with everything in this area of study, you'll at least have a great advantage when making your argument.
MasterFubar t1_isf3nx9 wrote
> markets are heavily regulated by the state
Yes, markets aren't totally free, but that's not a shortcoming of the free market. The free market is an abstract model that we should try to pursue as much as possible.
michael_mullet t1_isezen6 wrote
Few on this sub will understand you. They're brainwashed into thinking capitalism=bad and socialism=good and don't realize the same "sociopaths" end up on top in either system.
At least capitalism forces them to produce a good or service that's of value in order to maintain their position.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfk1jm wrote
This sub is literally about an AI revolution that essentially cancels capitalism because it likely won't work post-singularity, possibly pre-singularity as I'm hinting at in my original post.
Capitalism is currently the best we have, and it's "worked" well enough to get us this far. But I can't imagine a future with automated workers, and the unemployed just die off.
michael_mullet t1_isfq1o5 wrote
I understand that point of view, I'm trying to provide a counterpoint. Just because the industrial revolution eliminated 90% of agricultural Era jobs didn't mean that people were just cattle to be culled. Same thing with the decline of manufacturing.
Prior economic revolutions replaced existing employment with higher paying, more productive work. The same thing will happen over the next 20 years. I don't know what it will look like - maybe early career starts as a manager of AI/robotic "workers." Maybe AGI psychologist becomes a popular field.
Although UBI sounds like a great idea that's fair and helps everyone, it seems to devalue individual worth. "You can't do as well as the machines, so we'll put you out to pasture." There's an under current of defeatism to it, but I think the AI revolution offers a more positive future even as it is destructive.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isfv03z wrote
>The same thing will happen over the next 20 years.
The problem would be that AI would be cheaper, and perform several magnitudes more efficiently. There just won't be a job that AI can't perform better and for less cost. 24/7. At that point why would we even be striving for work? We should be striving to be unshackled from working half our lives.
>devalue individual worth
This could be the hard pill to swallow during an upcoming revolution for a lot of people. The "value" and "worth" will cease to exist. People will have to come to terms with unemployment no longer being a thing, it's simply mandatory employment disappears.
The part I worry about is the people that believe employment is essential and will prolong the suffering of many by dragging others to the bottom before the eventual collapse of the system. UBI is simply a stop-gap.
michael_mullet t1_isg7b0t wrote
Hmmm. I appreciate your responses, you've given me some things to think about. It's likely that regions/countries will approach these issues differently which will give us opportunity to see what works.
I still think there will be work for people, but it may be "make work" of the FDR New Deal style.
AdditionalPizza OP t1_isgcin7 wrote
I think it's correct to assume different countries will attempt different things. It's really hard to say because while we can compare revolutions in history, it doesn't really help us understand the implications of this one. This isn't the industrial revolution, this is a replacement of the of the entire workforce sector by sector. The first sectors to go might find other employment. Then more sectors will go, and then more.
We're waiting on the first big sector to go nearly or fully automated. Graphic designers aren't a sector, they're part of a creative sector. When entertainment and art is mostly automated we will see. But it could be medicine, could be legal, could be computer sciences, could be retail. It could be ones that have labour involved but that seems less likely at the moment but if there's a breakthrough in robotics soon that will spell the end of that sector.
One sector will probably knock I don't know, 5% of the workforce out? Maybe more? That's an immediate crises. Then another. Then another.
​
>I still think there will be work for people, but it may be "make work" of the FDR New Deal style.
That's probably a solution we'll see attempted, but I don't know. I don't want to see that. That's a bandage for a giant wound. It might work for a few months, but then more people become unemployed.
Open AI's Codex is crazy. That tech will accelerate all facets of IT, which means we are increasing the rate of exponential growth by orders of magnitude.
But you know, I hope you're view on it is more correct than mine. At least for this transition period coming up soon enough.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments