See, this is why I never liked Automation systems in Tekkit.

I think there will be producers, but we may find ourselves in a situation where producers are no longer the majority, which depending on your point of view may make universal suffrage untenable.

At a certain point the question becomes, "Why even play?"

you made me choke on my own spit

the leap from UBI to modded Minecraft

lol

what a twist

I mean, I see it very similarly.

Yeah, I understand the point about automating more stuff

But not everything can be automated.

The implications from the question are pretty staggering, as well. If only a few entities were automating everything, what are they automating for?

Where is the money people are purchasing things coming from? I can only see high taxes on the producers

I concede that the 95%-5% split used in my hypothetical society is unlikely, but we're on the verge of a massive transformation.

What can't be automated?

At which point, why are the producers even producing if the money is being taken away from them to supply the UBI

Saying something can't be automated just suggests a failure of imagination.

Ask Siri to tell you a joke.

Well, the producers aren't being taxed to the point of being impoverished. They'd probably still be massively wealthy simply due to the vastly increased disparity in wealrth.

Presumably they'd at least be making UBI

Like if you have an income of a billion dollars and the tax rate is 50% you're still in gold plated yacht territory.

But their work and income would have to subsidize the people who are buying stuff from them

Drinking their own piss, in a way. It's not conducive to how modern economics works.

Hence why I described the free-riders as parasitic.

The system falls apart before it gets to that point.

In that extreme hypothetical example the producers would have clear incentive to curtail the free-riders.

I should get ya'll and lotus and start up Timcast IBS

In a less clear and less extreme real-world example, the people paying taxes would have incentive to prevent increases to UBI beyond subsistence.

I know Rye can be cogent

in VC

somewhat.

And would have incentive to lower the number of people receiving UBI.

Money, especially not backed by the gold standard, is essentially worth a miniscule percentage of the labor in the nation under that currency.

In order to have a UBI, you have to tax the labor to fund it, or print more money - which decreases that percentage of labor claim

So when everything is automated and AI does all the thinking our contribution will be creativity and making problems heh... also, how many ppl this kind of environment can sustain? UBI will probably be free food, basic healthcare, shelter, basic clothing and utilities. For everything extra we will have to earn somekind of "bitcoin".

gold has asighned value same as shells (polinesian islands i think)... you can assighn value to healthy living ... walk is already measurable... it can be mined

Presumably, it would be sustainable to the extent that resources such as metal, stone, necessary farmland, etc can stretch

I'm a free market capitalist at heart but if the trend in automation continues to the point of artificial general intelligence, then we're going to have to start thinking outside the box if we want to avoid dystopia.

Dystopia within the singularity is inevitable.

If that's the path we take.

AI for anything more than amusement is a bad idea.

We should be focusing on how to enhance humans using AI, as opposed to replacing them with it.

Unfortunately it's too powerful to prevent. It is too incredibly valuable and the first company or government to have one will have a massive advantage.

There's a race already underway towards AGI.

But while that's probably something we have to consider in our lifetimes, I'm more concerned about the next 10 years.

Let's consider what you said earlier

You'd said that the vote might have to be revoked to the 'freeloaders'.

also knowladge... we are already tracked... what you learn can be made measurable... anybody read ready player one? Concept of school is in the right direction just few corrections for making money is needed

I want to be clear that I'm not advocating for removing the vote from anyone.

But it may be necessary, right?

I'm just saying that democracy was only viable in societies where the vast majority were producers and wealth disparity was relatively low.

How do you prevent the monopoly in power from finding a way to cull the 'parasites' to prevent losing power?

Otherwise what you end up with is non-producers voting themselves the wealth of the producers, who obviously will use their relative power and resources to resist, and society breaks down.

You don't.

Either way you go in, it's a huge ethical black hole you don't come back out of.

Yep.

And we have to sort this stuff out right now, because the tech is here.

Self-driving cars and trucks, and Google Duplex are going to basically eliminate humans from tens of millions of jobs in the next ten years.

And in those ten years more tech is going to be created which disrupt more sectors.

And there is political deadlock everywhere.

I have a buddy who works in a call center. That's already an untenable job in a wealthy western country.

Now that Google Duplex exists he's got a year or two at best at that job.

As someone who takes pride in work, you're already spelling out nightmare fuel for me...

Work will still exist, but wages are going to go down for everyone in the middle of the IQ distribution.

Like nobody wants to have their arse wiped by a cold metal claw so nurses are still safe.

Speak for yourself

Ditto for therapists and any other job specifically requiring a human touch or human empathy.

heheh

But you're going to have more and more people forced into competing in those sectors so wages are going to go down regardless.

The good news is, is that you can get more nurses, teachers, etc for the same money. So that's an improvement.

Sports will still be safe

and inovations

and op eds

Anything that requires people at the extreme ends of the ability distribution.

As will other branches of entertainment

But if you're not a 130+ IQ person, or a 10/10 model, etc, you're looking at increased competition.

imagine public AI

In fact, without day jobs, these areas would likely thrive.

you make it develope your idea.. and you offer it on the market

This sort of thing would only be remotely possible in a one world government, though, I think...

I think what we're going to see in the near term is increased support for UBI or some sort of income supplementation program like negative income tax, along with societal change taking advantage at the dropping cost of mundane human labor.

i don't think it would be without ai managing all laws and adjusting to basic human rights

Mundane human labor like servants basically.

Illegal Mexican workers are going to start facing competition from legal workers.

Laborers and nannies and gardeners.

And the stay-at-home mom is gonna make a comeback.

if you have nothing to do and you like to be outside you will manage your own garden... many people find it enjoyable

If you can afford to have a garden you have something to do.

The stay at home mom was lost to inflation.

Actually it remains to be seen whether it'll be a stay-at-home mom or a stay-at-home dad that becomes the norm. Men might find themselves out of luck in a job market that places more value on people skills, human touch, and empathy.

sports

There's a saturation point to that market, and nobody wants to pay to see joe average. They want to pay to see people who are 3 standard deviations above the mean.

also i think cops will be replaced with machine you will guide from somewhere else (video game)

In societies today with extreme wealth disparity, traditional police are often supplemented with private security services for wealthy neighborhoods. See South Africa.

so does any of you know how many ppl in the world have at least 1 mil dollars? 10, 20 million? I know there is at least 1k billionairs

1% would be more than 70 mil

~~the top 1% in the United States alone earn around $200,000 a year.~~

465,626 a year is the top 1% as of 2014.

this is aprox 3,5 mil ppl average?

My head hurts too much to find that.

I've been dealing with an infection all day, leading me to vomiting and dizziness all day...

ugh... nvm... my point is... there is a lot of wealthy ppl

sure.

https://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/2016/08/see_the_average_income_of_top_1.html

anyway not all have power. But are influential enough

can be

okay, this thread in here seems to have missed a few things.
1) Labor is what creates value. Its out time and effort that is of value. which is why automation is so popular, its cheap. Because it does not labor. The cost of it comes from the labor put into maintaining it. As that gets more and more automated, that gets cheaper to the point of free.
2) if automation gets to a point where basically all our basic needs can be met by machines alone, why does someone need even a UBI? You just have a robot build your house, and visit the local food and drink machine for food and water. Then go to the doc robot.
3) if things are not yet to number 2 standards, where are wealthy people getting their wealth? The same principle applies today that applied when European explores first arrived anywhere. Right now poor people give an equivalent of shinny but useless stones to wealthy people, who view this as "expensive" or "fancy", in exchange for basically left over bread. Their wealth comes from treading something useless to them, in this example table craps, for something they find very valuable, aka the shinny rocks

Grenade's points are actually more eloquently put thoughts that I've had on the subject.

At least one and two are.

There is no magical wealth that comes out of no where in the system. the max wealth of the world is the total number of able body labors - non-able bodies + whatever offset our current tech level allows for.

Part of what I was getting at, referring to it not being comprehensible within any modern economy is well outlined in #2

Labor theory of value is Marxist in origin.

yes, but the problem is, that makes everyone equally poor

Perhaps in words, but it exists innately within capitalism

unspoken.

It exists within supply and demand.

because if you follow Marxist theory, we all basically end up farming for ourselves, getting water for ourselves, and building our own house

The point of automation is to decouple human labor from production. But the means of production is still owned by someone.

what happens when you automate the entire process of making and maintaining a machine?

Which explains why countries that adhere to marxist doctrine appear to move backwards in time...

As was said, the entire point of automation is to make widgets cheaper.

which would ultimately the goal of automation

And just because the product of a machine is cheap doesn't mean you give it away. You still expect profit.

Otherwise why build or purchase the machine?

But on the axis of supply and demand

If you've created a huge supply, but you've impoverished the people in the process by cutting out labor

labor is also a shiny object. and it puts some ppl to dissadvantage... children, elderly, disabled

lets say we have 4 machine systems. 1 to make houses, 1 to create food, 1 to distribute water, 1 to maintain, replace, or increase the output of the other 2 systems. All these systems are fully autonomous, meaning its sub components work to get the materials it needs to operate.

If you create huge economic surplus due to automation, you just find different ways of utilizing that surplus. You're going to allocate productivity in different sectors. The ownership class will enjoy more spoils.

You wind up with a massive supply, with little demand due to lack of funds

you now have all your basic human needs met without any human labor

who owns these machines? and how much do they cost? I mean, you don't need to make more machines, the 4th one does it for you. So how much does the bread cost? the water? the house?

no humans are needed to keep this system going or maintain it

the only need for a human is to say when more of something is needed

Grenade, nobody is making those machines for free.

Nobody is investing the time and money to build them expecting no return.

it doesn't matter why they made it, once it is made how much does it cost to maintain?

Yes it matters why they made it because they control them.

machines do... if you go from that point of automotive evolution

ai controls them

1 person verse....literally the world?

They can say if you don't pay me for the use of my machine you don't get the products they make.

and the world revolts

This conversation has become a hypothetical atop a hypothetical.

or they keep using those machines until they die

and someone else makes one

or someone steals the 4th machine

or the tech for it

This discussion is starting to smell like commies.

Or until war breaks down and breaks anywhere between one to four machines

or hacks it to make new copy of everything for them

machines revolt and we extinct... that usualy happen

in sci fi

I mean, depending on how much power we give to the machines

Deep down, I'm a naturalist and a survivalist, so none of this appeals to me in particular.

On a small scale, cheaper widgets. Neat.

On a large scale, though, it's fucked up.

I think it'd be absolutely awesome to have interactive AI that enhances the individual's abilities

yeah but how many ppl would not wanna work 9 to 5 every day?

There is always cost. There is always scarcity. Always. Never, ever use the word 'free' when it comes to anything in economics.

Also, if he made this machine, he would be in tremendous debt. that would be an R&D budget out the ass. So the first person to make that machine would need to either fund it entirely, or find a way to sell it

production does not equate to happyness. capitalism is a system that works to ensure the greatest production, that production is often translated into military might, that military might translates into a country that has the best foreign influince. i just discribed the united states or the british empire that preceeded it which though they did not fully embrace capitalism, had a head start. however simply being the most powerful nation in the world doesent mean you have the best system for your people, what it means is you have the best defense against outside influinces if you choose to do so...for your people (probably).

like an omnipresent personal assistant

like a Jarvis.

or.... give the products of this machine for free to all people who helped support it

There you go with 'free' again.

@Arch-Fiend By the way, it was part of the joke that the mural in that movie was spelled wrong. It's Happiness.

@Atkins i just said repaying debt to the people who helped support it

renting ai cappabilities would work

what movie?

so yes "free" as in return on investment

"The Pursuit of Happyness"

ah

havent seen it

Don't sweat it. Just throwing a barb. 😛

BTW, you were right in our last conversation. I forget what you said before I had to go but I remember you were right.

but this all comes down to: if people are not laboring to dig up shinny rocks, how does the rich person get shinny rocks?

unless he makes a machine to get him shinny rocks

in which case, why bother offering to trade bread for shinny rocks?

are we arguing that through automation we will reach zero scarcity economics and thus the only viable option is to have a welfare nation?

why not fuck off to a private island made of shinny rocks, then just give some shinny rocks to some murders to free up space in land that has more shinny rocks

yes, Arch

have you consitered the people trying to develop automation are also the people who lose the most influince in a zero scarcity economy?

grenade, those who have the natural ability to develop automation will be more valuable than those who do not.

so if you're a IQ 130+ software engineer you are going to be inherently more valuable than some IQ 100 joe average.

i dont think they are mindlessly heading toward their own dethronement consitering they are the elite. elites tend to fail to understand their inferiors not fail to understand their own machinations

"shiny rocks" have nothing to do with it.

There is no such thing as a zero scarcity economy.

There is always scarcity.

then resources are the only thing of value

Nonsense.

tell me, what is the point of wealth?

and where does it come from?

Ingenuity and creativity are also of value. Not everyone has these traits.

okay, so art.

Pareto principle. 90%+ of art is worthless shit.

Only some art is valuable.

zero scarcity society discribes one where the base nessessitys of all humans on earth are met to an extent you dont actually have to produce human labor in order to provide them

all art is worthless

unless someone really really wants it

Tell Kanye that.

people really really want it

That's what makes something valueable?

If nobody wants something it doesn't have value.

I can't sell anyone a handful of lint.

look at the most "valuable" works of art. Most of it is just a place holder for money.

that is not to say there will be no objects of value within the society but a society that can suport its survival without ever needing to put effert toward that is a zero scarcity

a rich person said "i like this", paid money for it, then said its worth x.

Have you ever taken an economics course?

but it gives enjoyment. its beauty

and it just keeps getting traded around rich people for that much money

btw.. .since at the course of this debate: https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1013918293600555009

Everyone would LOVE to have an army of servants

It's what gives labor value.

If we're being honest, it's what gave slaves their value.

there are plenty of expensive version of things that nearly identical or even worse quality than a much cheaper version.

Black slaves were property, always to be enslaved. That made them rather valuable.

why do brand names matter so much if the quality is the same in two versions of a product?

Irish slaves, however, were indentured servants. Indebted. The prospect of release made them less valuable

Which lead to Irish slaves being cheaper, more misused, and often bred with black slaves, since the mixed children would be considered black, and not Irish.

Moral of this tangent, Slavery was fucked up.

Excess "wealth" really only comes from a group of people, teaming up to all meet their basic needs, by each doing what they are good at. By specializing like this they stand a chance of producing more than they needed in some areas in the same amount of time as if they all did each area of work themselves.

im not sure what were talking about anymore

personally i dont trust automation, it beleive it at best disparages the working class if not outright destroys it.

worse case scanario this means that corporations are only witholden to consumers

idk, i think it would just change the nature of the working class. less working in fields and more lifting heavy pieces of robots to replace them

It seems like a backdoor to class warfare.

less farming and more mechanics

that would constrain the working class to at most 10% of its current compacity

the debate becomes if automation allows for a high enough increase in new jobs to make up for the jobs it displaced.

theres a secret they dont tell you in school because its an old school political correctness thing, way older than our current envirnment of PC. what they dont tell you is that not everyone can be middle class

as it becomes cheaper to run a place, it means they have more capital to expand to have more places or space to make more stuff.

not everyone will be upper class

they cant actually expand beyond demand

true, but they are now cheaper, which, in theory, can increase sales up to a point

the value of labor has only increases since the dawn of mankind but the need of demand has only increased with population growth and new industrys to provide more complex products

automation only deals with overhead

if you half the price of computer monitors and the parts that allow computes to have 2 monitors, do you think people with 1 monitor wouldn't upgrade?

and if everything is cheaper, then the cost of living is cheaper, meaning you don't have to work as much

fuck it, say you live in a society where no one technicly has to work

what then?

good question. what then. I assume you mean all human basic needs to live as long as possible are met, since no one has to work, correct?

sure

this skips the pitfalls of getting to automation of that level where were putting faith in corproations

lets just talk about how the human condition functions in a society where no one needs to do anything in order to survive

you assume corporations are the only one able to make such a thing, not a government or some philanthropist , humanitarian group, etc but yes, lets assume somehow we get to this point. so what then?

(also, we are all making an assumption we don't nuke ourselves before we get there too. i'm telling you, answer to all our human problems.)

so a society with all of its survival needs met to a point of potentally being able to live as long as humanly posible without needing to do anything from cradle to the grave

End human suffering: End humanity.

ill buy that for a dollar

I might actually put that on a sign and picket it.