It would be nice to have a utopia where robots can produce enough food / clothing / shelter / infrastructure for everybody to live without anybody having to work.

But there are two problems:

- How do we deal with the inevitable economic disruption of intermediate states between the status quo (~90%+ of the population has to work) and the end game (~0% of the population has to work).  When, say, ~50% of the population has to work, how do we determine which 50% ends up working without creating a class divide that tears society apart?



- Are we really sure that a utopia is the inevitable outcome of superintelligent machines?  Since having resources is an instrumental goal that is a useful stepping stone to many different final goals, what would keep superintelligent machines from appropriating for their own ends resources humanity needs to live?  Eliezer Yudkowsky, a person who has thought a lot about this issue, summarizes it as follows:  "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made of atoms it can use for something else."

Greater class divide than what currently exists? Don't we have greater class divide right now then at any point in recent history? And it isn't caused by people not working but rather by 84 people that have trillions in wealth.

I read that in the United States there are millions (I think it was like 40 million or so don't remember the exact number) of people that work in the transportation sector as truck drivers, bus drivers you name it.

We also have Deep learning algorithms (AI or machine learning whatever you want to call it) that are capable of driving vehicles better than humans can. Google self driving car is one example of such technology. So just with this one application of deep learning, millions of people lose their jobs and in the process millions of products become cheaper because you no longer have to worry about paying a salary to workers in the transportation sector.

I think the basic needs of people like food, shelter, clothing, education etc. will be met sooner than we think. I think what will happen is that technology will displace many workers very fast in all industries and everyone's basic needs will basically be free. If it is not free it'll probably be 'subsidized' by basic income until humans aren't need and stuff becomes free.

There is an entire universe to explore for resources. There is no need for a super intelligence to stay on Earth. I think a super intelligence would probably be more empathetic to life on Earth and not exploit everything for its own personal gain. Even us humans have nature reserves where we aren't allowed to exploit the resources there for personal gain.

This is probably going to step on some toes but I'll say it anyways because I think it is probably true. People that tend to identify as politically liberal tend to be more empathetic towards other people and other animals. That is why PETA exists for example to protect animals from cruelty.

Also, people that identify as liberal tend to have higher intelligence on average. See the connection? Greater intelligence greater empathy. I think a super intelligent being would look at modern day humans and call us savages.

This guy is basically saying what Ray Kurzweil and others have said before.

Computers that can think, write, and learn faster than what humans are capable of. Rise of the machines?

 

I can see how these computers (AI?) can lead to a world of abundance. I can also see how this will flip everything we think we know about economics upside down.


These deep learning algorithms, as of just last month (December 2014) became capable of replacing 80% of intellectual jobs. The majority of jobs in developed nations are intellectual.

"The better computers get at intellectual activities, the more they can build better computers to be better at intellectual capabilities"

Intelligence explosion?


So what do we do when humans can't compete with the superior intelligence of computers? What do we do when a computer can write better software than you, write a better poem, or diagnose sick people better than any physician on Earth?


The guy has some suggestions at the end, one of them being universal income. However, most would say that that is communism/socialism/marxism and be vehemently against it.


Here is the video. Very interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4kyRyKyOpo

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 07, 2015, 12:28:27 am

Sorry, it wasn't meant to be rude or negative towards you personally.

No problem.

Quote from: onceuponatime on January 07, 2015, 12:28:27 am

It was meant to convey, as one meaning, that violence and coercion are now at an evolutionary dead end. There is an evolving part of life on earth, humanity, and there is an evolving part of humanity - those willing to forgo violence and coercion in attempting consensus.

I really wish I could believe that. I really do. Unfortunately I do not.

And I do recognize that statistics show that violent crime has gone down over the years. But I don't believe that is because of any innate biological changes in humanity via evolution, but because of the way our civilization has changed and been structured. And I am hopeful that this trend will continue, but I believe severe violence would return if some of these structures were removed from our society. Thus, I am incredibly cautious and skeptical regarding arguments that favor radically changing some of these basic structures with the noble intent of reducing violence and coercion further.

 

I'm not going to pretend that I fully understand everything there is to know about economics. However, I think you are dismissing the value of math in explaining economics. Math and physics are what explain natural phenomena like the speed at which objects fall because of gravity. There needs to be empirical evidence to back up claims like science. Science is what got us to the point we are in today. Otherwise we'd be living in a Caliphate or something like that.

This is why economics seems to be a bit like pseudoscience to me. Almost like a religion wherein someone explains the existence of a god because of some chance event or something.

I think that different economic systems work at different times depending on what technologies we have. The feudal system used to work and then we had the industrial revolution, printing press, and locomotive that freed many people and gave rise to modern capitalism. Didn't Austrian Economics emerge during that time period too?


For instance endless growth and profit can only go on for so long. Of course this is only a limitation if we stay on Earth, we could colonize the rest of the universe and have continued economic growth that way. Well up until we used up all the energy in the universe, which could happen if we don't go extinct before then.

There is only so much economic growth we can produce on Earth. If we had continued economic growth here without leaving the planet we would probably destabilize ecosystems, more than we have done, and risk our own extinction.

Edit: By the way BM I really like your blog. It looks really nicely organized in my opinion too. I'll start producing content for mine too.

I'd say the very structure of reality is hierarchical. The process of sensory input in the brain certainly is, and even our best sciences seems layered in levels, such as particle physics -> chemistry -> biology -> psychology; something like this is true for technological innovation as well, there is a telescopic effect, the macro builds on the micro innovations, and larger sized objects form condensed laws that while not as general, often govern the course of things down below. In essence a hierarchy can compress a range of information, which makes reality as a whole parsimonious, in the sense that it can exhibit a great diversity of events with less effort, sort of like language can by the structure of grammar exhibit great diversity by combining condensed information-packets of meanings with near-general grammatical combination laws.

 

Quote from: Stan on January 01, 2015, 03:10:32 am

Quote from: jae208 on January 01, 2015, 01:50:06 am

Basically if your family is rich you'll most likely still be rich and if your family is poor you will most likely still be poor. This is part of the old commodity based economy.

Now, in the knowledge economy which we are currently making a transition too, wealth isn't defined by commodities but rather by intellect and your social reputation. Just like it was for our hunter gatherer ancestors.

Don't focus on the advantages of others.  Focus on you own goals.

I will point out that two year's ago bytemaster was milking cows while I was chasing thirty @#$%#!! chickens out of our garden -- just like our ancestors have done for uncountable generations.

Without Stan realizing it, he agrees with you. If it wasn't for social intellect for embracing crypto, and BM's and Stan's reputation being accepted by the majority who follow Invictus thus far, perhaps bytemaster would still be milking cows while Stan is chasing chickens out of his garden.

Luckily social intellect and reputation have built Invictus from just those two very exact things as the starting point.

Quote from: Stan on January 01, 2015, 03:10:32 am

Nothing is impossible for anyone.
The important thing is to start.

Fantastic!  I'm male, and would like to get pregnant naturally and give birth.  How do you suggest I start?

By the way the research paper made this concluding statement:

" the current trend towards a knowledge-based economy that is less reliant on material wealth and more reliant on embodied and relational wealth might in the long run be associated with a concomitant reduction in intergenerational wealth transmission."

I think that's a fair statement.

 

I definitely think that it is a fair statement.

This makes me think that the people that will be 'wealthier' in the future will be those with the most youtube subscribers and twitter followers. And acquiring such followers will be done by with wit and relationships.

 

The reason there is vast wealth inequality is because we have been living in a society where wealth meant physical assets. Assets such as land, cattle, factories, real estate etc. These assets get passed on from one generation to the next. The barriers to entry to even acquire these assets in the first place are quite high. It is challenging for the average person to obtain such assets. At the same time those that come from wealthier families have a very substantial advantage over those that don't. Basically if your family is rich you'll most likely still be rich and if your family is poor you will most likely still be poor. This is part of the old commodity based economy.


Now, in the knowledge economy which we are currently making a transition too, wealth isn't defined by commodities but rather by intellect and your social reputation. Just like it was for our hunter gatherer ancestors.

I think its just best if you read the research I learned this from. They do a better job at explaining.



Intergenerational Wealth Transmission and the Dynamics of Inequality in Small-Scale Societies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2792081/#!po=0.416667

Quote from: Stan on December 12, 2014, 02:13:13 am

How do we expect to attract top talent if you guys hit them with a cold water hose right out of the gate?

This thread is starting to embarrass me.

Agreed. Some of these same people are wondering why they're still single, and why there aren't many women in this field. Hmmm...

For the same reasons there aren't many women in STEM fields. I don't know what they are I just think it is the same reasons.