[toomuchtodo]

> It doesn't sound like this project has any scope to address this practical concern, which to me, is largely economic. I don't see how universal access to AI puts food on the table.

Benevolent AI dictator that runs farm machinery and food distribution networks?

I only half joke. At some point, we're going to need to ditch the puritanical bullshit that work is required, and realize that GDP as a metric is hogwash. Quality of life, happiness, those are what need to be measured and delivered on.

[ddod]

The problem with the benevolent AI idea is that it's not in the interest of anyone with power/money/production to create it.

That's why I agree with your second point of rethinking "work". Instituting a Universal Basic Income lets us keep capitalism while putting more power in the hands of consumers and not relying on the kindness of AI/strangers.

Otherwise, we'll continue to see an increase in wealth disparity until there's no longer any function of the market.

[henrikschroder]

The beauty of software is that it has a marginal cost of distribution of 0. All it takes is one altruistic person to make a piece of software that solves a problem, and then all of humanity can have that for free, forever.

However, looking at the current trends, it's clear that the owners of the hardware are going to be the gatekeepers and middlemen. If a benevolent AI that's working for you requires you to run it off of AWS/Google/Azure, power will be concentrated to them, and they will always be able to run a more powerful AI since they could utilize their entire hardware capabilities.

[toomuchtodo]

Cloud providers are so much smaller than the aggregate consumer computing devices out in the wild.

[toomuchtodo]

Agreed. But we're going to have to fight hard for a UBI.