[moe091]

Going off your point, even if we aren't quite there yet, there is no reason to suppose that AI won't eventually be massively better at basically ALL things than humans - that's certain the direction we're headed, and very quickly too.

This is just the very beginning of the problem. It's time for people to start thinking about how to live in a world where they are "obsolete". All jobs, or, being conservative, at least the vast, vast majority will eventually be replaced by AI. AI will eventually be able to create art that is more appealing to humans than human-created art. I think there could eventually even be AI "people", who's company many people will prefer to other actual humans, as they will be designed/trained to be as perfect as possible for that task. I hope that most people will still see more value in genuine human interaction, as any person today probably would, but as tech evolves and we get used to it, let it into our lives more, let it control more of our lives and make more of our decisions, then it advances more and we get used to it more, etc. The idea of human connection and the separation between human life and AI "life" might not be as apparent to people as it is to us, and they may allow AI and technology to replace every facet of human existence

[fnordpiglet]

I actually strongly disagree here with the conclusion you make. I think these are going to be tools that enhance the human mind. It’ll enable the average person to be exceptional by using the AI as guidance. It’ll enable the brilliant to exploit the AIs in novel and clever ways that were not possible before. The humans place is in the use of a tool, the tool doesn’t replace the human.

The challenge will be instead is there enough useful work to keep everyone paid in a post scarcity world? The advent of the useful AI will probably necessitate some very very serious thought about how we allocate and distribute capital.

But I don’t believe artists will be replaced by an AI any more than they were by the camera. Or that streaming will kill music. Etc.

[moe091]

I'm not too attached to my conclusion, in fact I hope it's not true, and have also thought about what you said. But I am convinced that, eventually, humans will be capable of making autonomous AI advanced enough to "replace" them, and I am NOT convinced that humans will choose not to - especially given the fact that over enough time people will slowly allow AI to control more and more of their lives and the world. Then the next generation of people will grow up accustomed to this level of invasiveness and think it normal, and trade off more of their freedom to AI in exchange for more convenience and comfort.

As for the concern about whether there will be enough useful work to keep everyone paid. Eventually the answer is definitely no in my opinion, just a matter of how far out that is, but I don't think whether there will be enough work is a meaningful question in that world. If AI is good enough to replace human work then the work is still being done - in fact MORE work is probably being done, and therefore more goods/resources(post-scarcity as you said). It's a question of whether humans can distribute those resources fairly - this question and problem remains the same whether people need to work or not. We already have more than enough resources to keep everyone in the world fed and comfortable, assuming we don't destroy the planet this will only be more true when the AI work force comes into play.

It's easy to assume that in such a world there will be enough resources for everyone to live very comfortably while the higher class still has extremely excessive control over resources, and as such it's not likely that greed(the main obstacle to a fair outcome) would have to come into play, as the rich and power-hungry can have everything they want without having to allow poor people to starve to death.

Unfortunately I'm not convinced that assumption is valid either though, because of the fact that the psychological factor driving the greed of the ultra-rich isn't the desire for material possessions and wealth in itself, but to have "more" - more stuff, more capital, more power, than others. They don't just intrinsically love 100 million dollar yachts so much that they choose to buy 3 of them instead of, say, saving the lives of millions of starving children. What they love is the inflation of their ego and the feeling of power and superiority. If middle-class person suddenly had 100 million dollar yachts those people wouldn't be satisfied with their own anymore. Because of this, I think the ultra-rich and ultra-powerful, who of course will be the ones in power and who will have the ability to influence how resources are distributed in a post-scarcity world, will be motivated to keep the lower classes "lower", in order to maintain their ego and satisfy their power craving(though they will of course justify it in less crude ways).

To make my point more simply: If Jeff Bezos could snap his fingers right now and magically make every single person on earth exactly as rich as he is, give them all the same resources and material possessions, at no cost to himself, I am quite convinced he would not do it. This is a simpler version of the exact same decisions those in power will have to make over the next centuries - and in their case it will probably be easier to justify to themselves as it won't be so black and white as denying fortune to billions of people at no cost: that will be exactly what they're doing, but over the course of many small decisions that is each justifiable in it's own way, such that they never have to realize that that is exactly what they're doing