[thorum]

This article is insightful, but I blinked when I saw the headline “Reducing the human bottleneck” used without any apparent irony.

At some point we should probably take a step back and ask “Why do we want to solve this problem?” Is a world where AI systems are highly intelligent tools, but humans are needed to manage the high level complexity of the real world… supposed to be a disappointing outcome?

[Davidzheng]

it actually doesn't matter what we want. Because eliminating it will in long run increase yield, economic forces will automate humans away by capitalistic forces.

[swivelmaster]

We should stop considering it a given that capitalistic forces will do this and start considering how we build systems that optimize for the maximum amount of human good rather than the maximum amount of abstract economic good (which nowadays usually means an increase in wealth disparity).

[CamperBob2]

Because no one has come up with a system that's better than capitalism at accomplishing that.

[itsalotoffun]

This is correct. It will require non-market forces to regulate soft-landings for humans. We may see a wave of "job-preserving" legislation in the coming years but these will eventually be washed away in favor of taxing the AI economy.

[LunaSea]

If you don't have customers anymore, who are you selling your products to?

[fnordpiglet]

Assuming you buy the idea of a post scarcity society and assuming we can separate our long ingrained notion that spending your existence in toil to survive is a moral imperative and not working is deserving of punishment if not death, I personally look forward to a time we can get off the hamster wheel. Most buttons that get pushed by people are buttons not worth spending your existence pushing. This includes an awful lot of “knowledge work,” which is often better paid but more insidious in that it requires not just your presence but capturing your entire attention and mind inside and outside work. I would also be hopeful that fertility rates would decline and there would simply be far fewer humans.

In Asimov’s robots stories the spacers are long lived and low population because robots do most everything. He presents this as a dead end, that stops us from conquering the galaxy. This to me sounds like a feature not a bug. I think human existence could be quite good with large scale automation, fewer people, and less suffering due to the necessity for everyone to be employed.

Note I recognize you’re not saying exactly the same thing as I’m saying. I think humans will never cede full executive control by choice at some level. But I suspect, sadly, power will be confined to those few who do get to manage the high level complexity of the real world.

[nradov]

We will never have a post scarcity society. Automation can make certain foodstuffs and manufactured goods somewhat cheaper but the things that people really want will always be in short supply, for example real estate in geographically favorable areas.

[lll-o-lll]

With a stable population, post scarcity is surely possible technically. Just invest resource into improving everything that already exists.

I also agree that we will never have a post scarcity society; but this is more about humanity than technology.

[parineum]

There will always be scarcity for goods whose value is derived from their scarcity.

Maybe food won't be scarce (we wre actually very close to that) and shelter may not be scarce but, even if you invent the replicator, there will still be things that are bespoke.

[exe34]

there are levels of post scarcity. if food, shelter, medicine and leisure are available to all for almost no toil, then we're in post-scarcity. You'll (probably) never have your own planet. You might never be able to convince a certain artist to produce something for you personally.

[alanbernstein]

I have never understood "post scarcity" to mean the end of ALL scarcity, which is essentially impossible by definition.

Relative to 500 years ago, we have already nearly achieved post-scarcity for a few types of items, like basic clothing.

It seems this is yet another concept for which we need to adjust our understanding from binary to a spectrum, as we find our society advancing along the spectrum, in at least some aspects.

[nasmorn]

Also for basic food. You can get all the rice and beans you really need for basically no money. That means actual starvation is nowadays a political not a resource issue

[aswegs8]

But what is scarce now, really? We are just moving up Maslow's hierarchy and strive for more abstract concepts like power, self-actualization or recognition. How would AI provide those to us? Our self-image is linked to other's perception of us. It feels like we would have to radically re-think what it means to be human. As someone above wrote, we need to overcome equating existence with toil, however, it seems so ingrained into human nature to compete that we might all have to hop on antidepressants at some point.

[boredhedgehog]

When the celibate classes have been able to sublimate what is arguably the strongest of all wants for as long as they have, I doubt there is any desire that could not be redirected with similar techniques.

[nine_k]

This assumes that the celibate was actually maintained, not pretended and secretly violated. There is plenty of evidence that those who were intended to preserve celibate in medieval times actually did not.

[nradov]

Lol buddy if you really believe there are any "celibate classes" then you've fallen for the oldest con in the world.

[addaon]

Such cynicism! I’m proudly celibate, like my father before me, and my grandfather before him!

[hgomersall]

Indeed, scarcity will be artificially created if it's not naturally present. The human need to have something that others do not is strong.

[variadix]

You’re not imagining what post scarcity can really look like. If you have abundant energy, automation, etc. you could manipulate geography and climate, you could build artificial land mass, and so on. It really depends on what people mean by post scarcity.

[GauntletWizard]

We can automate plenty in physiological needs, and in fact have already. There's plenty of food and housing for everyone to have them, but a bunch of people will immediately destroy them if provided with such. I don't think "Dispose of a full house every 3 months" will ever be practical, but we might be able to "solve" physiological needs.

Safety needs might be possible to solve. Totalitarian states with ubiquitous panopticons can leave you "safe" in a crime sense, and AI gaslighting and happy pills will make you "feel" safe.

Love and belonging we have "Plenty" of already - If you're looking for your people, you can find them. Plenty aren't willing to look.

But once you get up to Esteem, it all falls apart. Reputation and Respect are not scalable. There will always be a limited quantity of being "The Best" at anything, and many are not willing to be "The Best" within tight constraints; There's always competition. You can plausibly say that this category is inherently competitive. There's no respect without disrespect. There's no best if there's no second best, and second best is first loser. So long as humans interact with each other - So long as we're not each locked in our own private shards of reality - There will be competition, and there will be those that fall short.

Self Actualization is almost irrelevant at this point. It falls into exactly the same as the above. You can simulate a reality where someone is always the best at whatever they decide to so, but I think it will inherently feel hollow. Agent Smith said it best: https://youtu.be/9Qs3GlNZMhY?t=23

[vladms]

> There will always be a limited quantity of being "The Best" at anything

Still, to pick a simple example, we do have different sports at which different people are "The Best". One solution would be to multiple the categories, which I feel is already happening to some extent with all the computer games or niche artistical trends.

And I would claim that very few people are "The Best", it's mostly about not being "the worst" at everything you are involved in.

[GauntletWizard]

You would think, but you've never seen drama like single-speedrunner games. They know they're unfulfilled and kings of a molehill, and as soon as there's the slightest competition - a single other "run" from someone who bothers with a little practice - there's a blowup. Super-niche-ing is not the solution you think it is.

[djrj477dhsnv]

Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world? With no effort required to meet your needs and desires, what motivation will you have to do anything?

Kaczynski's warnings seem more apt with every year that passes.

[javcasas]

I want to live in the post scarcity world. Given that we are headed into an ultra-productive world, I prefer by miles a world without scarcity over a world full of scarcity because the elites are hoarding the resources, and the only way to provide for oneself is by outcompeting the machines that already produce at zero marginal price, but only for the elites.

[hdgvhicv]

Plenty of weathy people do things, not because they have to, but because they want to

Plenty of retired people carry on doing things too

[kbrkbr]

Here is another view: some of them maybe do things to perform richness. And others are probably so bored that they just try new extreme things, but nothing fills that inner void. I can't get no satisfaction.

Or maybe not. I'll never know.

[exe34]

so the only way to get that inner satisfaction is to do work that you hate? is there another option I'm missing here?

[djrj477dhsnv]

Most people find work that directly addresses their basic needs fulfilling to some degree. Things like growing your own food, hunting, building and maintaining your home, etc.

[exe34]

I'm practically living in a post scarcity situation - my work is stuff I'd do for fun anyway, other than a bit of paperwork now and again. nothing is compulsory if you want to do it anyway. even then I only need to work part time to survive.

the rest of the time I spend studying and doing sports. I've tried doing nothing - but boredom is actually worse than work.

what I really want is for other people to also be in a similar situation. I also want to be able to afford to just not work for 6 months and travel the world - but I've got a mortgage to pay. so I think further reductions in scarcity in my life would not reduce my drive to do, learn, experience one bit.

I suspect that most people would be the same if they weren't accustomed to not having the energy to look after themselves and growing their mind.

[IanCal]

People dedicate their lives to making realistic paintings despite being able to buy a far more accurate camera for a few hours of work. I’m not hugely convinced that we should worry about work to stay alive and sheltered.

[oinfoalgo]

It doesn't solve the problem that people want what other people want.

In a "post scarcity" world we will figure out how to make certain things scarce and more desirable. Then people will start gaming the system to try to acquire the more expensive/scarce items. Some will even make it their life mission to acquire the intentionally scarce items/experiences.

Basically, the same situation we have now.

[vkou]

Look, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Kaczynski didn't invent any of these ideas, or even develop them, instead of citing him, why not cite... Literally any other person with them whose mind wasn't blown out by LSD and a desire to commit random political murder.

You're doing your point a disservice by bringing in all of that baggage.

[djrj477dhsnv]

Perhaps there are more original or precise sources for the ideas. I've read Jacques Ellul, for example, but for someone not well versed in philosophy like myself, Kaczynski is more accessible and well known.

I don't agree with many of his conclusions or actions, but I have no problem judging the good ideas he advocated on their own merit.

[frozenseven]

>Do you really want to live in this "post scarcity" world?

Yes.

>Kaczynski

You're citing a psychopathic terrorist who murdered 3 people and injured a further 23.

>what motivation will you have to do anything?

For one thing, freedom from self-appointed taskmasters who view Kaczynski as a source of inspiration.

[aswegs8]

Can you think of any more literature on the topic? Preferably non-fiction?