[zackmorris]

Here's another one: Manna - Two Views of Humanity’s Future, by Marshall Brain. It's a fairly light read, just 8 chapters:

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

I think I've internalized these stories enough to comfortably say (without giving anything away) that AI is incompatible with capitalism and probably money itself. That's why I consider it to be the last problem in computer science, because once we've solved problem solving, then the (artificial) scarcity of modern capitalism and the social darwinism it relies upon can simply be opted out of. Unless we collectively decide to subjugate ourselves under a Star Wars empire or Star Trek Borg dystopia.

The catch being that I have yet to see a billionaire speak out against the dangers of performative economics once machines surpass human productivity or take any meaningful action to implement UBI before it's too late. So on the current timeline, subjugation under an Iron Heel in the style of Jack London feels inevitable.

[g3f32r]

> take any meaningful action to implement UBI

I hear this all the time, but to what end? If the input costs to produce most things ends up driving towards zero, then why would there be a need for UBI? Wouldn't UBI _be_ the performative economics mentioned?

[zackmorris]

I think of it like limits in math. The rate at which we'll be out of work is much higher than the rate at which prices will fall towards zero.

A performative/underemployment economy keeps everyone working not out of necessity, but to appease the sentiments of the wealthy. I'd argue that we passed the point at which wages were tied to productivity sometime around 1970, meaning that we're already decades into a second Gilded Age where wealth comes from inheritance, investment and connections (forms of luck) rather than hard work.

And honestly, to call UBI performative when billionaires are trying to become trillionaires as countless people die of starvation every day just doesn't make any sense.