Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by squidbeak 116 days ago
The elimination of jobs necessarily 'makes a path' to a post-work society. Post-work couldn't exist without it. Beyond that, it isn't in AI companies' power to shape economies and societies for post-work (which is what I assume you're really getting at here). All Altman, Amodei, Hassabis and the others can do is alert policymakers to what's coming, and they're trying pretty hard to do that, aren't they? - often in the teeth of the skepticism we see so much of on this site. Really if policy makers won't look ahead, the AI companies can't be blamed for the bumps we're going hit.
3 comments

>they're trying pretty hard to do that, aren't they

How so? Throwing out the term "UBI" every once in a while doesn't miraculously make it economically viable.

Do you really pay so little attention to the space that you think this is all they do? Almost every public discussion or interview involving these figures turns at some point to society's unpreparedness for what's coming, for instance Amodei's interview last week.

https://www.dwarkesh.com/p/dario-amodei-2

How do these interviews magically make the hard economics of UBI viable? Read up on UBI a little bit, and you'll quickly realize that it's far more expensive than universal healthcare, and we can't even get our politicians onboard with that.
That's uncertain in a post-work economy or even for the transition. Some mechanism will need to exist for the abundance resulting from automation to be distributed fairly - in both the post-work era and during the transition to it. Also measures to ensure production of essential goods that might otherwise disappear with deflation. This is all out of scope for AI companies, unless you fancy putting off a response until full automation, and anointing them as (fingers crossed) benign dictators for life?
Yes, these people are publicly warning about the risks of AI. Altman is promoting regulation that clearly favors OpenAI. This is called regulatory capture. It aims to strengthen one's own position. Furthermore, the claim that these companies cannot shape economies is simply false. They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill. You would have to be from another planet (or a sociopath) not to understand that this violates boundary conditions that we implicitly want to leave intact.

> They decide how quickly they deploy, which industries they automate, whether they cooperate with unions, etc. These are all decisions that shape the economy.

They control how quickly they deploy, but I don't see how they have any control over the rest: "which industries they automate" is a function of how well the model has generalised. All the medical information, laws and case histories, all the source code, they're still only "ok"; and how are they, as a model provider in the US, supposed to cooperate (or not) with a trade union in e.g. Brandenburg whose bosses are using their services?

> Widespread job losses as a path to post-work are about as plausible as a car accident as a path to bringing a vehicle to a standstill.

Certainly what I fear.

Any given UBI is only meaningful if it is connected to the source of economic productivity; if a government is offering it, it must control that source; if the source is AI (and robotics), that government must control the AI/robots.

If governments wait until the AI is ready, the companies will have the power to simply say "make me"; if the governments step in before the AI is ready, they may simply find themselves out-competed by businesses in jurisdictions whose governments are less interested in intervention.

And even if a government pulls it off, how does that government remain, long-term, friendly to its own people? Even democracies do not last forever.

> Widespread job losses as a path to post-work

who exactly is paying for you to live and why would they be so kind?

I want to live. And if you threaten my life, I will defend myself with whatever means I have at my disposal. It makes no difference whether you threaten me by taking away my livelihood or by withholding it from me. You therefore have a choice. Either you value my life as you value your own, or there will be war between us. And that is a war you will not win, because you are not only waging it against me, but against all people whose right to life you wish to deny.
Notwithstanding that I do not believe he is competent, Musk is currently talking about turning the entire moon into a space data center factory, specifically with a capacity so large that the resulting products of said factory could freeze the tropics just by blocking out the sun.

It is fortunate for him that those of us who understand the implications of this, do not believe he can do it.

Do you believe he could do it? Would you act against him now, when most people think his success in this endevour is implausible? Or wait until he demonstates all the parts necessary, at which point action against him is impossible? Or do you believe his claims that him doing this will render work unnecessary rather than, as I fear, making it impossible without also making it unnecessary?

What about everyone else that you think would be on your side? If you need everyone on-side, timing matters too.

Sorry, man, but I can't follow the plot. Why exactly do data centers from the moon block out the sun and freeze the tropics and make work unnecessary? Serious question: Are you okay? I hope you're just making fun of my last answer a little.
That's a summary of my point, yes.

If I phrase it that succinctly, people tend to reply "democracy!" without considering who has the power and how they behave.

post-work? is this from the same lot who cant work-from-office because theyd have a nervous breakdown? who exactly pays for my existence in this world where i dont have to work?