[elevatortrim]

That world is not necessarily bleak.

We currently have two broad mechanisms to equate people's value.

*Employees:*

Easy to replace = Low Salary = Gets Few Resources

Hard to replace = High Salary = Gets Many Resources

*Entrepreneurs:*

Output consumed low = Low Pay = Gets Few Resources

Output consumed high = High Pay = Gets Many Resources

(Resource consumption ignored)

In a world where machines do everything, aspects of these change:

*Employees:*

Easy to replace = Gets whatever resources

(no-one hard to replace)

It is up to us to define whether 'whatever' is bleak or not. If we decide that resources need to be shared fairly, it could be heaven, not hell.

*Entrepreneurs:*

Resource consumption: Whatever

It is up to us how much resource consumption we allow. If we decide that resource consumption need to be sustainable, it could be heaven, not hell.

[Loughla]

Lol this does not fill me with hope.

If there is person A who can become a squillionnaire by making sure that the employees of a company make as little as possible due to AI, that's what's going to happen. There is zero way "we" will decide resources need to be shared fairly.

If person A can amass more money and power, then resource consumption literally doesn't matter. There is no way "we" will be involved in that process at all.

Call me cynical, but it appears that human history has proven over and over and over again that whatever the short sighted, selfish option that enriches a very few is, is what will happen, until there is finally violence.

I do not look forward to the AI wars that my children will be forced to fight in.

[virgildotcodes]

I don't see how this doesn't equally apply to the pre-AI economy. The results there have been quite stark, with the "entrepreneurs" ending up far better off than the "employees".

[Jensson]

> I don't see how this doesn't equally apply to the pre-AI economy. The results there have been quite stark, with the "entrepreneurs" ending up far better off than the "employees".

This is wrong, in most cases the entrepreneur is worse off than the employees, since the entrepreneur spent all his savings on the projects and the employees walks away with all the money they got from their salaries.

And even when it is fully funded by external investors most of the time the founder just gets to keep the salary since the company fails and become worthless.

The only time the entrepreneur is better off is when the company succeeds and becomes big, but that is rare, most of the time it is better to be an employee.

[ugtr3]

It depends on risk preferences.

Risk seekers should be entrepreneurs.

Risk averse people, probably, should not.

[spicymaki]

What makes rich people special is that they have things normal people do not have. They have material wealth with which they can derive power. They don't want to share it now and they won't in the future. Do you really think that these people who have spent so much time and effort hoarding their wealth want to share it with everyone? Absolutely not.