[ekidd]

> Why is this time different?

If it was just programming being automated, then whatever. Lots of professions have been automated and society adapts.

The underlying worry here is that current AI provides a partial automation of intelligence. The endgame for the investors and the corporations using AI is complete automation of intelligence (and manual labor, too). They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock, and AI models that will do anything a human office worker can do for less money. Now, they don't know how to build either yet. But they'll spend every last dollar on the planet trying.

Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers. They can just have the robots build them yachts and mansions directly. And act as security guards.

[unsnap_biceps]

> Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers. They can just have the robots build them yachts and mansions directly. And act as security guards.

That sounds like we'll devolve into wars over resources so houses can build more war-bots and get more resources....

[neutronicus]

Once there are like 150,000 humans resources will be functionally unlimited

[rf15]

Ah, the good old days!

[Ancalagon]

no - they'll still be fighting for resources for their AI data centers and armies. Its still zero sum. The house with the largest robot army and best data centers wins.

[D-Machine]

> That sounds like we'll devolve into wars over resources

Two astronauts meme: "Wait, it's all been over resources?" "Always has been"

[galactushonor]

This time the have-nots have a better target to attack. The datacenters. A concentrated physical manifestation of would-be trillionaire superrichs.

[tasoeur]

Until the datacenters happen to be in space.

[kelnos]

Then the targets become the launch pads. Those space-based datacenters will need constant resupply and maintenance. Destroy launch capability, and their orbits will decay and all that computing capacity will burn up in the atmosphere.

We are so so so far away from self-sustaining machinery in space that it's not even funny.

[kibwen]

There is no such thing as a self-sufficient version of any industry in space, and you should expect this to remain the case for approximately the next 10,000 years. Until then, everything that happens in space will have a supply chain rooted on Earth.

[scoofy]

I mean, you are describing the vast majority of history.

[smallmancontrov]

Starcraft for Billionaires

In the voice of worker-bot: "That's your plan?!?!"

[daxfohl]

Reminds me of the old short story "With Folded Hands" from 1947. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/With_Folded_Hands_...

[PaulHoule]

The sequel

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Humanoids

is even better!

[fragmede]

> They want a $25,000 robot that works around the clock

Don't you? For the cost of less than a new car, I can have a live-in butler/maid? I'd sell my car and downgrade to afford one at $25k if it actually worked. I can't afford to and don't want to hire a human to live in my house and do all my chores for me, 24/7, plus the overhead and the headache and liability, but a robot for $25k is pretty tempting. Never have to fold laundry or the dishes again? Or remember that it's Tuesday and I was supposed to take out the trash, right when I'm in bed?

It's an iterated prisoner's dilemma and everyone's vocally defecting.

[kelnos]

> Never have to fold laundry or the dishes again?

If you're folding the dishes, I agree that you should probably get someone else, perhaps a robot, to replace you there. ;)

But overall I absolutely agree. I don't want (and can't afford) a household employee; if I could buy a $25k appliance that would reliably take care of all my household chores, I wouldn't even need to think about it.

[SauntSolaire]

Is it defecting if you get a robot to do your dishes, instead of doing them yourself? As you said, it's not taking a job from anyone, just freeing up time for yourself. If anything, this specific use-case sounds like it would be a major boon for nation-wide productivity with little downside.

[hunterpayne]

We have had that for decades, its called a dishwasher. Its so common that its a compound word instead of dish washer. I feel like there are basic concepts of psychology and history that you don't understand if this is the point you want to make.

[kelnos]

Sure, but I still have to clear the dishes from the table, dump any larger food scraps into the compost bin, and put them in the dishwasher. Then when it's full I have to run the dishwasher, and empty it when it's finished, putting everything away in its place. When I'm running low on dishwasher detergent I have to remember to pick some up the next time I go to the store (or put in a grocery delivery order). Sure, that's all still much less labor than washing the dishes manually myself, but I'm always in favor of taking even more labor off my plate (heh).

(Also there are circumstances where I'm cooking and will manually wash some things, like perhaps a set of tongs, because I know that the other two sets of tongs we own are dirty and already in the dishwasher. I know I'll need the tongs while cooking tomorrow's meal, but the dishwasher won't be full enough before then to warrant running the load yet. This sort of situation actually comes up quite frequently for me.)

[SauntSolaire]

Obviously I'm talking about the part of dishwashing that's not already automated, and the compound word comes from way before — a "dishwasher" was a job long before it was a machine. What were you saying about basic concepts of history?

[fwip]

The dishwasher does automate a large part of doing the dishes, but not the whole of it. A Jetsons-style robot maid would also be able to clear the dishes from the table, restock the cabinets, and set the table before dinner - in addition to doing the cooking, cleaning, lawncare, etc.

It maybe wasn't the least-automated part of the chores, but if anything, doesn't that strengthen their point? We as people were happy to automate our dishwashers, and would probably spend more money on other chore-automations as well (see: Roomba, robotic lawn mowers, etc).

[SauntSolaire]

And that, if it's something the homeowner has always done themselves, more automation here doesn't even eliminate a job.

[kuerbel]

Uhm, no? What if it has a glitch or bug or gets hacked and wants to hurt me or someone else? I'd rather do all of that myself than own a movable bot that could crush my head like a melon for any reason while I'm sleeping, no thank you

[kelnos]

This is just a function of the overton window. A couple decades ago most people probably thought a robot vacuum (with a camera on it!) was creepy, but now they're fairly commonplace, or at least well-accepted[0].

The bot safety issues are certainly real, but that's a trust/confidence hump to get over, and robotics companies will get there eventually.

[0] Even considering we know employees of the manufacturers have abused the camera access!

[satvikpendem]

You should live in Asia, live in maids are quite common there.

[bonoboTP]

I won't deny the comfort value of yachts and private jets, but I doubt that this material comfort is the main value proposition of these things. Instead, it's status symbols, status above slightly less rich people. The yachts are in a way an epiphenomenon of intra-elite social competition, and if you don't manage your network well, you can easily lose out in the next generation. Investment into social relations is what really matters. And when you're generationally rich, you typically think about making impressive impacts over society, the kind that impresses your social circle, based 9n their philosophy, which typically happens to be self serving but with just enough other stuff to not seem to crass. Taste is the highest status thing,not intelligence, not skill.

It's hard to extrapolate. What will be the goals and motivations of this super elite? Let's say all of us normal people just die off either starving or just by not reproducing any more, just watching VR, sedated with subsidized happiness drugs. Let's just suppose that. What then? Will the rich keep reproducing? What will limit their reproduction if material abundance is there? Will the elite families keep each other in check not to over-reproduce? Or will these people repopulate the earth, each living on yachts and in comfort, living an elite life? Surely that will bump up against all kinds of limits, similar to what the current earth-populating humans are facing. You can't have a super yacht per person to an unlimited amount of millions of people. At some point they will have to willingly not reproduce despite having all access to robot care, robots watching your every whim etc. I don't see any stable endpoint.

[nevertoolate]

> If it was just programming being automated, then whatever.

There is nothing on horizon which automates a programmer’s work. Typing in code is faster now, and some things “only need pointing out” like an existence of a “bug” which an llm + harness might be able to mitigate. Automated tests might capture regressions and possibly written by llm + harness. If you replicate this in other professions what will you get?

[coffeemug]

The future you're describing doesn't seem likely to me because in this event the public will force redistribution through political action.

[scarmig]

"Forcing redistribution" doesn't always happen. Typically, redistribution happens when negotiating leverage has increased such that the beneficiaries of any redistribution can make it more painful to not redistribute than to redistribute. I.e. they have labor power, which can be converted to force if necessary.

In a world where capital can substitute for labor, however, that substitution also applies to force-wielding labor. People want to strike because of intolerable working conditions? Send in robot scabs. People want to demonstrate en masse against a regime? Have robot officers police them, and have models identify participants so post-event disincentives can be applied. They want to have a violent uprising? Send in the mass fleet of drones.

Ideally, you'd avoid these outcomes entirely by molding the population into ideal consumers and distract them with superficial sports team style conflicts, so they never get to the point where collective action is even conceivable. But they're a useful backstop if those strategies fail.

[bonoboTP]

It doesn't have to be all that dramatic. Just ensure that they don't reproduce at replacement level. In fact that's already happening. Crank it up a bit more, make things South Korea++ and it's just not a problem. If nobody shows up in the next generations out of whatever reasons, there's no risk of some kind of uprising you'd have to crush with a robot army. Just wait, push cultural messaging that encourages individualism and implicit antinatalism and it will seem perfectly humane. Legacy humans will simply go away, without any major incident.

[coffeemug]

I think your first equilibrium would be hard, for two reasons. First, empirically insurgencies are extremely difficult to exterminate; over the long run they tend to win. Second, in the U.S. at least, people tend to look at politics up close, and when you're myopic like that it appears that the government is a force onto itself. But zooming out, U.S. government actually mirrors the will of the people extremely well (with the exception of some issues on the margin). If there is overwhelming political support for redistribution it would be very difficult to resist.

The second equilibrium seems more likely-- the capitalist class grants the public a bare minimum to keep us from forcing political action. In the AI world "the minimum" is probably a much better standard of living than we have now, as the marginal cost of many products and services approaches zero. So we end up living much better material lives, but are still not free. Maybe this is stable, or maybe the ruling class loses dominance over time. At that point, who knows.

[ryandrake]

The capital-owning class owns the political apparatus, so they're not really worried about "political action." Through their ownership of government, they also own and control the military and police, so they are not worried about a violent uprising. So, what will actually happen when all economically relevant activity can be done cheaper than human labor, by a mixture of AI and robotics, and 99% of us are economically irrelevant?

[ThrowawayR2]

> "they also own and control the military and police"

I'm always amused by how some intellectuals dehumanize the armed services, as if they were no more than mindless robots instead of humans with their own families and community ties.

[dag100]

> instead of humans with their own families and community ties

This is an age-old problem with armies and has a similarly age-old solution: just send soldiers from one community to police other communities. For example, during the Tienanmen Square Massacre, some Beijing-based units refused to fire on protesters, so units from further away were called in instead.

[dalyons]

Is there any relevant recent evidence of them not just doing exactly what they’re told? “Oh they will refuse unlawful orders” hasn’t exactly panned out

[generic92034]

> The capital-owning class owns the political apparatus

That is not nearly so uncontested, not even in the US. Did you forget how all the tech bros went to Trump's inauguration, bowing their heads and kissing the ring? With Trump being very small fry on the scale of "capital-owning class" this means there are other factors at work than just wealth dominating politics.

Also, the situation gets much more unclear in other countries. Otherwise, why wouldn't the most capital-friendly party rule in each and every country?

[idiotsecant]

No they won't, not if they have just enough bread and circuses and someone below them to hate. Boil the frog slowly enough and it'll work out just fine for the capital class.

[bonoboTP]

Bread, circus, strife, anger, hopelessness, antinatalist cultural products and it doesn't need anything aggressive or spectacular. People will just cease to reproduce seemingly of their own will. South Korea to the nth power.

[c-smile]

Yep. Evolutionary way to get to communism where "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" [1]

[1] "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/From_each_according_to_his_abi...", circa 1875

[ako]

I don't see how you can relate this to communism. Sounds more like oligarchy/roman empire: a few own almost everything, but most have almost nothing and are being controlled with bread and games. Marxism is the opposite where everything is owned by everyone (in theory).

[c-smile]

What would be the name of the society where, say, 30,000 people + technology produce enough food and goods to satisfy the needs of the rest of Earth population?

So those people will get whatever they need for life but will not be technically obligated to produce anything.

We will first switch to 4 day working week, then 3 and so on, right? We will see Universal Basic Income "experiments" [1] more often until they become a norm.

At least we are on the way to all this...

[1] https://weall.org/resource/finland-universal-basic-income-pi...

[fwip]

For a fictional example, you can look at the United Federation of Planets, from Star Trek.

[ako]

Some suggestions for naming this, depending on how you organize ownership, redistribution, who gets to decide what you need: paternalism, welfare capitalism, neo-feudalism, technofeudalism, welfare state, social democracy, UBI-and-oligarchy, oligarchy, plutocracy.

We are already in a position where we could house and feed everyone, but we choose not to do so. Instead a few own almost everything, money gets spend on killing people, instead of feeding them.

If we choose not to do it now, i don't see how we can make UBI work in the future.

[idiotsecant]

Imagine literally being afraid of communism in 2025. I don't know if you noticed but there haven't been any communists in quite a while.

[yaur]

One signficant difference this time is that they can rely on empathyless murder bots to quell riots instead human police.

[generic92034]

On the other hand they would never be able again to leave their bunkers, given that it is not hard to assemble a DIY drone and equip it with some explosives.

[asdff]

How low do we go before that happens? Look at how poor people are in other countries and still aren't threatening their ruling oligarchy at all.

And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet?

[rootusrootus]

> And that is going to happen when all we have are what maybe some AR15s, and they have drones firing precision targeted ordinance at us from 50k feet?

We have enough guns for every man, woman, and child to have at least one. There aren't enough drones or expensive precision targeted ordinance in the world to defend against that for any length of time. It's another version of the lessons recently taught in Ukraine and Iran.

Plus I think it is different when a poverty stricken population tries to rise up as compared with one that is historically wealthy. I expect we won't wait until we are actually poor before we collectively decide to refactor our government.

[forgetfreeman]

I love comments like this, mostly for the unbridled optimism and historical ignorance they embody. If you truly believe that a loose collection of small arms is the kryptonite that the command and control apparatus of the US is vulnerable to I recommend familiarizing yourself with what happened at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Both cases vividly display what a few Suburbans full of motivated feds can do to an entire compound of well-armed civilians over the course of a long weekend.

[OKRainbowKid]

I sincerely hope your optimism doesn't turn out to have been naivety.

[CamperBob2]

Guns will be of little use against drone swarms, or against individual drones thousands of feet in the sky.

Only drones will be able to battle drones, in the general case.

[asdff]

The US has some 5000 nuclear warheads, of the stock we know about at least... Hope you don't live anywhere near a city in the top 500 list I suppose.

[notahacker]

I'm the last person to accuse the US of being sanely-governed, but you'll forgive me for not worrying any more about a conspiracy of billionaires with access to US nuclear arsenal all agreeing that the best way to ensure they live long and healthy lives unencumbered by vengeful proles/superpowers is to nuke the top 500 cities than I do about Roko's Basilisk or the end of the world as predicted by the Aztecs...

[asdff]

I'm not worried about the billionaires, I'm worried about the models they are empowering.

[red-iron-pine]

hasn't happened in the US yet, and probably won't.

and they have all of the guns and trucks and toxic masculinity culture that requires survivalism and toughness and defending muh freedom

if the yanks won't, why would the public elsewhere?

[rootusrootus]

> and they have all of the guns and trucks and toxic masculinity culture that requires survivalism and toughness and defending muh freedom

Nothing will happen so long as the people are gleefully fighting one another, but if we reach a point where populism rules across the board and bridges the left/right culture war, things could get exciting. There is a reason the elites are spending so much effort stoking culture rivalry in the US.

[fragmede]

There are plenty of other countries, with different cultures, and different expectations for how things should work. France for instance, is known for having unions that strike, frequently. Socialism isn't a evil concept in some countries. When America has been co-opted by various factions, why would it be up to the "Yanks" to show the rest of the world the way?

[hunterpayne]

The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years. Over the last 100 years, France went from one of the richest countries in the world to somewhere with a median (not mean) GDP that is considerably lower than Mississippi's. Probably not the example you think it is.

That being said, if nobody has a job, nobody can afford the stuff being sold then everything collapses. Acting like that isn't true isn't rational either.

[kelnos]

> The French government will be bankrupt in the next couple of years.

Their finances aren't in great shape, but if you think the ECB will let that happen, I have a bridge to sell you. (And the need for a bailout is far from a foregone conclusion.)

> a median (not mean) GDP

That's not a measure anyone uses for anything, so not sure how that's relevant.

But sure, let's go with the idea that Mississippi is "better off" on this metric. GDP per capita (which is a mean, not a median) is not a good proxy for standard of living. A French person working 35 hours per week living modestly might be much happier with less money than someone from Mississippi working 3 jobs, 6 or 7 days a week, for a total of 60 hours, who doesn't really have the time for "living" at all, modestly or otherwise.

(I'm being generous to you when I say "might be" there. What I really mean is "almost certainly is".)

[forgetfreeman]

Through what mechanism? In an oligarchy the ultra-wealthy control the government and the government has a monopoly on the use of violence.

[nerdsniper]

> Strictly speaking, they don't even need us as customers.

I think they'd employ some number of humans for entertainment.

[red-iron-pine]

they're already replacing actors with AI, mate. Once the slop machine gets better you won't know the difference

[nerdsniper]

There are some types of entertainment which are less audio-visual.

[palmotea]

> I think they'd employ some number of humans for entertainment.

The key point is: some number. Chances are you and everyone you love won't make the cut.

If 10 billionaires control the all the capital of the planet, they could exterminate 99% of humanity and not even notice any change in their day to day life. 83 million NPCs are more than enough for 10 people.

[danaris]

At that point, why bother to employ? If we have no recourse, no power to resist them (as must be the case in that scenario), then they might as well just keep us as pets.

Or slaves.

[cholmdomsky]

Gotta feed both, so...

[agumonkey]

Has anybody written about this ? in fiction or as report even. It seems obvious the current techbros are only thinking about a radical shift where labour changes meaning and human societies are irrelevant for those who owns datacenter and have pocket deep enough to buy the rest when people can't sustain their own lives.

[cgh]

I suppose Neuromancer/Count Zero/Mona Lisa Overdrive are a good start.

[agumonkey]

thanks