[Marha01]

You are still thinking in terms of monetary economics about a situation where money is no longer needed.

In a monetary economy, if you need X, you need the money to buy it. In a post-AGI economy, if you need X, you ask your human-level robots to make it (including making more robots). No money involved at all.

[vrganj]

Money is just an abstraction for resources. You'll still need land, energy, minerals etc.

[Marha01]

Robots can mine minerals and build power plants.

They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

[goatlover]

In this speculative scenario, robots could do that, but they can't just do it anywhere as it depends on where the minerals and land is at and who owns it, where power plants can be built, how supplies get shipped.

The idea that economics goes out the windows in a post-AGI world is highly speculative and not a situation that has ever happened in the real world.

[Marha01]

I did not say economics goes out of the window, I said monetary economics.

With cheap robotic labor, many resource mines that are currently not economically viable will become viable, so basic resources will become much more plentiful.

The new economics will probably be based on needed energy, direct tally of needed material resources, or the number of robot-hours something takes to do.

[vrganj]

> Robots can mine minerals and build power plants.

On who's land? With who's energy?

> They can also perform work with the aim to earn money to buy more land.

Weren't we just saying money was gonna be obsolete?

[Marha01]

> Weren't we just saying money was gonna be obsolete?

Land is an inherently limited resource, so some kind of money might still exist for that, even after the singularity. The point is: whatever process exists to obtain land after the singularity, the robots can do it.

[vrganj]

> Land is an inherently limited resource

Yes, that's my point exactly.

> whatever process exists to obtain land after the singularity, the robots can do it

Who's robots? Who will get all this land? And its spoils, and the robots that multiply them?

Because your utopia sounds like a recipe for making our oligarchs even more powerful at the expense of the rest of us. It sounds like a slide into neofeudalism. The already existing don't even need labor to multiply their riches anymore, the rest of us will be robbed of being able to trade our labor for even basic subsistence.

[Marha01]

You are missing the point: robotic labor does not create anything "at the expense of the rest of us". It's not some stock market speculation, but real productivity increase. The pie of wealth is not fixed, the robots actually enlarge it, massively. The robot owning class wil not be some exclusive billionaire club: as the price of robots comes down (inevitable, with any technology, doubly so with one that can make itself), essentially everyone will own one, just like almost everyone owns a car today (or could own one if they needed it).

Worst case scenario: you will live exactly as you live today, with one change: instead of you having to do your job, your robot will do it for you, and you gain more free time.

[watwut]

Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing? Of course not, you will need to barter for those if there are no money.

Will they create also water that will be getting more expensive due data center consumption?

This is absurd.

[Marha01]

> Like they will magically create metal and food from nothing?

Not from nothing. How do humans create metal and food? Mining and farming. You ask your human-level robots to do the same. Human-level robots can by definition do everything humans can do, including gathering basic resources and growing food.

> Will they create also water that will be getting more expensive due data center consumption?

Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.

Even if there is still monetary economy, and you come to the conclusion that buying something is the best way to get it, you simply ask your robots to think of a way to earn you money by performing work for others, or making things to sell on the market. If they are truly human-level, they can do it.

> This is absurd.

This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.

[watwut]

> Mining and farming.

So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff? If your actual plan is such fascist takeover where AI companies bully everyone else, then everyone else is entirely valid to wage war against you before you are close to that goal.

> Data center consumption of water is miniscule compared to other uses. But yes, you ask the robots to make you water, for example by building desalination plants.

The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the most expensive part of this.

Same with energy. So, you plan to take over the power plants by force? And take over the land to build them on? These AI companies could be building power plants, could even pick places where they dont give kids asthma already ... but they are choosing not to.

> This is the reality, if human-level AI and robotics is developed.

No, it is not reality. You are ignoring reality. Robotics does not imply end of economics. The end of economics will happen only if you win war and install an odious violent autocracy. Which I understand is an intentional goal of current CEOs and their fans. I both disagree with that goal and find it, frankly, stupid.

[Marha01]

> So, the plan is that AI companies will steal the mines and land from their current owners? Like, you plan to use those robots to beat up the owners and take their stuff?

What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

> The water is getting too expensive now. Why are they not doing that now already? Technology is there and work is not the most expensive part of this.

Because human-level robots do not exist yet. And human work is very often the most expensive part of any advanced technological endeavour. It is the limiting factor. Good, qualified workers are very expensive.

> Robotics does not imply end of economics.

Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work, especially educated human work is currently in limited supply, so we need to allocate this limited resource efficiently. Remove this limitation and there is no longer the need for monetary economics.

[watwut]

> What? Why the hell would they need to steal or beat up people? They can buy existing mines, or establish new, robotic mines.

There are no money in your world, they cant buy them. Why would the owners sell anyway? Selling the land would mean they have absolutely nothing except money they can not start new business with.

>The water is getting too expensive now. [...] Because human-level robots do not exist yet

We are not carrying water in buckets. It is all done with technology now.

> Monetary economics only exists because human work is needed to obtain resources and produce stuff, and human work

No. It exists because people who have thing too much of a thing A and a little of the a thing B. Before money, people would barter - I will give you 5 eggs and you will give me 10 apples. Money were invented to facilitate the barter.