Most active commenters
  • PaulDavisThe1st(3)

←back to thread

Techno-feudalism and the rise of AGI: A future without economic rights?

(arxiv.org)
207 points lexandstuff | 17 comments | 05 Jul 25 21:19 UTC | HN request time: 2.34s | source | bottom
Show context
elcritch ◴[06 Jul 25 00:20 UTC] No.44476648[source]▶
> The Cobb-Douglas production function (Cobb & Douglas, 1928) illustrates how AGI shifts economic power from human labor to autonomous systems (Stiefenhofer &Chen 2024). The wage equations show that as AGI’s productivity rises relative to human labor decline. If AGI labor fully substitutes human labor, employment may become obsolete, except in areas where creativity, ethical judgment, or social intelligence provide a comparative advantage (Frey & Osborne, 2017). The power shift function quantifies this transition, demonstrating how AGI labor and capital increasingly control income distribution. If AGI ownership is concentrated, wealth accumulation favors a small elite (Piketty, 2014). This raises concerns about economic agency, as classical theories (e.g., Locke, 1689; Marx, 1867) tie labor to self-ownership and class power.

Wish I had time to study these formula.

We already have seen the precursors of this sort of shift with ever rising productivity with stalled wages. As companies (systems) get more sophisticated and efficient they also seem to decrease the leverage individual human inputs can have.

Currently my thinking leans towards believing the only way to avoid the worse dystopian scenarios will be for humans to be able to grow their own food and build their own devices and technology. Then it matters less if some ultra wealthy own everything.

However that also seems pretty close to a form of feudalism.

replies(1): >>44476839 #
1. yupitsme123 ◴[06 Jul 25 00:56 UTC] No.44476839[source]▶
If the wealthy own everything then where are you getting the parts to build your own tech or the land to grow your own food?

In a feudalist system, the rich gave you the ability to subsist in exchange for supporting them militarily. In a new feudalist system, what type of support would the rich demand from the poor?

replies(2): >>44477074 #>>44477123 #
2. kelseyfrog ◴[06 Jul 25 01:40 UTC] No.44477074[source]▶
Let's clarify that for a serf, support meant military supply, not swinging a sword - that was reserved for the knightly class. For the great majority of medieval villagers the tie to their lord revolved around getting crops out of the ground.

A serf's week was scheduled around the days they worked the land whose proceeds went to the lord and the commons that subsisted themselves. Transfers of grain and livestock from serf to lord along with small dues in eggs, wool, or coin primarily constituted one side of the economic relation between serf and lord. These transfers kept the lord's demesne barns full so he could sustain his household, supply retainers, etc, not to mention fulfill the. tithe that sustained the parish.

While peasants occasionally marched, they contributed primary in financing war more than they fought it. Their grain, rents, and fees were funneled into supporting horses, mail, crossbows rather than being called to fight themselves.

replies(1): >>44477091 #
3. yupitsme123 ◴[06 Jul 25 01:44 UTC] No.44477091[source]▶
Thanks. Now you've got me curious how this really differs from just paying taxes, just like people have always done in non-feudal systems.
replies(1): >>44477206 #
4. ◴[06 Jul 25 01:50 UTC] No.44477123[source]▶
5. klipt ◴[06 Jul 25 02:07 UTC] No.44477206{3}[source]▶
In feudalism the taxes go into your lord's pockets. In democracy you get to vote on how taxes are spent.
replies(3): >>44477283 #>>44477338 #>>44477393 #
6. briantakita ◴[06 Jul 25 02:21 UTC] No.44477283{4}[source]▶
In Democracy you get to vote on who gets to vote on how taxes are spent.
replies(1): >>44480658 #
7. sorcerer-mar ◴[06 Jul 25 02:30 UTC] No.44477338{4}[source]▶
And your landlord was the same entity as your security.
8. SoftTalker ◴[06 Jul 25 02:42 UTC] No.44477393{4}[source]▶
As George Carlin observed, if voting really mattered they wouldn't let you do it.
replies(3): >>44477544 #>>44477545 #>>44477836 #
9. archagon ◴[06 Jul 25 03:18 UTC] No.44477544{5}[source]▶
“If your vote didn’t matter, they wouldn’t fight so hard to block it.”
10. fanatic2pope ◴[06 Jul 25 03:18 UTC] No.44477545{5}[source]▶
They do indeed spend a lot of time and effort not letting people do it.

https://www.aclu.org/news/civil-liberties/block-the-vote-vot...

11. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[06 Jul 25 04:26 UTC] No.44477836{5}[source]▶
Carlin was an insufferable cynic who helped contribute to the nihilistic, cynical, defeatist attitude to politics that affects way too many people. The fact that he probably didn't intend to do this doesn't make it any better.
replies(2): >>44477840 #>>44481500 #
12. hollerith ◴[06 Jul 25 04:28 UTC] No.44477840{6}[source]▶
Also, everything is a joke with that guy.
13. baobun ◴[06 Jul 25 13:30 UTC] No.44480658{5}[source]▶
Lately turning into getting to vote for who gets to vote for who gets to unilaterally call the shots...
14. dandanua ◴[06 Jul 25 15:21 UTC] No.44481500{6}[source]▶
I don't dispute that Carlin was a cynic, but saying he contributed to political attitudes is an overstatement. There are hordes of people who were and still are making a reality all the things he so cynically highlighted.
replies(1): >>44482054 #
15. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[06 Jul 25 16:26 UTC] No.44482054{7}[source]▶
He helped make it legitimate to doubt that there can ever be a politician who is not motivated by self-interest.

The fact that self-interest may play a role in the careers of many politicians doesn't undo the damage that this attitude has caused to our polity.

"They're all fuckers, they're the same" is the attitude that leads to people being unable to differentiate between one party that is subject to excessive corporate lobbying and donations, still starts too many wars, and frequently makes mistakes but nevertheless is fundamentally trying to improve most people's lives, and another that wants to destroy Medicaid.

replies(1): >>44482201 #
16. hollerith ◴[06 Jul 25 16:46 UTC] No.44482201{8}[source]▶
Too much cynicism is destructive, but so is not being able to resist the temptation to see one's political opponents as aliens with inscrutable motives or truly failed or defective human beings with despicable motives.
replies(1): >>44482269 #
17. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[06 Jul 25 16:56 UTC] No.44482269{9}[source]▶
I am not that interested in motives, since they are rarely truly knowable.

I prefer to judge my political opponents by what they actually do, and by that metric, it is self-evident from both their public and private speech, and from the legislation that they seek to (and sometimes do) pass, that Republicans would like to destroy (or at least massively downsize) redistributive programs that provide assistance to the poor.

Now, as to why they might want to do this, I remain mute and disinterested, since in 61 years of life, I've never heard any explanation that doesn't deconstruct under cross-examination.