←back to thread

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

(arxiv.org)
207 points lexandstuff | 4 comments | 05 Jul 25 21:19 UTC | HN request time: 0.974s | source
Show context
VikRubenfeld ◴[06 Jul 25 02:46 UTC] No.44477409[source]▶
Is a future where AI replaces most human labor rendered impossible by the following consideration:

-- In such a future, people will have minimal income (possibly some UBI) and therefore there will be few who can afford the products and services generated by AI

-- Therefore the AI generates greatly reduced wealth

-- Therefore there’s greatly reduced wealth to pay for the AI

-- …rendering such a future impossible

replies(7): >>44477457 #>>44477464 #>>44477547 #>>44478012 #>>44478067 #>>44478249 #>>44481203 #
1. petermcneeley ◴[06 Jul 25 02:57 UTC] No.44477464[source]▶
This a late 20th century myopic view of the economy. In the ages and the places long before, most of human toil was enjoyed by a tiny elite.

Also "rendering such a future impossible". This is a retrocausal way of thinking. As though an a bad event in the future makes that future impossible.

replies(1): >>44477829 #
2. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[06 Jul 25 04:24 UTC] No.44477829[source]▶
> This a late 20th century myopic view of the economy. In the ages and the places long before, most of human toil was enjoyed by a tiny elite.

And overall wealth levels were much lower. It was the expansion of consumption to the masses that drove the enormous increase in wealth that those of us in "developed" countries now live with and enjoy.

replies(1): >>44480256 #
3. baobun ◴[06 Jul 25 12:37 UTC] No.44480256[source]▶
It was also due to colonialism, slavery, and unjust wars, among many other things. Doesn't mean we should continue with the old ways.

Some kinds of growth are beneficial in a phase but not sustainable over time. Like the baby hamster.

replies(1): >>44482042 #
4. PaulDavisThe1st ◴[06 Jul 25 16:24 UTC] No.44482042{3}[source]▶
> Doesn't mean we should continue with the old ways.

The GP was claiming that it is "20th century myopic" to not notice that in the past the products of most human toil went mostly to a small elite. My very point was that that old way of doing things didn't generate much wealth, not that the way things have changed is all good. I'm not advocating for any of the old ways, I'm saying that having an economic system that brings benefits to all is an important component of growing the overall wealth of a society (and of humanity overall).