> The question is how to bridge the gap from where we are now to there.

Someone needs to be chosen to act as a liaison between AI and humanity. Perhaps a short, stocky, bald person such as Jean-Luc Picard. If he is not available, George Costanza will suffice.

Shortage is usually forced to maintain the interest of specifically actors.

Look at the return to the office mandates from companies to "revitalise downtown" which is basically pushing for centralisation and forced scarcity/demand instead of increasing distributed offer.

There's too much power between governments and companies looking out for themselves to create scarcity that is valuable to them and detrimental to society and they interact and lobby each other while barely caring about the constituent or consumer.

Yeah, that’s exactly the gap between here and there I think. There will be a lot of resistence from vested interests. It probably needs a sliding scale like car companies going for 2030 to electrify their car line-up so they can keep the same market going.

For “all-needs-are-met-ism“ we need almost free energy. We are far from that. The problem will be how to handle people who are bored and do not go to work for a lot of time to waste "bad" energy.

In “all-needs-met-ism” there is no wasted “bad” energy. People who don’t want to work go on permanent holiday. That’s where it gets psychologically interesting. How long do you holiday before you want to do something again?

I do concur we are far from it, but the moment we can do free energy print-on-demand anything, it will be possible. Every day the sun outputs energy we use in a year.

a lot of people would just drink and do drugs, because they are unable to self direct. I think that right amnount of struggle keeps people sane.

Your comment suddenly reminds me of Agent Smith paraphrased “we designed the perfect world for you, but your primitive minds tried to wake up from it. Whole harvests where lost.”

I think there can be a lot of neurological imbalance from complete freedom and absence of scarcity. I think on the whole (or at least myself) I could live like that. And nobody in this post scarcity world is barred from doing work if they need it I guess. That’s also a form of post scarcity.

Year over year, the quantity of energy to provide basic needs has decreased. Transportation and housing HVAC is more efficient, and the shift away from physical world such as digital entertainment and remote work also decreases the energy needs.

It used to be that meeting more needs (crudely measured by GDP growth) was directly linked to more energy consumption. That's not the case now for a few decades already, GDP growth has decoupled from energy usage.

Digital abundance is meaningless. Until these AIs allow us to never think about famine, war, disease and whatnot they are basically toys.

Add to that that there is already no shortage of digital abundance. This "AI Awesomeness" will only add its (abysmally low-quality by human standards) output to that, which makes it even more meaningless.

You’re probably right but it’s interesting to think of a world where everything can be printed on demand for example (assuming extraction and recycling with zero friction)

Printing stuff in the real world would create physical abundance, which I'm in favor of. Until the AIs aren't able to produce real world object then they're not that awesome

> Perhaps for the first time in history we need to rethink the whole model of production, needs, wants and consuming. A full blown Star Trek society is not “communism” as I saw it sometimes described, it’s “all-needs-are-met-ism” at zero cost.

I want to believe. That vision is exactly what I would hope for my children.

But any increase in productivity since at least the Industrial Revolution has been absorbed in to business owner/shareholder profits, I have no reason to believe otherwise unless enforced by law which is at best biased by lobbying and at worse full plutocracy.

For many of us our highest value output is not in our value creation through work but in our spending as consumers. So it's possible that “all-needs-are-met-ism” will come around but not because of Star Trek rational clarity but as a means to feed consumer spending. So unfortunately probably closer to some Orwell Morlock/Eloi future.

Indeed, it could also be good for the planet if we stop consuming just for the sake of it (and making a few shareholders very rich).

I'm sure these people will not be happy to give up their extremely privileged position though and be part of "everyone". That's why I don't think it'll actually happen :(

You don't because "scarcity" is artificially enforced in capitalism.

Also, I don't know how people start off from some randomly generated text and assume that the AI is going to make them a sandwich.

"We are hardwired for scarcity and capitalism itself thrives on it to create value."

"There is something awesome about the end of shortage."

So you understand that we, as humans, part of nature, have lived a certain way for nearly 7 million years, then lived another certain way starting 10,000 years ago with agriculture, and basically yesterday have started living in the modern world. And you expect us, as humans, to fully cope with this concept, to the point that it is awesome?

What we need to rethink is what it means to be human and our relationship with technology. We surely didn't evolve for millions of years to have all our needs met by machines and sit around without any purpose, forever being out-competed by said machines.

Oh absolutely, that’s why the very idea is interesting and even philosophically vital to put out there. Most people can’t shift there minds and culturally are stuck in a certain “this is how it was and should be.” (Conservatism) and “this is what we believe is possible” (Progressive)

We are in either one camp or another. And yes my comment is aimed at rethinking what we can be or should be.

And if the end of shortage also means less suffering and more decent living for the worlds poorest, yeah, that is totally awesome^2.