I think it's time we accept the fact that AI will mean the end of capitalism. The system won't be viable anymore once there's no more need for labor.

Where we go from there is up to us.

If we don't do anything, we'll end up with neofeudalism, with the already rich concentrating power more and more, no longer kept in check by pesky labor movements.

Alternatively, we can fight to try to establish a kind of star trek space socialism, where everyone's needs are met and nobody needs to work anymore - people would be free to follow their passions while computers do all the busywork.

Dystopia or Utopia, that's the decision we'll be making over the next few years. The status quo will disappear either way.

I'm pretty sure we've been through this kind of thing before, and I'm also pretty sure AI will just be a part of the future, not replace it.

Have we? I can't think of any previous development that threatened pretty much every form of employment available.

Sure, computers removed a lot of jobs, but they also created a whole new class of them (the ones most people on this site have).

AI will remove that entire class of jobs, too, with nothing new to replace it. For a while, there'll be new opportunities for AI research, but if they actually succeed at improving AI, they'll eventually make themselves redundant, too.

> AI will remove that entire class of jobs, too, with nothing new to replace it

Shit. Are you saying this prompt engineer bootcamp I'm doing is worth squat?

It took me five minutes to write a prompt for GPT-4 that makes it prompt SDXL better than I ever did.

This is actually a funny joke it took me a couple of goes and a quick Google search.

Don't you think this reasoning is a bit black and white?

Can you see any other possible outcome from the vast majority of employment being made obsolete?

This is not a trick question, those are genuinely the only two outcomes I can think of.

Yeah, casino thesis with attention economy. Think MrBeast videos. I think things are trending towards randomness way more than neofeudalism or space socialism.

> Don't you think this reasoning is a bit black and white?

> This is not a trick question, those are genuinely the only two outcomes I can think of.

Only being able to see the two extreme outcomes is pretty much the definition of black / white thinking.

What normally happens is somewhere in the middle.

> Can you see any other possible outcome from the vast majority of employment being made obsolete?

There are an infinite number of possible outcomes.

Probable outcomes are much smaller, but again there’s way more than two.

Life ain’t binary.

This is a nice rant, but it doesn't really answer the question. I understand what black and white is and that those are two extremes.

The task at hand, though, was to come up with a concrete scenario and you've failed at that.

Back when I was in the depths of drug addiction, I was arrogant enough to believe I could think of enough permutations of possible outcomes given input variables etc.

But I was always wrong. I couldn’t predict the future — and neither can you. None of us can.

> The task at hand, though, was to come up with a concrete scenario and you've failed at that.

Nah. The task I assigned myself (I don’t work for you) was to highlight the error in your logical reasoning.

Truth and reality is a lot more analogue. It’s never two options.

Might be a good take home exercise for you to come up with a few boring and likely options that sit somewhere in the middle of dystopia and utopia.

But you don’t have to.

Then we are free to work on harder and larger scale problems. The work will go on.

To start, I think it's better to avoid thinking in terms of an "outcome". That word implies an end scenario, such as total destruction of mankind.

The future will probably go through many different stages, also varying geographically.

There are many science fiction novels that explore futures with androids. Most of them have a different scenario.

I personally think that life will not change all too much. We will still mostly be busy eating, sleeping, trying to find a sex partner, and trying to avoid dying.

One random thing that I think will change society more than AI is human cloning -- things will probably change as soon as some rich people can buy 100,000 clones of themselves.

And that's just one random thing. Extending your life to an age of 10,000 years is another. Or a third world war because of climate change. Or some new financial derivative. All these should be factored in if you want to predict the future. More than two options :)

It's not capitalism it's society.

The only reason society exists is because it's an iterated form of prisoners dilemma and cooperation outperforms individuals.

If this isn't true the only hope for existence (assuming AGI that can replace humans) is that you're a pet of whatever entity controls the AGI.

Star trek and every other tech utopia I've seen are extremely naive fairytales wrapped in sci-fi mumbojumbo.

> If this isn't true the only hope for existence (assuming AGI that can replace humans) is that you're a pet of whatever entity controls the AGI.

That's basically it. The best case scenario is that said entity is democratically elected.

You seem to have a very bleak view of humanity and social interactions. I don't entirely disagree with your analysis (see also: Mutual Aid, by Piotr Kropotkin) but there's more to collectiveness than pure utility.

My point is more that utility and balance of power is what makes it stable, it doesn't matter what AGI operator X believes about society - if he doesn't prevent access to AGI someone else will restrict his and everyone else's. It can never be equal access in the long run.

> the end of capitalism

> once there's no more need for labor

But AI can't do the majority of labor?

In what time scale are you expecting this?

Probably a decade max? The hardest ones to replace will be actual physical jobs, but that's coming as well - see Boston Dynamics for shells that could bring AI into the physical world.

Do you realize people have been claiming this for over at least half a century? Robots are dumb and most physical labor cannot be replaced by robots. Modern AI techniques do not improve on that, as they add unpredictability to the output.

See for example this article/threads from last week about a large US company failing to replace skilled work with robots: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36828861

I guess we'll wait another decade before we can have this conversation :)

Walk into any bigcorp headquarters and learn how 80% of the 'workers' in the building contribute nothing to the output of the corp. Indeed, quite a few of those there even have a substantial negative contribution.

This makes me convinced that while AI will certainly create big upheavals, sadly the end of work will not be one of those.

AI currently depends on capitalism. Is expensive model training based on data from a global internet going to be taken over by states, along with the internet itself?

Looking forward to Minitel going global...

Minitel didn’t go global. Instead a Brit working at a French-Swiss institution built something which did.

Show me an AI that can snake a plugged toilet or replace a blown head gasket.