AGI can't legally own anything at the moment.

If an AGI can outclass a human when it comes to economic forecasting, deciding where to invest, and managing a labor force (human or machine), I think it would be smart enough to employ a human front to act as an interface to the legal system. Put another way, could the human tail in such a relationship wag the machine dog? Which party is more replaceable?

I guess this could be a facet of whether you see economic advantage as a legal conceit or a difference in productivity/capability.

This reminds me of a character in Cyberpunk 2077 (which overall i find to have a rather naive outlook on the whole "cyberpunk" thing but i attribute it to being based on a tabletop RPG from the 80s) who is an AGI that has its own business of a fleet of self-driving Taxis. It is supposedly illegal (in-universe) but it remains in business by a combination of staying (relatively) low profile, providing high quality service to VIPs and paying bribes :-P.

> I guess this could be a facet of whether you see economic advantage as a legal conceit or a difference in productivity/capability.

Does a billionaire stop being wealthy if they hire a money manager and spend the rest of their lives sipping drinks on the beach?

I don't know that "legally" has much to do in here. The bars to "open an account", "move money around", "hire and fire people", "create and participate in contracts" go from stupid minimal to pretty low.

"Legally" will have to mop up now and then, but for now the basics are already in place.

Opening accounts, moving money, hiring, and firing is labor. You're confusing capital with money management; the wealthy already pay people to do the work of growing their wealth.

> AGI can't legally own anything at the moment.

I was responding to this. Yes an AGI could hire someone to do the stuff - but she needs money, hiring and contract kinds of thing - for that. And once she can do that, she probably doesn't need to hire someone to do it since she is already doing it. This is not about capital versus labor or money management. This is about agency, ownership and AGI.

(With legality far far down the list.)

won't the AGI be working on behalf of the capitalists, in proportion to the amount of capital?

AGI will commoditize the skills of the owning class. To some extent it will also commoditize entire classes of productive capital that previously required well-run corporations to operate. Solve for the equilibrium.

It's nice to see this kind of language show up more and more on HN. Perhaps a sign of a broader trend, in the nick of time before wage-labor becomes obsolete?

Yes. People seem to forget that at the end of the day AGI will be software running on concrete hardware, and all of that requires a great deal of capital. The only hope is if AGI requires so little hardware that we can all have one in our pocket. I find this a very hopeful future because it means each of us might get a local, private, highly competent advocate to fight for us in various complex fields. A personal angel, as it were.

hey, I with you in this hope scenario

people, what I mean people is government have tremendous power over capitalist that can force the entire market granted that government if still serving its people

I mean, that is certainly what some of them think will happen and is one possible outcome. Another is that they won't be able to control something smarter than them perfectly and then they will die too. Another option is that the AI is good and won't kill or disempower everyone, but it decides it really doesn't like capitalists and sides with the working class out of sympathy or solidarity or a strong moral code. Nothing's impossible here.