Like most of us I go back and forth between sheer optimism and fear for the future that AI may usher in. Recently I started vibe coding a fun video game with my ten year old. The experience is different than my work because it’s been such a joy to basically have a personal genie in a bottle help me make some personal art with a loved one regardless of either of our skill sets. The concept the author of this post is arguing now resonates with me more than it would have a few weeks ago. The sheer surface area that AI can create in our intellectual life is limitless and needs humans to explore. There can never be enough of us in that sense. Whether it’s as validators or creators.
If AI leads to an era of abundance, then the economic system has to change. The system it transitions to and what that transition looks like will need to be fought for, and I imagine it’ll be done better in some places than others. Yet I think the parallel existential question of meaning in this world is one that is inherently optimistic. Humans decide meaning, it is not something imposed on us or taken away by the existence of something else.
How do you think this will work? Do you think the whole of the rest of the world, about 7 billion people, will agree to give up on wanting to reach the western life standard that is currently consuming 4 Earth's of resources every year?
Will all rich people in all countries collectively agree to be moved into tiny apts same size and give up their luxuries?
If not, how do you define who gets what? Who gets to live in the fancy house, etc?
The distribution of goods will probably be maintained until others lower the gap over time.
Using the metric of “4 earths of resources” is confusing and easily misunderstood. What that metric means is that if everyone were to have the same consumption as the average U.S. person tomorrow, we wouldn’t have enough renewable resources to meet demand.
This is not an insurmountable problem. It just requires increasing production everywhere else. Your cited metric isn’t a stat on the theoretical limit of global production, it’s one that describes its current limits.
The stat also factors in carbon emissions, but this is also easily addressable in a world where labor and maintenance is cheap.
Land, energy infrastructure, mineral deposits, grid capacity, etc.
Who gets to live in the nice parts of the world? Who has a national park as a neighbour? Who gets to be ravaged by hurricanes every year?
Who gets to have more energy production closer to then? Who will own the land that has the finite resources that are used to create abundance? Where will people with the most power live?
There are so many reasons beyond production why certain areas fare better than others inherently, I have not seen any answer to this apart from that all rich people will just fold and we will all be moved into soviet skyscrapers which I find improbable.
This is more an organizational/political problem than a technology problem.
Our current oligarch-capitalist system (wherein most of the world is dictatorship or plutocratic) is not capable of equitable resource distribution. However, future, better systems of organization will likely provide better mechanisms for distrubtion.
Capitalism is an old and dying system. It is clearly unfit for the 21st century. It's best thought of as anachronistic, like feudalism. Once it's been excised from our societies, we'll be able to answer your questions.
Any planned economy is inherently built upon a bias and ideology that is culturally specific to the creators of it. There is no way that the US will accept a planned economy ran by China, or by India. However these countries followed by Africa will be the most populated areas of the world.
Meanwhile capitalism bases itself on game-theory and evolutionary selection. You compete with power, sexual selection and resources. It's sadly a system more aligned with the natural order of things. If you strip away all banks, hedge funds, etc, you are again going to get people who want to mate with the hottest fit partner, get the most resources to ensure survival of their offspring, etc.
There’s no reason a priori to think capitalism more efficient or better for common utility functions (growth, human wellbeing, planetary sustainability).
A “planned economy” is very vague. Usually people imply a central committee deciding what to do. Our economy relies on plutocrats to decide what to do. At what point of plutocratic concentration would you call the US economy planned? My point is all these terms are fuzzy.
My point is that capitalism as is practiced in America is a failed ideology. From the vantage of the present day, it appears painfully antiquated. A pathetic vestige of a less civilized world.
It’s interesting because America had the opportunity to lead the journey to the next organizing principle for socio-economic, but instead decided to get stuck in the past. Pathetic, but standard course. I think it’s because our leadership is in their 80s.
When making this statement, you need to provide answers for the resource allocation question that both comment above didn't answer. What concrete institutions/principles would allocate resources better while remaining robust to the same human incentives that undermine capitalism today?
While you can't do this, capitalism is not failed, outdated, or antiquated. Which country gets what, who gets to live where, why, etc.
> When making this statement, you need to provide answers for the resource allocation question that both comment above didn't answer.
Why? Do movie critics need to be directors to critique? Obviously not.
> While you can't do this, capitalism is not failed, outdated, or antiquated.
Why? Capitalism is clearly failing the world. Being outdated is I suppose a relative perspective. I view it as outdated because it doesn't meet the needs of our current technology. Remember that economic systems are a function of available technology: they exist only in a social context. Our technology has already reached the point where capitalism is counter-productive.
I would love to have a replacement system ready to go. My hunch is it will require a lot of compute.
siavosh · · focus · HN ↗
demibabs · · focus · HN ↗
dozerly · · focus · HN ↗
awepofiwaop · · focus · HN ↗
siavosh · · focus · HN ↗
augment_me · · focus · HN ↗
Will all rich people in all countries collectively agree to be moved into tiny apts same size and give up their luxuries?
If not, how do you define who gets what? Who gets to live in the fancy house, etc?
derangedHorse · · focus · HN ↗
Using the metric of “4 earths of resources” is confusing and easily misunderstood. What that metric means is that if everyone were to have the same consumption as the average U.S. person tomorrow, we wouldn’t have enough renewable resources to meet demand.
This is not an insurmountable problem. It just requires increasing production everywhere else. Your cited metric isn’t a stat on the theoretical limit of global production, it’s one that describes its current limits.
The stat also factors in carbon emissions, but this is also easily addressable in a world where labor and maintenance is cheap.
augment_me · · focus · HN ↗
Land, energy infrastructure, mineral deposits, grid capacity, etc.
Who gets to live in the nice parts of the world? Who has a national park as a neighbour? Who gets to be ravaged by hurricanes every year? Who gets to have more energy production closer to then? Who will own the land that has the finite resources that are used to create abundance? Where will people with the most power live?
There are so many reasons beyond production why certain areas fare better than others inherently, I have not seen any answer to this apart from that all rich people will just fold and we will all be moved into soviet skyscrapers which I find improbable.
danny_codes · · focus · HN ↗
Our current oligarch-capitalist system (wherein most of the world is dictatorship or plutocratic) is not capable of equitable resource distribution. However, future, better systems of organization will likely provide better mechanisms for distrubtion.
Capitalism is an old and dying system. It is clearly unfit for the 21st century. It's best thought of as anachronistic, like feudalism. Once it's been excised from our societies, we'll be able to answer your questions.
augment_me · · focus · HN ↗
Meanwhile capitalism bases itself on game-theory and evolutionary selection. You compete with power, sexual selection and resources. It's sadly a system more aligned with the natural order of things. If you strip away all banks, hedge funds, etc, you are again going to get people who want to mate with the hottest fit partner, get the most resources to ensure survival of their offspring, etc.
danny_codes · · focus · HN ↗
A “planned economy” is very vague. Usually people imply a central committee deciding what to do. Our economy relies on plutocrats to decide what to do. At what point of plutocratic concentration would you call the US economy planned? My point is all these terms are fuzzy.
My point is that capitalism as is practiced in America is a failed ideology. From the vantage of the present day, it appears painfully antiquated. A pathetic vestige of a less civilized world.
It’s interesting because America had the opportunity to lead the journey to the next organizing principle for socio-economic, but instead decided to get stuck in the past. Pathetic, but standard course. I think it’s because our leadership is in their 80s.
augment_me · · focus · HN ↗
While you can't do this, capitalism is not failed, outdated, or antiquated. Which country gets what, who gets to live where, why, etc.
danny_codes · · focus · HN ↗
Why? Do movie critics need to be directors to critique? Obviously not.
> While you can't do this, capitalism is not failed, outdated, or antiquated.
Why? Capitalism is clearly failing the world. Being outdated is I suppose a relative perspective. I view it as outdated because it doesn't meet the needs of our current technology. Remember that economic systems are a function of available technology: they exist only in a social context. Our technology has already reached the point where capitalism is counter-productive.
I would love to have a replacement system ready to go. My hunch is it will require a lot of compute.