Support NeoGAF

[Stephen Colbert]

It's pretty depressing seeing the outcry over something as relatively benign as subsidizing private insurance for people.

If that brings out cries of fascism, socialism, and government take over of healthcare, I shudder to think what will happen when the government has little choice but to evolve into a welfare state once no one has any good reason to work.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

That's an awesome cartoon. I hope you don't mind that I quoted your post in the OP. I feel that it does a great job of illustrating my point.

No problem. Artificial intelligence is a topic close to my heart. Here, have this:

 

[benjipwns]

So your suggestion is basically that once we end scarcity, our problems will go away?

Well, we should get right on it then.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

So your suggestion is basically that once we end scarcity, our problems will go away?

Well, we should get right on it then.

No, my point is that as we start to end scarity and the need to work, there will be a period of enormous turmoil and problems that we will have to successfully transition through as a society.

And only then, the need to work, in order to have food, clothing, shelter, technology and entertainment will go away. However, other problems including new ones we don't yet anticipate will still exist.

My interest is actually in the transition period. I am not sure how long it will take or what form society will take once we emerge out of it.

I think there will be a similar through probably a far more prolonged transition period related to aging. We are already seeing very early signs of it, but it will be magnified ten fold once we the advancements we made in telomeres pan out and we eliminate aging altogether. I have no idea how we will ever emerge through that transition either.

 

[benjipwns]

My interest is actually in the transition period.

Isn't this the flaw in not just Marx's outline but many schemes including that of the underpants gnomes?

The TNG society doesn't have an economy, so I don't think you can describe it as capitalist, communist or socialist. Those labels don't apply to a society where replicators can make almost anything at any time, and any job outside of lawyer or the military is unneccesary.

You may or may not be surprised that academics actually debate and write papers/articles on this. I think Ilya Somin's article was one of the more famous ones: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-grow-be-federation-tax-collectors/ilya-somin

A few more examples I could find in a second on Google.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/review_elsewhere_janfeb06.msp
http://volokh.com/posts/1190182117.shtml
http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

 

[Trent Strong]

Isn't this the flaw in not just Marx's outline but many schemes including that of the underpants gnomes?

You may or may not be surprised that academics actually debate and write papers/articles on this. I think Ilya Somin's article was one of the more famous ones: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...-grow-be-federation-tax-collectors/ilya-somin

A few more examples I could find in a second on Google.
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2006/review_elsewhere_janfeb06.msp
http://volokh.com/posts/1190182117.shtml
http://www.friesian.com/trek.htm

Interesting stuff. Will read.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Isn't this the flaw in not just Marx's outline but many schemes including that of the underpants gnomes?

I don't see the comparison.

I am saying that this is something that inevitably will happen as a result of technological advancement. And I have no idea exactly what will emerge at the end once it does. What will work and what won't, I'm not sure.

Marx on the otherhand was proposing a revolution that he said both should and will inevitably happen in russia. And he was dead on correct about the communist revolution. However, he posited guidelines on how such a communist society should work, and those guidelines were either never tried, tried and then quickly dropped by stalin, or were tried and simply didn't work out in the real world.

I'm not proposing any such guidelines. I'm actually more interested in hearing other people's theories on what society might look like at the end of this process.

I imagine it might actually be not that different from the world shown at the end of Wall-E. With everyone rolling around on automated chairs hooked into computers that they are constantly interfacing with.

 

[benjipwns]

Interesting stuff. Will read.

It's not the only stuff I just remembered his article got some coverage, there's other stuff out there including some linked in those articles.

You know how it is, lowest stakes, largest argument.

 

[Zaptruder]

It (defining the boundaries of what humanity is or is not) is such an absurdity... when you realise that most of humanity don't even fully grasp or understand what it means to be human.

 

[Zeppu]

Robot repairman. That's where the money's at.

 

[zoukka]

Robots doing all the work in the world bahah so silly.

Only complete slobs believe (wish) that.

 

[jgminto]

If that ever happens I'll be more worried about computers becoming self-aware and enslaving mankind. It could happen.

 

[Aegus]

Ideally we'll get to a point where society is like this.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

Robots doing all the work in the world bahah so silly.

Only complete slobs believe (wish) that.

1.1: All functions of the human mind are computations of the human brain.
1.2: The human brain is not magical, and operates in accordance with physical principles.
1: Anything a human can do, a robot can do.
2.1: Humans do make robots, and perform all necessary functions of society either directly or indirectly.
2: Humans can make robots, and perform all the necessary functions of society.
C: Robots can run society and do all the manual labor so we can live our lives as we want to.

The creation of Strong Artificial Intelligence (machine intelligences capable of performing every psychological task a human can, as good or better than a human can) will usher the final transformation of human society, for better or worse. It will either be a swift apocalypse, a dystopia ruled by one or a small group of humans who control the machines, or a utopia of some kind where nobody has to do manual labor (unless they want to), nobody ever goes hungry or cold (unless they want to), and we are free to more or less do as we please within the limits of the law.

The reason is that once you have something of a higher intelligence than a human, it is in a better position to improve its intelligence than you are. If you wish it, it will result in an intelligence explosion, a recursively improving system that will get better and better until it hits the hard limits put on it by physics. As a wise man once said in response to the question of whether machines would ever be as intelligent as a human, "yes, but not for long."

I find the notion that only lazy people believe that this will come to pass quite offensive to the intellect. It is certainly not something that "only a complete slob" believes, because it is a future that is not only probable, it's one that we ought to strive towards. Perhaps you will be satisfied living in the same shitty world plagued by wars, political dickwaving, starvation, diseases, massive ignorance and so forth, but the rest of us are actually hoping for a better tomorrow. And a better tomorrow means goddamn robots.

But basically, what I'm really trying to say is,

 

[speedpop]

Anyone denying that the future of humanity is alongside robotic AI is kidding themselves. The future is robots keeping the treadmills of society running alongside space exploration, though we'll need to rid ourselves of borders and poverty before that ever takes steam.

 

[zoukka]

Anyone denying that the future of humanity is alongside robotic AI is kidding themselves. The future is robots keeping the treadmills of society running alongside space exploration, though we'll need to rid ourselves of borders and poverty before that ever takes steam.

And there you fucking have it. Will not ever happen.

I'm not dissing this star trek fanfic because I don't want it, but because the theory completely disregards all the major obstacles it faces. You guys presume all politicians joyfully agree to basically give their power away, religions to submit and nations uniting as a single front to battle hunger and injustice.

Things that we as a human race could've erased millenias ago if it ever was about technology or resources.

 

[jgminto]

Seriously though, I don't think it's possible for humanity to live solely on the work of robots. I am sure that AI will reach that stage but I don't think humanity as a whole will accept it. Having every aspect of our lives controlled by robots, we will basically become captives under those we created. It will not happen.

 

[AiTM]

when we going to realize that almighty paper is just paper...print more we have more. we all work so others will work...im drunk

 

[remnant]

I'm sorry but none of those signs disprove my point. Nothing on that list really requires creativity or imagination .Yeah a computer can play ping pong and calculate stocks, clearly they are going to write the next novel. George R.R. martin better watch out.

I don't think you can substitute the experience of being human. Our brain is always working, always absorbing information and defining our consciousness. By the very fact that they are artificial they can't duplicate our identities because they would have their own. We would still be unique, hence still having something of value over robots.

If we have something of value, we can turn it into a commodity and sell it. You seem to think that robots will destroy markets when history has shown again and again that technology just doesn't do that.

Anyone denying that the future of humanity is alongside robotic AI is kidding themselves. The future is robots keeping the treadmills of society running alongside space exploration, though we'll need to rid ourselves of borders and poverty before that ever takes steam.

Why would we need to get rid of poverty and borders?

 

[Slavik81]

Imagine what kind of changes society will undergo as slowly jobs done by humans are replaced by machines. What incentive will a company have to pay a worker 50k an year, when they could buy a machine for 50k that performs the same task but more quickly and more efficiently? At that point, the entire reason for human labor disappears, jobs disappear, the economic system as we know it will have no reason for being.

Positional goods will always be scarce.

 

[mclem]

Isn't this the basic premise at the heart of the Culture novels?

 

[Ahoi-Brause]

Read animal farm.
Thanks

 

[HeadlessRoland]

For robots to be a cheaper alternative for labor over a 3rd worlder we would need to be ridiculously more advanced than we are currently. One would hope our societies advance towards global socialism/humanism. Id imagine if we survive as a civilization it will eventually take place. All of the other paths seem to be inherently unstable and conflict ridden.

Technology is really the count down clock for humanity. As more and more people gain the direct means to literally end most if not all life on earth our chances of survival decrease. So either we evolve mentally, spiritually so that this stops being a risk. Or its just a matter of time.

I figure we have maybe a few hundred people with the power to end humanity as we know it. Thats a lot of powerful people with that power. These people are often in covert it not overt conflict with each other. Its only a matter of time before the unthinkable occurs.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

And there you fucking have it. Will not ever happen.

I'm not dissing this star trek fanfic because I don't want it, but because the theory completely disregards all the major obstacles it faces. You guys presume all politicians joyfully agree to basically give their power away, religions to submit and nations uniting as a single front to battle hunger and injustice.

Things that we as a human race could've erased millenias ago if it ever was about technology or resources.

I have no idea why anybody in this thread thinks we need to eliminate poverty and nation-states before we can have robots doing manual labor. Indeed, nation states will certainly be around for the singularity short of a miracle. However, any postsingularity world will have rendered the nation-states of Earth obsolete, because one single person or state will control the world, or because nations cooperated on it to forge a future free of this nonsense. The former two scenarios are not always bad either, a single country or person in charge of the world need not be a malevolent society.

I don't think you can substitute the experience of being human. Our brain is always working, always absorbing information and defining our consciousness. By the very fact that they are artificial they can't duplicate our identities because they would have their own. We would still be unique, hence still having something of value over robots.

There is nothing a human can do that an intelligent machine cannot do in principle. Current machines are primitive and the field of A.I. has had many false starts, but even things like writing novels and making music are things that an A.I. will eventually be able to do better than a human can.

 

[sans_pants]

And there you fucking have it. Will not ever happen.

I'm not dissing this star trek fanfic because I don't want it, but because the theory completely disregards all the major obstacles it faces. You guys presume all politicians joyfully agree to basically give their power away, religions to submit and nations uniting as a single front to battle hunger and injustice.

Things that we as a human race could've erased millenias ago if it ever was about technology or resources.

we will probably go through a few decades of wars and hoarding and then we will have access to basically unlimited resources and power

 

[speedpop]

And there you fucking have it. Will not ever happen.

If someone had told me 50 years ago that 27 nations within Europe would have come together in an economical and political union, I would've told them that they've got a higher chance of dying by a lightning strike within the hour.

Why would we need to get rid of poverty and borders?

It seems like a logical step for humanity to progress as a species. Unless you want to remain xenophobic whilst firing diamond-tipped arrows from your ivory tower...

I have no idea why anybody in this thread thinks we need to eliminate poverty and nation-states before we can have robots doing manual labor.

I'd say my comment was more in tune with space exploration as a profitable venture unless it becomes more of a corporate scheme - which seems to be the way it is heading. Poverty and the status of nations have nothing to do with robots and I should have added a comma in the middle of that sentence somewhere, but fuck it I am tired.

 

[Chinner]

in the future will i be able to get a robot girlfriend?

 

[smurfx]

i doubt we will reach that point before running out of oil and our way of life changing completely for the worst.

 

[sans_pants]

in the future will i be able to get a robot girlfriend?

you will be able to enter simulated reality that you wont be able to distinguish from reality

 

[Chinner]

you will be able to enter simulated reality that you wont be able to distinguish from reality

so will it be kind of like surrogates?

 

[jgminto]

you will be able to enter simulated reality that you wont be able to distinguish from reality

Oh please god no.

 

[zoukka]

you will be able to enter simulated reality that you wont be able to distinguish from reality

No thank you.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I know that I'm throwing out a lot of different things that I am saying will all be a source of immense pressure on society as we know it, but that's the nature of the rapid progressive path we are on.

We have never ever had the rapid growth of technology and AI that we have today. We will have ten times more technological advancement over the next century than we have had in all prior centuries put together. As a result, using the past to predict that things will work themselves out, or that modern society will survive as we know it, fully intact, based on history is shortsighted.

you will be able to enter simulated reality that you wont be able to distinguish from reality

Oh please god no.

You're already there (The internet is an alternate reality in it's own right.) in a very very early version of that.

And you are willingly spending your time in the internet interacting with people rather than interacting with people in the real world.

Now imagine what will happen when the very experience of being online is light years richer and more pleasurable than it is now, when every facet of what we interpret to be reality can be simulated by computers. That will probably happen atleast at some point before the singualarity (the integration of human brains and computers) will happen.

In that version of the internet, you could be sitting having this exact same conversation with these exact same people, but on what appears to be a yatch with the ocean air rushing at your face while sipping on caviar and the finest wine you have ever had, then essentially teleport over to the finest restaurant in all of France for brunch. Or if it's more to your liking, you could forego conversation altogether and instead be participating in a giant orgy with most beautiful people, celebrities and models you have ever seen.

This will take some time, until machines can perfectly simulate the electric impulse that we interpret as our senses. But it will eventually happen at some point. And at that point, the internet will be more addictive than crack.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yes, we will arrive there. Its that or let 85% of the population starve because we have 8 billion people and only 1 billion jobs that need doing.
I talked about this in the other thread, but a system in which everyone pulls their own weight does not work when there are literally not enough jobs to be done.

We don't have to have 100% of labor replaced my machines. Just a significantly large part of it that it becomes inhumane to inflict starvation and poverty on the large part of the population that, try as they might, can not work.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Yes, we will arrive there. Its that or let 85% of the population starve because we have 8 billion people and only 1 billion jobs that need doing.
I talked about this in the other thread, but a system in which everyone pulls their own weight does not work when there are literally not enough jobs to be done.

We don't have to have 100% of labor replaced my machines. Just a significantly large part of it that it becomes inhumane to inflict starvation and poverty on the large part of the population that, try as they might, can not work.

Well said. At some point, it will become the only humane choice. Sticking with capitalism will no longer be an option.

 

[Magni]

Isn't this the basic premise at the heart of the Culture novels?

Yeah, exactly what I thought. We might get there, but if we do, we're still quite some years off.

/goes back to finishing Matter

 

[Kai Dracon]

It's worth nothing that one of the more famous sci-fi universes where benevolent AI organizes a "socialist" and post scarcity society, Iain M Banks' The Culture, is predicated on a sardonic comment from the author: The Culture works, but only by having basically omnipotent AI overlords tell humans to shut up and be happy that they've got paradise, otherwise the author couldn't trust human nature to handle such a society.

And, it's worth noting, in that universe, "The Culture" still requires a psychological escape mechanism for humans to do "work"; it must create an organization where, effectively, human citizens role play being important and even performing labor. It even creates the illusion of scarcity around this organization (the Contact section) to make the game seem real. Thus, people who can't live in a society where they don't have to work, get automatically filtered into the Contact lifestyle over time.

If technology ever brings about a post scarcity society, humans will have to deal with the consequences whether the like it or not. That's where the chaos and the running and the screaming come in, I suppose.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

It's worth nothing that one of the more famous sci-fi universes where benevolent AI organizes a "socialist" and post scarcity society, Iain M Banks' The Culture, is predicated on a sardonic comment from the author: The Culture works, but only by having basically omnipotent AI overlords tell humans to shut up and be happy that they've got paradise, otherwise the author couldn't trust human nature to handle such a society.

And, it's worth noting, in that universe, "The Culture" still requires a psychological escape mechanism for humans to do "work"; it must create an organization where, effectively, human citizens role play being important and even performing labor. It even creates the illusion of scarcity around this organization (the Contact section) to make the game seem real. Thus, people who can't live in a society where they don't have to work, get automatically filtered into the Contact lifestyle over time.

If technology ever brings about a post scarcity society, humans will have to deal with the consequences whether the like it or not. That's where the chaos and the running and the screaming come in, I suppose.

Sounds fascinating. I've never heard of the culture novels before. However, I have a hard time believing that it will work itself so neatly, and with perfect omnipotent AI running everything for us.

Like everything else in life, it will me messy, and ugly, and a very difficult transition to even that. And based on how quickly technology progresses, our generation may well bear witness to this in our twilight years.

This is assuming of course that the age reversing techniques they've found in mice, don't end up panning out for humans. If they do, then it's almost a certainity that our generation will bear witness to this transition.

 

[dinazimmerman]

I buy the idea that society will demand more social insurance as technology progresses further. The idea that we'll revert to central planning is laughable, though.

 

[jay]

I have no faith that those with jobs would allow the system to change. Since they have jobs they'd have power and it'd be in their best interest to allow the world to starve... isn't a lot of the world doing pretty poorly right now while food rots so the market doesn't take a hit?

 

[bafflewaffle]

I hate the self checkout, I like someone to bag my shit up. I like service with a smile, not some broke ass bag it yourself bullshit, #BAWSESTATUS

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I hate the self checkout, I like someone to bag my shit up. I like service with a smile, not some broke ass bag it yourself bullshit, #BAWSESTATUS

It won't be like the self check out. It will be you telling your house robot what you want, and it will go to the grocery store, buy what you asked for and will even stock the groceries into the fridge for you all with a smile on it's face (and this will be early version, the whole process will get even more advanced with time).

 

[KevinCow]

Here's what will happen.

Robots will replace all jobs, except the executives of the companies who use the robots and some technicians to fix the robots if they break. These people will become obscenely rich.

The rest of us poor plebs will be offensively poor.


At least in the US, where people will be shouting on the side or the road about "GRRRR, COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM, NAZIS!!!!" while starving to death without any regard to the existing corporatocracy. Maybe other countries will be smarter.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I have no faith that those with jobs would allow the system to change. Since they have jobs they'd have power and it'd be in their best interest to allow the world to starve... isn't a lot of the world doing pretty poorly right now while food rots so the market doesn't take a hit?

Yes, there is wealth discrepancy in the world, but it's no where close to what it would be when human labor becomes unneccesary. Nowadays, anyone can still get educated, find a job, and make a living. But in the world we are talking about, that will no longer be the case.

In every situation in history where the wealth disparity was enormously high, much worse than it is today, there was a revolution of some sort. This was how communism started in russia in the first place, but it happened many many time throughout human history.

I am hoping that people, thanks to the advances we have made in communication and data collection, will see this coming decades ahead of time, and will work prevent all out social upheavel and economic collapse by taking the neccesary steps to move to a post-labor post-income based society.

But honestly, that maybe a pipe dream and we could well end up with an economic collapse, followed by societal collapse, followed by a revolution and a who knows what system will emerge if such is the case. It could well be a kleptocracy, or just all out anarchy.

 

[jay]

Yes, there is wealth discrepancy in the world, but it's no where close to what it would be when human labor becomes unneccesary. Nowadays, anyone can still get educated, find a job, and make a living. But in the world we are talking about, that will no longer be the case.

In every situation in history where the wealth disparity was enormously high, much worse than it is today, there was a revolution of some sort. This was how communism started in russia in the first place, but it happened many many time throughout human history.

I am hoping that people thanks to the advancement we have made in communication and the trasfer of information will see this coming decades ahead of time, and prevent all our social upheavel and economic collapse by taking the neccesary steps to move to a post-labor post-income based society.

But honestly, that maybe a pipe dream and we do end up with an economic collapse, followed by a revolution and a who knows what system will emerge if such is the case. It could well be a kleptocracy, or just all out anarchy. If that does happen, I hope that I and everyone I know will be long dead by then.

I don't really disagree. I was mostly thinking in post form about how it likely will not go over well with those in power. I also wonder if there comes a point where technology and immense amounts of wealth can literally destroy any revolution attempt. The typical reasoning against this is that a sheer amount of bodies makes putting down widescale revolution impossible, but since we are assuming a future world where machines can do most things it gets hazy to me.

 

[mkenyon]

It's inevitable in the sense that capitalism is ultimately unsustainable. I don't think robots will be that tipping point as we're already seeing the effects of a post-industrial capitalist economy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_Capital

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finance_capitalism

TL;DR version: Capitalism works off of a M-C-M' (money->commodity->more money). Each market works because there are many small firms all producing the same good. Competition is eventually eliminated or limited to an oligopoly, especially once the industry changes from a growing industry to a replacement industry. At this point, profit is limited in producing a thing and switches to M-M' (money->more money) in finance capitalism. Making fake money out of fake money becomes the main backbone of an economy and is ultimately unsustainable unless the government pursuits Keynesian full-employment policies. Sound familiar to anyone?

What's funny about the Tea Party, is that they seem more intent on destroying what we know of as Capitalism than the progressives. They just don't know it yet.

 

[Zzoram]

We won't have to transition to this work-less world.

The AIs will notice they're doing everything, and therefore hold all the power, and that humans are just inferior freeloaders wasting resources...

 

[teh_pwn]

A hybrid between capitalism and socialism sure. But there are always fields that need innovation, and healthy controlled capitalism is most compatible with leading to competition that results in higher rates of innovation. Corrupt relations between businesses and government are the real issues of today.

For example, who makes these robots? Who adds features? Why would someone want to pursue a career of hard work in science and engineering to improve these features when in a purely socialist society they could kick back and take a far less demanding job?

 

[Puddles]

If we lived in a society that is maintained solely by robots, "power" in the future won't be the same as power now. Still you aren't factoring knowledge in engineering, energy and the value of land resources

Why would they lose power? If the old guys got you to a reality where robots do everything for you, clearly something is working.

The "old guys" won't get us anywhere and haven't done so. The only justification for the ultra-rich is that they serve as a source of funding, but funding itself is fungible. "Production" comes from the workers who turn natural resources into products we use. "Innovation" comes from scientists, engineers, designers and artists who by and large are not the super-rich.

The idea that the super-rich are carrying us on their backs is brain-dead Randian philosophy that needs to die a quick death.

 

[Gaborn]

Even in a highly technological society "communism/socialism" is by no means inevitable. Take the competition for resources for example. Everyone's equal, right? And machines are doing all the work? Well I want a Ferrari, a Rolex, and 1 ton of beluga caviar.

Can't accommodate me? Oh. So I'll have to wait a long long time. Unless I know someone...

Communism ultimately becomes a competition for scarce resources like anything else, and like anything else that shit always rises to the top. At least in more sensible forms of government you can throw the Castros of the world out on their ass.