Support NeoGAF

[Stephen Colbert]

I dont know why everyone is talking about Russia and China all of a sudden. These countries didn't become communist for the reason that there simply wasnt anything left for people to do.

The communism that emerges in a highly advanced post labor society where anything and everything can be envisioned, built and maintained by robots will have very little in common with the USSR.

When people can have anything they want built by robots with no human labor needed, the importance of material goods diminshes. People will coalesce with others with similar interests. You spend one day a week hanging out with buddies that love to play boardgames like Catan or party games like Cranium. One day hanging out with people with similar movie tastes to yours. Basically whatever your interests are you will coalesce with others with similar interests.

 

[theBishop]

Let's be clear here - leaning left isn't the same as supporting communisms. It is natural thing for highly inteligent to also be highly idealistic, thus believing in equality of all. This especialy holds true for artists. But among the general highly educated population I'd say communism isn't a very popular philosophy. Especialy not now when nobody truly believes communism is viable anymore.

And, as I said, the people who end up ruling in communist systems are not those scientist, artist etc. They end up dead or imprisoned.

So stop trying, right?


The system we call "Democracy" in the US has produced unilateral military interventions, secret prisons, torture at home and abroad, ecological disasters, unprecedented class inequality, and a ruling oligarchy for which the law simply does not apply.

But I still like Democracy.

Worker exploitation is just as great an issue today globally than ever. Communism remains the only proposed solution to this fundamental problem. The 20th century attempts at communism were utter catastrophes, but that's not an excuse to give up the fight against worker exploitation.

 

[KtSlime]

I dont why everyone is talking about Russia and china all of a sudden. These countries didn't become communist for the reason that there simply wasnt anything left for people to do.

The communism that emerges in a highly advanced post labor society where anything and everything can be envisioned, built and maintained by robots will have very little in common with the USSR.

The capitalists were smart, demonizing Russia and China to further prolong the inequity of wealth. Who knows when true communism will be possible, however the capitalist propaganda machine has made it certain that it will take as long as possible to get to that point.

However, if they wish to maintain their power and system, they better learn to ease up on forcing the labor cost race to the bottom lest they have a revolution on their hands.

 

[Seraphinianus]

it's a pretty popular idea in intellectual circles (maybe it always has been, but it still is today.) There are tons of reasons why it isn't happening.

For one thing (this from experience), people who are into it have no idea how to make it a mainstream idea. People get lost in Marxist theory and never come back. Thus, they have no idea how to reach out to people on an even ground, they develop the idea that people should work hard to understand Marx instead of wanting it to have it explained to them in practical terms, and these things lead to your whole potential marxist/communist/socialist base being an insular circle jerk. On the other hand, who can fault them, when Marx himself didn't really know how to overcome capitalism. It's supposed to be an evolution of capitalism, so it's not like there's an event that's going to trigger it. but it needs a catalyst, which it doesn't have and will never get because...

The other problem is that I'm pretty sure we're riding out capitalism until it kills us or almost completely destroys us. We're farther than ever from becoming socialist. The two party system is as impenetrable as ever. There have been stronger efforts (green party in 2000 comes to mind) that have worked longer and harder than any supposed socialist in the U.S. and they all got squashed. The democrats and republicans hated the hippy green party, but they hate commies much worse. Shit, even the regular old left, as it was 30, 40, 50 years ago, is arguably on the fritz.

I'm sure even Marx could appreciate that when your political and economic stance is the polar opposite of those who control literally all the money and power, you've got a snowball's chance in lindsay lohan's underpants.

 

[empty vessel]

The other problem is that I'm pretty sure we're riding out capitalism until it kills us or almost completely destroys us. We're farther than ever from becoming socialist. ...

I'm sure even Marx could appreciate that when your political and economic stance is the polar opposite of those who control literally all the money and power, you've got a snowball's chance in lindsay lohan's underpants.

Capitalism is still a newborn pup. It's only been with us a couple hundred years. It's got several hundred more to go. Popular resistance to it has value in and of itself, and may succeed in some places and at some times in at least combating the worst excesses of capitalism, but resistance is unlikely to prevail until development reaches a certain point, many hundreds of years into the future. Still, no reason not to resist, and to try to ameliorate the pain it inflicts wherever and whenever possible.

 

[theBishop]

it's a pretty popular idea in intellectual circles (maybe it always has been, but it still is today.) There are tons of reasons why it isn't happening.

For one thing (this from experience), people who are into it have no idea how to make it a mainstream idea. People get lost in Marxist theory and never come back. Thus, they have no idea how to reach out to people on an even ground, they develop the idea that people should work hard to understand Marx instead of wanting it to have it explained to them in practical terms, and these things lead to your whole potential marxist/communist/socialist base being an insular circle jerk. On the other hand, who can fault them, when Marx himself didn't really know how to overcome capitalism. It's supposed to be an evolution of capitalism, so it's not like there's an event that's going to trigger it. but it needs a catalyst, which it doesn't have and will never get because...

The other problem is that I'm pretty sure we're riding out capitalism until it kills us or almost completely destroys us. We're farther than ever from becoming socialist. The two party system is as impenetrable as ever. There have been stronger efforts (green party in 2000 comes to mind) that have worked longer and harder than any supposed socialist in the U.S. and they all got squashed. The democrats and republicans hated the hippy green party, but they hate commies much worse. Shit, even the regular old left, as it was 30, 40, 50 years ago, is arguably on the fritz.

I'm sure even Marx could appreciate that when your political and economic stance is the polar opposite of those who control literally all the money and power, you've got a snowball's chance in lindsay lohan's underpants.

Your own post hints at problems and solutions. For one thing, a major impediment to any social progress (let alone a communist revolution) is the over-emphasis on electoral politics. Our civic engagement is so depressed that people feel a sense of smug superiority if they watch cable news and vote every few years. The idea of class politics or class solidarity is simply not on the table, and must be rebuilt.

You say that people get lost in Marxist theory, and don't come back. But it's not difficult to explain the basics dynamics. And in my experience, these concepts are so obvious even to working-class republicans, that they don't see them as a matter of politics.

 

[Seraphinianus]

Capitalism is still a newborn pup. It's only been with us a couple hundred years. It's got several hundred more to go. Popular resistance to it has value in and of itself, and may succeed in some places and at some times in at least combating the worst excesses of capitalism, but resistance is unlikely to prevail until development reaches a certain point, many hundreds of years into the future. Still, no reason not to resist, and to try to ameliorate the pain it inflicts wherever and whenever possible.

My problem is that the world feels like a powder keg in a lot of ways and the existence of weapons that have the capability to take down entire major cities, countries, etc. doesn't help ease my concern. I don't live my life in fear, I don't subscribe any particular conspiracy theories, but I can't help but feel nihilistic in the face of the various reform ideologies (the same amount I feel for popular ideologies as well, of course.)

 

[Deku]

European socialism are showing the very early hints of what may come. Parts of Europe have advanced enough where the society will function just fine, and meet the needs of all the citizens, even with a segment of the population not having to work at all. A chunk of the population is on the govt dole already and managing to live fairly comfortable lives.

Which parts and what evidence? Seems like its completely out of your ass.

If anything, the story of the last 20 years has been the decline of the welfare state.

You're probably not aware of this, but the sense that governments can fix anything like it 'fixed' the war against Facism was very real at one point and there was broad consensus and a growing economy to finance grand schemes and social programs. That is completely gone now, and the consensus has reversed in many parts of the world where there are welfare states. The Anglo states certainly have been at the forefront of this, but distilling it down to 'Thatcher sucks, or Reaganomics as many on the left have done is to miss the point entirely. They're attacking the person, but not addressing the problem, or more broadly, why the welfare state failed so many people, including the working poor in the 70s and 80s and why it drove them to elect powerful conservatives into office.

What's left of that legacy of social spending are still strong institutions but enfeebled by cutbacks with a public that no longer has an appetite for MORE social programs.

The engines of European economy, Germany and France certainly has no appetite for more socialism. Both are starting massive deficits from its entitlement programs and need to cutback on benefits, which is unpopular but necessary.

Perhaps in 50 years, after the hump of boomers have passed and the Liberal democracies can look forward to a growing tax base and working age population. But I suspect the kinds of benefits in place in 2061 is going to be vastly different from what is inplace today.

So stop trying, right?


The system we call "Democracy" in the US has produced unilateral military interventions, secret prisons, torture at home and abroad, ecological disasters, unprecedented class inequality, and a ruling oligarchy for which the law simply does not apply.

Athenian democracy produced unilateral military interventions, torture, class inequality and the creation of empires.

Always great arguing with people stuck in 18th century Marxist readings, rather than say, to see history as a series of empires or rather to see history as a history of empires.

Here's the news. The biggest empires of the 20th century pretended not to be empires. The supports of the United States of Europe all essentially want to create a pan European empire.

And when Empires are running the show, they dictate the terms of the debate.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I really don't want this to degenerate into a debate of socialism vs. capitalism.

This thread is about the aftermath of a world where all labor, all functions integral to the operation of a society, are done by robots rather than people. In such a society, where machines are capable of performing each and every single task that humans are capable of, where there are no jobs left for people to do so, there is no realistic alternative but to go socalist.

What choice is there when 95% of the population is unemployed, and yet, machines can provide for every one of the needs of the entire human population?

 

[Meadows]

Marx got it wrong. His theory about over-production causing the end of capitalism was debunked as things get better and better with technology and sell better and better. There is no ultimate, "oh well guys yep, we've invented everything, guess there's no need for money any more".

 

[Deku]

I really don't want this to degenerate into a debate of socialism vs. capitalism.

This thread is about the aftermath of a world where all labor, all functions integral to the operation of a society, are done by robots rather than people. In such a society, where machines are capable of performing each and every single task that humans are capable of, where there are no jobs left for people to do so, there is no realistic alternative but to go socalist.

What choice is there when 95% of the population is unemployed, and yet, machines can provide for every one of the needs of the entire human population?

You don't want to have the debate yet you have a thread title the encourages it and you open it with an OP stating things you pulled out of your thin air.

You still haven't really addressed where in Europe this inevitable socialist paradise is going to emerge.

Time to go back to gaming side?

 

[vic2020]

I don't know if true communism is possible, even in a future where no one has to labor. There will always be someone who wants more for themselves that will step up and fuck it all over(like Stalin or Hitler). Even when you got your first job you probably had a sort of list of things you wanted to buy. Maybe it started off with something small like a new phone, but soon after you buy it, it's not cool anymore and you'll want the next thing on the list. It never ends and soon you will want a new car/motorcycle/home the next big thing on the list. You would never be satisfied. Even some of the wealthiest people on earth aren't happy with their mansions and yachts and want the next great thing to make them feel good.

 

[Seraphinianus]

I really don't want this to degenerate into a debate of socialism vs. capitalism.

your thread title asks a very specific question and, also in the title, you take a strong stance on it. We currently have capitalism, you think it's going towards socialism...how is this going to "de"-generate into that debate, when that seemed to be the debate to begin with?

 

[Stephen Colbert]

You don't want to have the debate yet you have a thread title the encourages it and you open it with an OP stating things you pulled out of your thin air.

You still haven't really addressed where in Europe this inevitable socialist paradise is going to emerge.

Time to go back to gaming side?

You missed the point completely. The point is, when human labor becomes unneccesary and we have the potential to produce enough machine to take care of every aspect of our lives that we want them to, it's not an either or. It's not an issue of choosing capitalism vs. socialism. When there is little left for people to do, and little need for them to do it, socialism is the inescapable end. It's not a value call, just a statement of where things are headed.

And its certainly not limited to Europe.

Even today, modern societies have become productive enough, that a portion of the population could get away with not working. Technology has advanced to the point where a smaller portion of the population can produce enough to sustain all of us. That pattern will only grow with time, and once we have robots, it will start to grow at an exponential rate that will surprise most people.

 

[empty vessel]

Athenian democracy produced unilateral military interventions, torture, class inequality and the creation of empires.

So you oppose democracy on that basis? Yes or no? The question posed wasn't a dig at the US, it was making a point about people's penchant to cognitively accept less than perfect implementations of an ideal without sacrificing the ideal.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

your thread title asks a very specific question and, also in the title, you take a strong stance on it. We currently have capitalism, you think it's going towards socialism...how is this going to "de"-generate into that debate, when that seemed to be the debate to begin with?

Because it's not a value debate about which is better. And more importantly, socialism as referenced in this thread is nothing at all akin to socialism as it existed in the USSR. That wasn't even socialism, and it was in a labor centric society. We are taking about socialism as an inevitable consequence of a world where human labor is no longer neccesary.

 

[Deku]

You missed the point completely. The point is, when human labor becomes unneccesary and we have the potential to produce enough machine to take care of every aspect of our lives that we want them to, it's not an either or. It's not an issue of choosing capitalism vs. socialism. When there is little left for people to do, and little need for them to do it, socialism is the inescapable end. It's not a value call, just a statement of where things are headed.

And its certainly not limited to Europe.

Even today, modern societies have become productive enough, that a portion of the population could get away with not working. Technology has advanced to the point where a smaller portion of the population can produce enough to sustain all of us. That pattern will only grow with time, and once we have robots, it will start to grow at an exponential rate that will surprise most people.

The scenario you are describing is at least 100 years away if not more. After China, there's a billion Indians who will do capital intensive labour or less. And after India there is the continent of Africa.

I see you're making the same basic mistake futurists on the gaming side likes to make about gaming in X years and it is why when not dealing with sales-age threads, GAF consensus on technology issues is usually pretty worthless.


In anycase, I don't see how an outcome that is at least 100 years away has anything to do with the declining status of the welfare state.

If you're question is 'what will all the advanced liberal democracies do when all their jobs get outsourced' that may be more interesting than a discussion about possible robot slaves.

So you oppose democracy on that basis? Yes or no? The question posed wasn't a dig at the US, it was making a point about people's penchant to cognitively accept less than perfect implementations of an ideal without sacrificing the ideal.

I posit we tend to like to white wash history. The progressive left are sometimes the most conservative people in the room, often with romantic visions of an agrarian rural past that never existed. Where as political conservatives tend to idealize the post war 50s, progressive idealize the era a hundred years before that.

Democracy is vital, but if you're asking me if I believe in it, yes I do. But the original Democracy is flawed and not much different that current versions of the democracies.

Now, things get muddied because Europeans think they are implicitly superior to Americans not having to invade other countries and the like, but they are often the indirect beneficiaries of such invasions.

The most obvious case of European hypocricy is the recent NATO mission in Libya. When the Americans set clear limits on their commitment, expecting allies who wanted the mission to step up, you see massive gaps in the commitment. With the usual suspect of loafers sliding by hoping someone else would do the invading while they preach the religion of non aggression.

More broadly though, I believe Democracies that are Empires can exist and infact, the original Democracy was an Empire and it didn't become an empire after the fall, it was an empire at its very best. I don't see the two as contradictory, so I always have a chuckle when those from the marxist school of dialectic struggle tell me empires are bad mmmmk.

 

[empty vessel]

In anycase, I don't see how an outcome that is at least 100 years away has anything to do with the declining status of the welfare state.

The decline of the welfare state is a temporary trend. And it's a practically non-existent one at that. The US has seen a significant decline of the regulatory state, but it never had much of a welfare state to begin with (but what was there--Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid--has been maintained relatively intact). Europe's welfare states are almost entirely intact. There have been attacks on them to be sure, but they have been almost entirely unsuccessful ones.

I should add that we are currently at the apex of attacks on the welfare state, and they will fail. The Republicans in the US are currently trying to effectively repeal Medicare. They won't succeed. And the trend is about to reverse. This is their last hurrah, and they will fail. Thankfully.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

The scenario you are describing is at least 100 years away if not more. After China, there's a billion Indians who will do capital intensive labour or less. And after India there is the continent of Africa.

I see you're making the same basic mistake futurists on the gaming side likes to make about gaming in X years and it is why when not dealing with sales-age threads, GAF consensus on technology issues is usually pretty worthless.


In anycase, I don't see how an outcome that is at least 100 years away has anything to do with the declining status of the welfare state.

If you're question is 'what will all the advanced liberal democracies do when all their jobs get outsourced' that may be more interesting than a discussion about possible robot slaves.

There's absolutely no reason to believe that it is 100 years away.

Almost every technology, once it becomes a mass consumer product reaches critical mass and advances at an exponential rate. We had the internet for two decades with not all that much progress, but once it hit the general populace, it started to expand at an absolutely unbelievable rate and now infests every aspect of our lives.

Computers likewise have been around for over half a century, but once they become consumer products, began to advance at an unbelievable rate.

Even things like videogame graphics, smartphones and tablets all show this pattern.

Robotics likewise, have been around in some form for a long time, but I believe they are on the verge of becoming a consumer product within our life time. And once that happens, the advancement of the technology will occur at an unbelievable pace, and they will come to be in every facet of our lives. And soon after that, they will be able to do everything that humans are capable of doing.

Our generation will see the robotics and artificial intelligence revolution. And in all liklihood, when they become consumer products, they will start to advance at a much faster rate than you are envisioning. Whether they will advance fast enough to surpass humans withhin our lifetime is still up in the air, but it will absolutely happen at some point in the not too distant future, and probably well within a 100 years.

 

[Fusebox]

In the US it seems nobody wants free health-care from the Government, but thanks to the tipping culture they seem to have no hesitation when trying to take my hard-earned money straight out of my wallet everytime they provide me with a menial service.

 

[Seraphinianus]

Because it's not a value debate about which is better. And more importantly, socialism as referenced in this thread is nothing at all akin to socialism as it existed in the USSR. That wasn't even socialism, and it was in a labor centric society. We are taking about socialism as an inevitable consequence of a world where human labor is no longer neccesary.

well, attempts at socialism will have to be debated along the way to and are inextricably intertwined with any theoretical socialist future.

but reading your OP, I see it has nothing to do with the thread title except in a technical sense, so alright, whatever.

In the US it seems nobody wants free health-care from the Government, but thanks to the tipping culture they seem to have no hesitation when trying to take my hard-earned money straight out of my wallet everytime they provide me with a menial service.

holy shit, I'm saying this next time I eat at a restaurant. Perfect idea to mobilize the service industry!

 

[Stephen Colbert]

but reading your OP, I see it has nothing to do with the thread title except in a technical sense, so alright, whatever.

That's no really true, but I can see where that would be a source of confusion.

I'll change the thread title to "Advancements in Robotics & AI: What are the consequences of a post-labor society?" or something to that effect.

I am open to suggestions.

 

[Seraphinianus]

That's no really true, but I can see where that would be a source of confusion.

I will try to get a mod to change the thread title to "Advancements in Robotics & AI: What are the consequences of a post-labor society?" or something to that effect.

I am open to suggestions.

thanks for changing it, makes more sense now.

 

[Something Wicked]

There's absolutely no reason to believe that it is 100 years away.

Almost every technology, once it becomes a mass consumer product reaches critical mass and advances at an exponential rate. We had the internet for two decades with not all that much progress, but once it hit the general populace, it started to expand at an absolutely unbelievable rate and now infests every aspect of our lives.

Computers likewise have been around for over half a century, but once they become consumer products, began to advance at an unbelievable rate.

Even things like videogame graphics, smartphones and tablets all show this pattern.

Robotics likewise, have been around in some form for a long time, but I believe they are on the verge of becoming a consumer product within our life time. And once that happens, the advancement of the technology will occur at an unbelievable pace, and they will come to be in every facet of our lives. And soon after that, they will be able to do everything that humans are capable of doing.

Our generation will see the robotics and artificial intelligence revolution. And in all liklihood, when they become consumer products, they will start to advance at a much faster rate than you are envisioning. Whether they will advance fast enough to surpass humans withhin our lifetime is still up in the air, but it will absolutely happen at some point in the not too distant future, and probably well within a 100 years.

I think you need to familiarize yourself with the current state of the semiconductor industry. We're quickly approaching the smallest realistic gate line widths for computer chips- basically a few molecules across. That doesn't mean computing power of electronics will be stagnant in years to come, it just means more computing power will require more and more volume, thus more material and higher costs.

 

[Deku]

Thread title change, thank god.

Implications?

Too far to predict. There are various competing issues here and there's no suggestion it will lead to socialism or communism.

If you have an army of slave robotic labour at your disposal, a society's wealth becomes tied to the number and quality of those robots.

Perhaps a feature measure of wealth will be the GRP, or the Gross Robotic Product, or sum of the total production by robots.

What will unemployed humans do? Depending on GRP, I suspect more or less the same as today. Some societies with high GRP will be wealthy, others with low GRP will be poorer.

And There will be a 3rd class of societies, the Pre-robotic societies that still rely on human labour for their output.

There Happy?

 

[Stephen Colbert]

I'm well aware of that. I'm also well aware that Intel, IBM and others are investing billions into developing both quantum computing and newer alloys that can resist the quantum gating phenomena. The livlihood of their companies depends on them fining a way, and I am almost certain they will.

Regardless, it's no purely a limitation of computational power, it's about developing algorithms that allow computers to assess information the same way a human might. Watson was just a very early step towards that direction, but more will come, and the pace will quicken, and future iterations will be able to do more and more with less computational power.

 

[Drkirby]

Once we get into a Post-Labor society, then our focus will shift to making Machines that can do other things, like gather Minerals on Mars.

 

[Kinitari]

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.

Fucking, preach.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Ok I think I got it guys!

In the future...

Everyone will be an "investor".

People have things that they want or need, and everyone has a supply of money they can use and invest in different things. For example, invest some money in the aircrafts sector because there has been a trend for people to use aircrafts more than before. This finances the development of the sector, because others invest in it as well since it is perceived as having a strong demand. Investors make money, and with said money people can buy things. So basically everyone is investing, but all the work is done by machines/robots, and the investors make money and then use that money to do what they want.

If you lose your money, the money goes back into a pool, and it is redistributed among those who no longer have funds, or very little left.

So in a way, everyone is on some basic form of welfare, but to get more money you need to invest it. No one can outright end up in the street, everyone has the basic necessities to live, and to be rich you must partake in investing in sectors that benefit the world population's demands.

Since there would be systems that exist to evaluate future demand and analyze all such information, investors don't actually have a lot to do, but the simple fact of putting money into sectors that need it, based on society's needs, leads to the development of those sectors. In a way, most people would be making a certain level of income, it would be pretty difficult to lose a lot of money since you have the data in front of you that tells you where investments are needed.

Basically, humans, by having control of the money supply, rule the world of machines, because without that money the machines cannot perform tasks.

 

[Deku]

^

It will still depend largely on how a society is organized. But again, this is far in the distant future and not realistic to expect in our lifetime or even in two lifetimes.

I think from a social/labour/capital perspective the future is going to be a lot less 'radical' than we think

Obviously, slave robots raise interesting moral questions and iRobot scenarios, but that's for science fiction authors to contend. From a pure organizational standpoint, in a society where robots do everything, it is obvious the amount and quality of robots a society posses defines its wealth.

And since robots do not need to be paid a wage, the whole 'what will the unemployed do?" question becomes moot as you simply increase your robot count to increase your production just enough to support those human bums.

 

[Kinitari]

Do people expect a gradual almost imperceptible change in AI/Robotic advancement, or do they think a singularity boom will come out of nowhere and within the year we'll be waving to robots as we pass them in the street?

I don't know if 30 years from now, without me realizing it, I'll have a computer that takes care of all my house chores (cooking, cleaning etc) - or if one day 50 years from now, EVERYTHING changes. I think the gradual change, the gradual implementation in introduction appeals to me more.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

All roads lead to the holodeck.

 

[B-B-Bomba!]

Those on the dole seem to have just come to terms with life support and permanent leisure time. Really they're the pioneers, it seems.

I'm not sure I agree with the framing of this exactly.

Well as I said, it's a naff way of life, and it makes a mug of those who do not work, and especially those who do.

I'm just making a rather radical (and quite comical) suggestion that the welfare state in the UK represents the grass roots of a more enlightened tomorrow. It certainly does not represent an enlightened today.

 

[theBishop]

Who builds the machines in the post-labor society? And what's the unemployment rate?

And who owns/controls the means of production for that matter?

 

[captmorgan]

Based on my observation of mankind If Robots become the dominate force, there will still be a ruling elite and everyone else will be used for fuel for the robots

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

Thermal depolymerization (TDP) is a process using hydrous pyrolysis for the reduction of complex organic materials (usually waste products of various sorts, often known as biomass and plastic) into light crude oil..

So in this utopia world everyone will have a job, being grease for non-friction bearing.

 

[Lagspike_exe]

Ok I think I got it guys!

In the future...

Everyone will be an "investor".

People have things that they want or need, and everyone has a supply of money they can use and invest in different things. For example, invest some money in the aircrafts sector because there has been a trend for people to use aircrafts more than before. This finances the development of the sector, because others invest in it as well since it is perceived as having a strong demand. Investors make money, and with said money people can buy things. So basically everyone is investing, but all the work is done by machines/robots, and the investors make money and then use that money to do what they want.

If you lose your money, the money goes back into a pool, and it is redistributed among those who no longer have funds, or very little left.

So in a way, everyone is on some basic form of welfare, but to get more money you need to invest it. No one can outright end up in the street, everyone has the basic necessities to live, and to be rich you must partake in investing in sectors that benefit the world population's demands.

Since there would be systems that exist to evaluate future demand and analyze all such information, investors don't actually have a lot to do, but the simple fact of putting money into sectors that need it, based on society's needs, leads to the development of those sectors. In a way, most people would be making a certain level of income, it would be pretty difficult to lose a lot of money since you have the data in front of you that tells you where investments are needed.

Basically, humans, by having control of the money supply, rule the world of machines, because without that money the machines cannot perform tasks.

This kind of "system" would lead to false promises by big corps, bubbles and the destruction of economy in matter of years.

 

[sans_pants]

Maybe it's inevitable in the sense that there's an untenable disproportion of workers vs owners. But it's not going to happen without in intervention of individuals.

Time and time again history throws us systemic crises in Capitalism, but Communism doesn't simply burst forth out of the wreckage. The managers of our economy are incredibly adept at papering over the flaws in the system, moving them around geographically, spreading them out so thin that they seem to disappear, and moving them into other seemingly unrelated sectors of the economy through "innovations" in the banking system.

David Harvey has a lot of interesting things to say about this topic.

And I think you're dead wrong about the European welfare state. On the contrary, the current trend is toward so-called austerity policies. European citizens are going to have to organize large scale resistance just to keep the programs they have.

i think its pretty dubious to use history as a guide when thinking about the absolutely vast changes that will occur in the next 30 years

 

[Zaptruder]

Do people expect a gradual almost imperceptible change in AI/Robotic advancement, or do they think a singularity boom will come out of nowhere and within the year we'll be waving to robots as we pass them in the street?

I don't know if 30 years from now, without me realizing it, I'll have a computer that takes care of all my house chores (cooking, cleaning etc) - or if one day 50 years from now, EVERYTHING changes. I think the gradual change, the gradual implementation in introduction appeals to me more.

It won't be an imperceptible change. But we will psychologically adapt and acclimatize so fast to new technology that it'll seem like a natural progression.

And I'll tell you how it'll look.

You know those robots that are featuring in youtube? The dancing ones, and the creepy face ones, etc? The ones that are been shown off as research? And you know those small dancing novelty ones?

That technology is already here. Give it another decade, and you'll get bigger faster, more articulate dancing robots at lower costs. A few years from there, some company will decide that the technology required for a highly articulate robot is actually pretty cheap. And make the parts for it. It'll have some sort of wifi unit that allows its brain to be located off the machine. It'll do more than dance. It might double as a telepresence machine.

Significantly, at the same time, developments in Watson style AI continue. In 10-15 years, there'll be available for use in the google command line. We will be able to type natural language questions into Google Watson (or whatever google decides to call their variant of it) and have it answered. We'll even be able to speak those questions into our phone and have them answered.

By natural extension, someone will offer a way of google watson to interact with the robot mannequin. You get a robot that does stuff that is also 'intelligent'.

At the same time that this stuff is happening, we continue making advancements in object recognition and learning... you know how self driving cars are self driving now? well, that's the kind of technology they're using.

When you combine watson, asimo, and the google self driving car... you're going to get a pretty fierce package of technology that seems almost alien to us now; but won't be as the antecdent parts of its technology are revealed to us piecemeal a few years before the introduction and emergence of this advanced robot.

Of course, these 'advanced' robots, will nonetheless be around for decades before they actually become viable replacements for human beings in complex jobs and tasks. They'll of course handle some tasks better than others to begin with, been more suitable.

But human beings will also for a while cost substantially less than a freakin' robot to perform the same task (at least depending on which human being).



....

But at some point down the track, everything we recognize about our modern society will have been transformed and turned on its head. We won't even be using mobile phones at some point. At least certainly not in the form to which we're accustomed.

 

[Meadows]

We become the robots.

 

[Ether_Snake]

This kind of "system" would lead to false promises by big corps, bubbles and the destruction of economy in matter of years.

No, there would be no companies to invest in. AIs analyze human need, and make a demand for investment based on that analysis. People unlock funds to allow machines to develop what we need. Rinse-repeat. The thing is we hold the money supply, so we remain on top. If you want to have a lot of money, you need to invest it. If you are fine with your base "salary" and don't want more money, you spend it on stuff.

So no companies can screw you really. "Humans in region AX are asking for faster transport to region AZ, we need investments to build the transit system". Since the benefit is automatically calculated by the AIs, you get a certain amount of money in return for financing it after a certain date.

And the whole system would be kept in check to make sure wealth remains more or less distributed appropriately, so as to limit individuals from having too much money. Like, you are forced to spend X % of your income per year or whatever.

If everyone is happy, there is no investments, so no progress, unless the AIs themselves identify needs to upgrade certain aspects of society (better crop yields, etc.), but again they could only be financed if humans unlocked the funds.

 

[theBishop]

i think its pretty dubious to use history as a guide when thinking about the absolutely vast changes that will occur in the next 30 years

100 years ago, the same arguments in favor of Capitalism's imminent demise applied just as much as they do today. The core antagonisms remain unresolved. Someone would've been equally justified to come along and say "you can't use history has a guide...". I think every age sees itself as on the bleeding edge, and on the verge of huge change. Reminds me of the percentage of Christians who think Jesus will return in their lifetime.

 

[JBuccCP]

Fuckin Wall-e man. I don't care though I'm going to be dead anyway. Fuck cancer.

 

[sans_pants]

100 years ago, the same arguments in favor of Capitalism's imminent demise applied just as much as they do today. The core antagonisms remain unresolved. Someone would've been equally justified to come along and say "you can't use history has a guide...". I think every age sees itself as on the bleeding edge, and on the verge of huge change. Reminds me of the percentage of Christians who think Jesus will return in their lifetime.

except we could fundamentally change everything. if everyone is immortal and we have unlimited resources and robots to do all our work, i think thats just a little bit different from everything we have experienced in the entirety of human existence

 

[Stephen Colbert]

It won't be an imperceptible change. But we will psychologically adapt and acclimatize so fast to new technology that it'll seem like a natural progression.

And I'll tell you how it'll look.

You know those robots that are featuring in youtube? The dancing ones, and the creepy face ones, etc? The ones that are been shown off as research? And you know those small dancing novelty ones?

That technology is already here. Give it another decade, and you'll get bigger faster, more articulate dancing robots at lower costs. A few years from there, some company will decide that the technology required for a highly articulate robot is actually pretty cheap. And make the parts for it. It'll have some sort of wifi unit that allows its brain to be located off the machine. It'll do more than dance. It might double as a telepresence machine.

Significantly, at the same time, developments in Watson style AI continue. In 10-15 years, there'll be available for use in the google command line. We will be able to type natural language questions into Google Watson (or whatever google decides to call their variant of it) and have it answered. We'll even be able to speak those questions into our phone and have them answered.

By natural extension, someone will offer a way of google watson to interact with the robot mannequin. You get a robot that does stuff that is also 'intelligent'.

At the same time that this stuff is happening, we continue making advancements in object recognition and learning... you know how self driving cars are self driving now? well, that's the kind of technology they're using.

When you combine watson, asimo, and the google self driving car... you're going to get a pretty fierce package of technology that seems almost alien to us now; but won't be as the antecdent parts of its technology are revealed to us piecemeal a few years before the introduction and emergence of this advanced robot.

Of course, these 'advanced' robots, will nonetheless be around for decades before they actually become viable replacements for human beings in complex jobs and tasks. They'll of course handle some tasks better than others to begin with, been more suitable.

But human beings will also for a while cost substantially less than a freakin' robot to perform the same task (at least depending on which human being).



....

But at some point down the track, everything we recognize about our modern society will have been transformed and turned on its head. We won't even be using mobile phones at some point. At least certainly not in the form to which we're accustomed.

This is a very perceptive prediction of yours. I think you are deadon. People don't realize just how close to this future we already are.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

except we could fundamentally change everything. if everyone is immortal and we have unlimited resources and robots to do all our work, i think thats just a little bit different from everything we have experienced in the entirety of human existence

Exactly. We are at a phase of our development where history is no longer a great guide. The changes are too radical for historical lessons to apply.

A century ago, no one would have predicted that we would be able to wipe out all of humanity with a couple of bombs, since the past millions of years of history, we have never been able to.

But we came close to doing precisely that during the cold war on some occasions.

Historical lessons do not really apply to technological progress.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

Ok I think I got it guys!

In the future...

Everyone will be an "investor".

People have things that they want or need, and everyone has a supply of money they can use and invest in different things. For example, invest some money in the aircrafts sector because there has been a trend for people to use aircrafts more than before. This finances the development of the sector, because others invest in it as well since it is perceived as having a strong demand. Investors make money, and with said money people can buy things. So basically everyone is investing, but all the work is done by machines/robots, and the investors make money and then use that money to do what they want.

If you lose your money, the money goes back into a pool, and it is redistributed among those who no longer have funds, or very little left.

So in a way, everyone is on some basic form of welfare, but to get more money you need to invest it. No one can outright end up in the street, everyone has the basic necessities to live, and to be rich you must partake in investing in sectors that benefit the world population's demands.

Since there would be systems that exist to evaluate future demand and analyze all such information, investors don't actually have a lot to do, but the simple fact of putting money into sectors that need it, based on society's needs, leads to the development of those sectors. In a way, most people would be making a certain level of income, it would be pretty difficult to lose a lot of money since you have the data in front of you that tells you where investments are needed.

Basically, humans, by having control of the money supply, rule the world of machines, because without that money the machines cannot perform tasks.

You know, that sounds pretty cool. I think something like that could work.

 

[ThoseDeafMutes]

The Future Is Now

 

[Zaptruder]

100 years ago, the same arguments in favor of Capitalism's imminent demise applied just as much as they do today. The core antagonisms remain unresolved. Someone would've been equally justified to come along and say "you can't use history has a guide...". I think every age sees itself as on the bleeding edge, and on the verge of huge change. Reminds me of the percentage of Christians who think Jesus will return in their lifetime.

Broken clock is correct twice a day and all that.

And also... capitalism certainly isn't some immutable unchangeable indestructable bastion of the universal truth and welfare.

Just as it was invented, it can become obsolete.

Will there be systems of 'work' and 'reward' in the post materialist future? You betcha. Will they be similar to what we see today?

On a very superficial level, I'd think so. But maybe those units of work are only as applicable as 'gold' earnt in an MMO.

 

[Stephen Colbert]

And also... capitalism certainly isn't some immutable unchangeable indestructable bastion of the universal truth and welfare.

Just as it was invented, it can become obsolete.

Exactly. Capitalism hasn't even been around that long, and many countries have abandoned capitalism due to societal pressures throughout history. There is nothing to suggest that it is a univeral truth or that it will survive anything.

When the need for labor goes away, so does the need for capitalism.

 

[Meadows]

.