Jobs are an invention of humanity. About 50% of people dislike their job. People spend much of their lives working. Poverty and inequality are a choice made by society if society chooses poorly.
On the plus side, if there really is no value to labour, then farm work must have been fully automated along with all the other roles.
On the down side, rich elites have historically had a very hard time truly empathising with normal people and understanding their needs even when they care to attempt it, so it is very possible that a lot of people will starve in such a scenario despite the potential abundance of food.
All roads lead to equality when the value of labour becomes 0 due to 100% automation.
No reason, except their (the rich or the AI) own personal desire to do so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folly
> They're absolutely useless alive from an economics perspective, and so would probably be better served ground up into fertilizer or some other actually useful form.
Indeed. "The AI does not hate you, nor does it love you, but you are made out of atoms which it can use for something else."
But while some may care about disassembling this world and all non-rich-human life on it to make a Dyson swarm of data centres, there's also the possibility each will compete for how many billions of sycophants they can get stoking their respective egos.
Over history, lots of underclasses have been stuck that way for multiple generations, even without the assistance of a robot workforce that can replace them economically.
Some future rich class so empowered would be quite capable of treating the poor like most today treat pets. Fed and housed, but mostly neutered and the rest going through multiple generations of selective inbreeding for traits the owners deem interesting.
On the first, non-human pets rebelling is seen every time an abused animal bites their owner.
On the second, the hypothetical required by the scenario is that AI makes all human labour redundant: that includes all security forces, but it also means the AI moving around the security bots and observing through sensors is at least as competent as every human political campaign strategist, every human propagandist, every human general, every human negotiator, and every human surveillance worker.
This is because if some AI isn't all those things and more, humans can still get employed to work those jobs.
The question is, to what extent would humans still set goals and priorities, and how.
From what I hear about the US and UK governments, even the elected representatives of these governments don't really set goals and priorities, so the answer is surely "humans don't".
Hopefully AI would help us better achieve our goals, but they still need to be our goals. I’m just not sure what that means. I don’t think anybody does.
That’s a major problem here, if we can’t reliably articulate our goals in unambiguous terms, how in earth can we expect AI to help us achieve them? The chances that whatever they end up achieving will match what we will actually like after the fact seems near zero.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow's_hierarchy_of_needs
This is the "draw the rest of the owl"* of the alignment problem.
Or possibly the rest-of-owl of AI in general: Consider that there's still no level-5 self driving cars, despite road traffic law existing and the developers knowing about it since before they started trying.
All those "jobs" you describe - and many more - would cease to be a thing, as their purported basis for existence would be no more. Any role that doesn't concretely contribute to our survival and advancement is just "busy work". People could theoretically continue to maintain some simulation of something that keeps them as a retirement, but it'd be meaningless.
Dogs in particular are pack animals, self-organisation amongst them wouldn't be at our level but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
> All those "jobs" you describe - and many more - would cease to be a thing, as their purported basis for existence would be no more. Any role that doesn't concretely contribute to our survival and advancement is just "busy work". People could theoretically continue to maintain some simulation of something that keeps them as a retirement, but it'd be meaningless.
Yes?
I think you've missed the point, though.
When your opponent has all those skills to that level and doesn't sleep and simply applies all the surveillance tech that has already been invented like laser microphones and wall-penetrating radar that can monitor your pulse and breathing, how would you manage to rebel?
How would you find a like mind to organise with, when your opponent knows what you said marginally before the slow biological auditory cortex of the person you're talking to passes the words to their consciousness? Silicon is already that fast at this task.
And that's assuming you even want to. Propaganda and standard cult tactics observably prevent most rebellions from starting. LLMs are already weirdly effective at persuading a lot of people to act against their own interests.
Or a handful of the poor become the new rich, which is usually what happens in that scenario.
For the latter point, consider that no matter how much the people of North Sentinel Island hate outsiders, they're not going to pose any risk to the rest of us.
Now, an elite whose membership includes those who want equality for the rest of us, that may create conditions for such a rebellion to succeed, but absent such from an insider (which could be encoded into the AI via either a bug or deliberately from whoever created the AI), some elite whose defence is handled by the kind of AI under consideration would not face any more of a threat from the wider population than we here in the west today face from the North Sentinel Islanders.
Note however that I'm not saying what will happen, but what is possible in various conditions. There's no guarantee of anything at this point.
So, if we increase automation and the ownership structures stay the same, this inequality will get worse, not better.
The cost will exponentially increase over time and the systen will eventually collapse.
You also won't be able to keep your 'quality of life', unless government housing and rationing is your quality.
I feel like the foolishness of communism isn't taught enough in schools and every generation has to dress it up with new technology.
From what I'm seeing in the numbers, the big problem of the coming century is population collapse. Maybe I'm just too much of a believer in the intermediate value theorem, but I'm sure there has to be a way to arrive at a society with a sustainable usage of resources.
having your needs met without needing to do anything leads to disaster for mental health
Is it really worse even if "whatever it means" is living in a post-scarcity society where everyone can shareel in the fruits of the AI's labor?
I'm not saying that's where this are necessarily going. But I am saying that that's what we should be aiming for, rather than trying to preserve the status quo.
The "problem" with many modern jobs is that they're divorced from the fundamental goal, which is one of: 1) Kill/acquire food, 2) Build shelter, or 3) Kill enemies/competitors/predators
The benefit of modern jobs is that they are much more peaceful ways for society to operate, freeing up time for humans to pursue art and other forms of expression.
What he got wrong was that this alienation results from capitalism.
It actually results from civilization. The people who built the pyramids across every continent, for example, performed assembly line-like work. Any large-scale project requires it. And large-scale projects are fundamentally necessary for most societies.
Capitalism was invented in the late 1700s.
I don't think Marx said that worker alienation was specific to capitalism, rather, his work was in describing the economic system of his time, and what that would entail for people living in it.
> It actually results from civilization.
I disagree, I can't think of anyone in Medieval Europe as alienated from their work as a modern sweatshop worker. Not that serfs had it better, but you get me.
Serfs were essentially slaves who had effectively 0 ownership over their output, so I'd strongly disagree with that sentiment.
I think the best argument for a time when there was almost 0 alienation of labor was when we were all hunter gatherers. Where every activity was closely connected to something necessary for survival.
As soon as we built larger societies, greater division of labor became necessary to efficiently support the society. And thus alienation of labor became much more pronounced.
If AI and robots are able to do all the jobs, being idle isn't the negative it has always been.
All through history, you needed lots of non-idle people to do all the work that needed to be done. This is a new situation we are coming upon.
Please note I’ve never had this problem before, until recently.