In diesem Beitrag wird gefragt, ob eine Zukunft des „universellen hohen Einkommens“ und einer anhaltenden Häufigkeit bei der Entwicklung der KI machbar ist. Entschuldigung im Voraus für meinen klappernden plätschernden Verstand –
Kann jeder reich sein?
Ich meine, dies basiert auf einem kürzlich durchgeführten Tweet und Retweet – Robotics verwandt -. Der Artikelunter Verwendung von Begriffen wie UHI oder u Konversation mit Elon Musk hervorhebenNiversal hohe Einkommenund diese Idee der „nachhaltigen Fülle“, die er erwähnt.
„Jeder wird die beste medizinische Versorgung, Lebensmittel, Zuhause, Transport und alles andere haben.“
~ Elon Moschus
Whoa. Klingt ziemlich gut. Fast zu gut. Ein universelles hohes Einkommen, bei dem wir alle sind, ist reich, echte Utopie. Es ist interessant. Es könnte auch mit dieser Idee von zusammenhängen „Sie werden nichts besitzen und glücklich sein“.
Ein guter Ort für ein schlechtes B! T $
Sie sind alle unangenehm; diese Ideen. Utopie wird immer an Sie als diese perfekte Welt verkauft wie „Der gute Ort“ Wenn Sie so wollen, und es ist nie so, oder?. Etwas daran wird immer unangenehm sein. Aber unsere Hauptfrage bleibt bestehen – ist es überhaupt möglich? Ist es machbar? Können wir alle reich sein? Oder ist es eine Art Priorität, wenn alles, was Sie festlegen, eine Priorität hat, nichts Priorität hat. Wenn also alle reich sind, dann ist niemand wirklich reich, muss Armut nicht existieren, damit jemand reich ist? Kann sie ohne Tiefst hoch sein? Ein Up Up Ohne Down? Gilt das nicht für Wohlstand?
Anhaltende Fülle = Himmel
Wir dachten immer, diese nachhaltige Fülle sei eine Idee des Himmels, eines Ortes, der Ihnen von Gott, Gottes Wesen, einer alles mächtige Entität belohnt wird. Und Gott kann einen guten Ort sorgen, einem Ort, an dem eine Form einer nachhaltigen Fülle existiert. Aber es braucht ein allmächtiges Wesen, damit dies sinnvoll ist – einige unergründliche, kraftvoll funktionierende Wunder, die wir nicht ganz verstehen -, damit dies bei Design und Implementierung möglich ist.
Asi uns Gott
Aber dann Menschen, die für KI und die letztendliche Entwicklung von AI in irgendeine Form von ASI streiten, Sie sprechen über gottähnliche Entität. Wenn es sich um eine gottähnliche Entität handelt, warum kann es dann keine Idee des Himmels hervorbringen, eine Idee der nachhaltigen Fülle für alle, wo jeder reich ist?
Um zu verdeutlichen, möchte ich nicht in ein Kaninchenloch einsteigen, das allzu häufig besprochen wird – wie hoch sind die Chancen, dass Agi uns vernichtet, und die Chancen, dass diese Sache eine Kraft für das Guten ist. Es gibt genug Foren und Diskussionen darüber. Ich frage mich nur, macht es überhaupt Sinn? Ist es überhaupt möglich, diese Kraft für einen guten Übergang in eine Welt des Himmels zu haben, von allen, die reich sind? Macht das Sinn? Ich wollte deine Gedanken dazu.
Sustained Abundance – Can We All Be Rich?
byu/Reasonable_Spot608 inFuturology
15 Kommentare
No. Wealth is relative. If you can afford a trip to the Moon but all your friends are going to Mars for a holiday and you can’t afford to join them, then you’re poor. Even though you can afford something that only a billionaire could afford today.
I can’t take posts seriously when they buy info AGI as a sort of God. It’s not based in reality and honestly kind of offensive.
No. All economic activities cause externalities which can no longer be absorbed by the biosphere. We are talking extinction level risk if the biosphere collapses, and it is not looking good. 7 of 9 planetary boundaries have been breached and there are virtually no plans in place to reverse course on any front.
No. There is no abundance. Everything is going to burn down to the ground. Or vanish in floods.
So long as scarce resources exist, there will be arguments on how best to distribute them. Right now our solution is money. The more money you have, the more of the scarce resources you can have access to.
In first world nations some resources are so common as to be cheap and available to virtually everybody. You could say that we are all equally „rich“ when it comes to things like rice, sugar, and salt. These commodities are cheap and plentiful nearly everywhere.
So what we really have isn’t a „wealth“ problem, it’s a „scarcity“ problem. It’s easy to get distracted by the concept of money because it’s so central to our daily lives. We wish we could have more money to solve our problems.
But you can’t just give everybody tons of money and thereby solve all their problems. You can’t make everybody rich because money is a construct. It’s how we solved the „scarcity“ problem. If you hand out free money to everybody you still haven’t eliminated scarcity.
We’ll just need to find a new system by which to allocate scarce resources.
Science fiction loves the idea of a „post scarcity society.“ Think the replicators in Star Trek, literally able to create any substance on demand.
If you want the effects of „everybody being rich“ what you’re really talking about is a post scarcity society. Money would become meaningless if there were no scarce resources to spend it on. The problem money solves would have been solved another way.
By historical human standards the average Westerner is incredibly wealthy, comparable to a member of the upper nobility in terms of access to goods and services from as little as a few centuries ago.
„Rich“ is relative, and changes with cultural standards.
It’s becoming increasingly clear that no matter what the objective level of wealth the average individual attains, if someone else has substantially more they won’t feel like they’re doing well.
I think the more important question is „*should* we all be rich?“
Being comfortable, having what you actually need, including safety, privacy, leisure time, and health is wonderful. There’s a point at which a person gets *too* rich, and starts missing out on the things that matter, or depleting too many resources.
We don’t need everyone polluting the world with constant air travel, powerboats, and huge cars. Not everyone needs a ten acre estate. Leave some room on the planet for the other millions of species, we need them all.
The best future I can envision is one where no one is ever wanting for the basics I listed above, but no one is „rich.“ The things that make people fulfilled and happy are having friends and family you can count on, a community where you feel you belong, and time to enjoy life.
Yes.
Here’s the model I use:
I look at an example company that I think I understand what it does. Take Coca Cola. To summarize, I think with AGI, you would *still* need approximately 1-3% of the workforce of Coca Cola. The worker categories are things that AGI can **never** replace. Jobs like:
(1) simply holding the human intent in your head/reviewing it/talking to shareholders. Small core executive team.
(2) Jobs that audit the AIs with random inspections in person
(3) jobs that configure the AIs and update it over time (similar to IT with a few people actual AI experts)
(4) security kind of roles where armed robots may not be allowed, onsite presence is needed
So if this pattern applies elsewhere, where some jobs (warehouses) likely need an even smaller percentage of human workers, while others (hospitals) need a larger percentage, the **economy** can grow approximately 100 times.
If we assume capital owners and executives (now trillionaires) take 90% of the gains, that allows enough leftover scraps to 10x everyone else’s pay. Median US pay becomes 600k, welfare is around 100k to do nothing, some people earn several million a year, and owning stock pays very very well.
Well in the West we are rich. We live in a world of abundance and unpresidented living standard.
And that is growing evey year globally. So yes.
At the current population, probably not.
Financially, let’s look at the stock market in America. How much money is actually floating out there?
If you put money into the S&P 500, you can take out about 4% a year, for more years than you’ll be alive, and usually both not run outta money… but also keep up with inflation.
If America could live on just 4% of the price of the stock market, then… yeah, you do have a signal that we could just live in utter abundance.
The narrative here is „the billionaires are taking all of it“, which they potentially are… but what they’re taking *still* isn’t nearly enough for everyone.
The market cap of the S&P 500 is around 50 trillion dollars. There’s about 340 million Americans, which means the stock market has about $145k per American.
So the entire ‚profit‘ of the stock market, as looked at by the 4% model, is… a bit under $6k per American. It’d be a $3/hour job.
I’d also point out that Musk is an absolutely self-serving bullshit machine who’s absolutely fine hurting other people and breaking whatever rules he can to sustain his riches, and that he’s just shy of being 1% of the S&P 500, by himself.
This is a great read on the subject by the late Marshall Brain.
[Manna – Two Views of Humanity’s Future.](https://marshallbrain.com/manna1)
We will never have a utopia because we are already in a utopia. There are people in the world who don’t have electricity or running water and do hard labor to survive, and that used to be everyones lives at one point. We have so many benefits and advancements as a civilization, but we dont recognize those as great achievements because we are so used to them being there.
No matter how good things get, humanity will always turn its attention to how things could be better, because thats just the way our minds work, thats the joy and the burden of imagination.
Rich is a relative term — we can’t all be rich for the same reason why we can’t all finish first place in a race.
However, we can all have enough to live on and enough to spare.
I think sustained abundance is absolutely possible but unlikely. Why? Because humans, not all but at least many of us, don’t want a lot but want more then others. So yeah. Don’t think it will ever happen.
There are enough resources to power everyone’s cooling on earth.
There are enough resources to recycle water evaporatively and provide water for every human on earth. We can solve the human waste problem similarly with proper distribution of resources.
We already make enough food to feed everyone on earth, just in the wrong places, so distributing the resources correctly and efficiently would end world hunger.
We have enough bandwidth to provide internet access to everyone on earth.
We have enough storage and interested parties to create education content for everyone on earth.
We have everything people need, we live in the age of abundance.
Rare earth materials are present in abundance in multiple NEA’s and humanity could collectively have more platinum class metals than they’ve ever had access to with a global effort.
This abundance is not widely distributed because our system is not designed to provide for all, but to distribute to those with the most food tokens.