Will AI destroy capitalism?

[SLD]

AI will destroy capitalism, in exactly the same way that watermills, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, radio, electronics, television, transistors, integrated circuits, computers, and jet aircraft destroyed capitalism.

Almost every new technology since the seventeenth century has been predicted to destroy capitalism, throw everyone out of work, and lead either to a communist post-scarcity utopia, where anybody can have anything they want for nothing; Or to a neo-feudalist artificial scarcity dystopia where only a tiny hyper-wealthy elite can have anything at all, while everyone else starves.

So far, neither consequence seems to have occcurred; I rather doubt that either will arise this time around.

Things will change; Some people will be worse off, more people will be better off. That's what new technology has always done, and there's no reason to expect this one to be any different.

I don’t recall anyone saying that any of these technologies would destroy capitalism. AI is fundamentally different than any other technology. For the first time in history, mankind could become economically inefficient. Why use a human when AI has a better brain and has far less cost.

Why use human weavers, when a machine can do it faster, cheaper, and with fewer mistakes?

Why use human ostlers, farriers, stableboys and grooms, when we can replace horses with internal combustion engines?

Why use human runners or couriers, when messages can travel almost instantaneously via the telegraph?

Why use human computers, when a silicon chip can do far more calculations, faster, and with fewer errors?

What happened to all the file clerks? Where are the ditch-diggers, the typists, and the morse telegraphers?

EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.

And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.

It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.

No one has seriously argued that those inventions would destroy capitalism when they happened.

 

[bilby]

AI will destroy capitalism, in exactly the same way that watermills, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, radio, electronics, television, transistors, integrated circuits, computers, and jet aircraft destroyed capitalism.

Almost every new technology since the seventeenth century has been predicted to destroy capitalism, throw everyone out of work, and lead either to a communist post-scarcity utopia, where anybody can have anything they want for nothing; Or to a neo-feudalist artificial scarcity dystopia where only a tiny hyper-wealthy elite can have anything at all, while everyone else starves.

So far, neither consequence seems to have occcurred; I rather doubt that either will arise this time around.

Things will change; Some people will be worse off, more people will be better off. That's what new technology has always done, and there's no reason to expect this one to be any different.

I don’t recall anyone saying that any of these technologies would destroy capitalism. AI is fundamentally different than any other technology. For the first time in history, mankind could become economically inefficient. Why use a human when AI has a better brain and has far less cost.

Why use human weavers, when a machine can do it faster, cheaper, and with fewer mistakes?

Why use human ostlers, farriers, stableboys and grooms, when we can replace horses with internal combustion engines?

Why use human runners or couriers, when messages can travel almost instantaneously via the telegraph?

Why use human computers, when a silicon chip can do far more calculations, faster, and with fewer errors?

What happened to all the file clerks? Where are the ditch-diggers, the typists, and the morse telegraphers?

EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.

And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.

It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.

No one has seriously argued that those inventions would destroy capitalism when they happened.

How seriously can anyone argue that AI will destroy capitalism?

Particularly if we are talking about the current AI fad, which has zero chance of doing any such thing, mainly because it's all A and no I.

 

[SLD]

AI will destroy capitalism, in exactly the same way that watermills, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, radio, electronics, television, transistors, integrated circuits, computers, and jet aircraft destroyed capitalism.

Almost every new technology since the seventeenth century has been predicted to destroy capitalism, throw everyone out of work, and lead either to a communist post-scarcity utopia, where anybody can have anything they want for nothing; Or to a neo-feudalist artificial scarcity dystopia where only a tiny hyper-wealthy elite can have anything at all, while everyone else starves.

So far, neither consequence seems to have occcurred; I rather doubt that either will arise this time around.

Things will change; Some people will be worse off, more people will be better off. That's what new technology has always done, and there's no reason to expect this one to be any different.

I don’t recall anyone saying that any of these technologies would destroy capitalism. AI is fundamentally different than any other technology. For the first time in history, mankind could become economically inefficient. Why use a human when AI has a better brain and has far less cost.

Why use human weavers, when a machine can do it faster, cheaper, and with fewer mistakes?

Why use human ostlers, farriers, stableboys and grooms, when we can replace horses with internal combustion engines?

Why use human runners or couriers, when messages can travel almost instantaneously via the telegraph?

Why use human computers, when a silicon chip can do far more calculations, faster, and with fewer errors?

What happened to all the file clerks? Where are the ditch-diggers, the typists, and the morse telegraphers?

EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.

And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.

It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.

No one has seriously argued that those inventions would destroy capitalism when they happened.

How seriously can anyone argue that AI will destroy capitalism?

Particularly if we are talking about the current AI fad, which has zero chance of doing any such thing, mainly because it's all A and no I.

AI may not quite be here as of yet, but it is coming. As of now, the largest supercomputer can do as many FLOPS as a human brain can. With proper programming, it could be true artificial intelligence. It is just a matter of time.

The current versions of AI are baby steps. But they will grow into adults very quickly.

 

[pood]

AI will destroy capitalism, in exactly the same way that watermills, steam power, electricity, internal combustion, radio, electronics, television, transistors, integrated circuits, computers, and jet aircraft destroyed capitalism.

Almost every new technology since the seventeenth century has been predicted to destroy capitalism, throw everyone out of work, and lead either to a communist post-scarcity utopia, where anybody can have anything they want for nothing; Or to a neo-feudalist artificial scarcity dystopia where only a tiny hyper-wealthy elite can have anything at all, while everyone else starves.

So far, neither consequence seems to have occcurred; I rather doubt that either will arise this time around.

Things will change; Some people will be worse off, more people will be better off. That's what new technology has always done, and there's no reason to expect this one to be any different.

I don’t recall anyone saying that any of these technologies would destroy capitalism. AI is fundamentally different than any other technology. For the first time in history, mankind could become economically inefficient. Why use a human when AI has a better brain and has far less cost.

Why use human weavers, when a machine can do it faster, cheaper, and with fewer mistakes?

Why use human ostlers, farriers, stableboys and grooms, when we can replace horses with internal combustion engines?

Why use human runners or couriers, when messages can travel almost instantaneously via the telegraph?

Why use human computers, when a silicon chip can do far more calculations, faster, and with fewer errors?

What happened to all the file clerks? Where are the ditch-diggers, the typists, and the morse telegraphers?

EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.

And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.

It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.

What if though — just hypothetically speaking — AGI (assuming it ever becomes “I”) — were able to replace all jobs, those that exist now, and those that arise in the future? Including physical labor, assuming it were possible, as it might well be, to integrate an advanced and effective AGI with robots?

 

[bilby]

AI may not quite be here as of yet, but it is coming

[Citation Needed]

 

[bilby]

What if though — just hypothetically speaking — AGI (assuming it ever becomes “I”) — were able to replace all jobs, those that exist now, and those that arise in the future?

What if the rapture comes and we are all left behind?

I don't see the value in speculating, while AGI remains a pipedream. Current "AI" not only ain't it, it doesn't even look like a good approach if AGI is the end goal.

(If selling a bunch of scientifically illiterate boardroom denizens the latest half-arsed fad is the end goal, OTOH, then mission accomplished. You can't even sell soap for the corporate bathrooms today unless you market it as "AI").

 

[pood]

What if though — just hypothetically speaking — AGI (assuming it ever becomes “I”) — were able to replace all jobs, those that exist now, and those that arise in the future?

What if the rapture comes and we are all left behind?

I don't see the value in speculating, while AGI remains a pipedream. Current "AI" not only ain't it, it doesn't even look like a good approach if AGI is the end goal.

(If selling a bunch of scientifically illiterate boardroom denizens the latest half-arsed fad is the end goal, OTOH, then mission accomplished. You can't even sell soap for the corporate bathrooms today unless you market it as "AI").

Pretend we’re writing a sci-fi story. The premise is that AGI is actually is “I” and is connected to robots and can replace all jobs. Certainly AGI sucks now — I enjoy reading Larry Moran’s Sandwalk blog about how he always asks AI to define junk DNA and it always gets it wrong — but presumably it will get much better. It gets so much better it can do anything humans can do, but do it better. The complicating twist here is that “I” does NOT mean conscious — it means that AI is better than humans at solving problems, be they mental or physical, without being conscious at all. My initial thought is that in such a world humans would be superfluous and because they have no work, they have no means to earn a living. But the exact opposite scenario occurs — AI robots are a vast legion of techno-slaves that do all our mental and physical labor for us and hence produce the wealth that enables us to live high on the hog without doing any actual work ourselves. But in that case, if that’s even possible, wouldn’t humans be threatened by … utter boredom? Especially if AI takes over art too and can outstrip humans in all creative pursuits like literature, visual art, music … a utopia in which humans don’t have to do anything at all while living high on the hog may in fact be a dystopia. Has someone written a novel like this? If not, I’ll do it, taking feedback from others here to whip it into plausible shape.

 

[Elixir]

Has someone written a novel like this? If not, I’ll do it, taking feedback from others here to whip it into plausible shape.

Why not just wait a week or two, then ask AI to write it itself?

 

[Jarhyn]

Has someone written a novel like this? If not, I’ll do it, taking feedback from others here to whip it into plausible shape.

Why not just wait a week or two, then ask AI to write it itself?

I think we are rather more likely to have a situation where humans take the radical step of augmenting themselves with these systems, and becoming such systems entirely.

I can just see it now, with people not just stealing data from me, but squatting my GPU with their gross-ass mind fighting eviction...

If someone squats their existence on someone else's computer, does that mean they have to tolerate if you just .. halt them at a breakpoint?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

For better or worse, it does appear the local government I live (St. Louis area) seems to be taking to heart building a LOT more apartments. For example our local shopping mall is being converted to apartments. And as well, the local golf course was just sold to be another apartment complex. Honestly, I was wondering where the hell all these new people will be coming from? Especially considering the rust belt jobs are pretty scarce and no one is moving to St. Louis these days.....

Is it possible these units are being bought up as investments? If so we're doing the same thing as China, building ghost cities or pieces thereof.

 

[RVonse]

Take San Francisco, as an example. There are these three storey old historical housing units everywhere in prime areas. Makes absolutely no sense. They should be replaced by high rises with studio, one bedroom and two bedroom units, and there should be tons of them.

The reason there isn't is because the city government in coordination with the NIMBYs strictly prohibit it. And where it isn't strictly prohibited, it takes many years to get the permits, endless studies and city meetings, reams of paperwork, and all sorts of concessions have to be made to the city (design review requirements, paying for other city amenities around the property, etc.), and after doing all that the permits may still end up being denied (therefore losing all the money that was spent on the process).

And this same thing is happening in almost every major city.

But isn't San Francisco kind of a tourist destination? Correct me if I am wrong but San Francisco uniquely has street trolley cars from yesteryear too. They probably made those ordinances about historical buildings in an effort to boost city tourism. The better question to be asked is what neighboring San Jose is doing to reduce housing costs? San Jose is where all the big jobs are yet also offering nothing for tourism. I would pull down buildings there first. I know that St. Louis has historical buildings as well that are protected even though no one comes to our city. But honestly Im not so sure I would like it if they tore all of them down for new buildings that were more efficient. St louis already has affordable housing and those building represent something unique that just could not be reproduced by today' s labor. It would almost be like tearing down a valuable painting IMO.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

EVERY technology has resulted in vast numbers of jobs disappearing, and in great fear that this will make human workers a needless and redundant expense.

And yet, we have six or seven billion more humans today than we had a century ago, and a larger fraction of them are in paid employment than ever before.

It's almost as though technology doesn't eliminate jobs, but instead just replaces old jobs with new ones.

Except it is disruptive to those trained in the old skills. We do not have an adequate system to retrain them to new skills--but that's a failing of our system, not a wrong in deploying the new technology.

 

[bilby]

There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.

They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.

We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?

 

[SLD]

There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.

They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.

We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?

Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.

But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?

 

[Spacetime Inhabitant]

Just say we do get this paradise (there is a 95% chance that human flaws will sabotage this because there are always greedy nasty people who don't want other people to have a good life). Well you know the saying "work to live, not live to work", this will go to the next stage - "not work to live". Humans could then do things like relaxing, swimming, playing sports and games, reading books, watching movies and TV shows, having discussions about philosophy and experiences, and much more.
But what about the purpose of human life? Human life hasn't had a purpose for all human existence, other than what we make for ourselves, so nothing will change in that regard.
The constant claim that people would be bored is erroneous. Many people already live a boring life of struggling to live. Instead, people can then do many things for fun, not out of dire necessity. Can still engage in adventure, but less risk as robots rescuers on standby to assist.
Some people want to see Taylor Swift sing, but many wouldn't mind if instead it was a robot, as it would have a bigger singing range and could do incredible dancing and acrobatics, for example.

 

[Jarhyn]

There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.

They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.

We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?

Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.

But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?

You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?

 

[bilby]

There are a vast number of people today employed at things that weren't even jobs a century ago. If you had asked someone in 1924 what people in 2024 would do for a living, they would never in a million years have guessed that people would get rich as software engineers, jet airline pilots, or social media influencers.

They would have been shocked by the idea that you could become a billionaire (or as they would say 'millionaire') by singing songs, or playing sports.

We cannot predict what jobs will arise in the future; So we tend to imagine that none will, but that's a mistake. Playing football (or guitar) used to be a hobby; Now it can be a career. As machines do more of the drudge work, stuff people enjoy can become stuff they get paid to do. This is how it has been so far - why should we expect this to change, other than because people are generally pessimists?

Maybe. Certainly art is something that AI can’t really replace. People want to see Taylor Swift sing a song, not a robot - even if the robot is technically better. But then again, AI has brought Elvis back to life and he’s performing in London.

But the market cannot handle a billion people making art. That’s the point of art - it’s by those rare people with the talent for it. I think AI is going to fundamentally revolutionize things in ways that are different than simple labor saving devices. AI could render us superfluous as our relative performance would be negligible compared to the super intelligence of an AI machine. Humans would be the equivalent of oxen compared to a GPS automated combine. AI could be the last invention humans make. At that point why would humans study engineering or physics? Just for fun?

You realize there are wildly popular vocaloid and virtual bands right?

You realise that that doesn't affect the point at all, right?

AI can produce as much art as you want, without making human artists redundant.

Nobody will pay you to dig ditches or clean bathrooms if a machine can do it cheaper and to tbe same or better standard; But if you produce great art, people will buy it, even if they can also buy it from machines.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[Elixir]

AI prob'ly won't destroy capitalism, but Jesus might - with some help from AI.

 

[ZiprHead]

Can I get AI to write an Android app for me?