This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Why do we need UBI? If AI ends up being as cheap, efficient, and transformative as people want to claim, it should drive down the price of all goods to near 0.
I think what's more likely to happen is AI compute is going to be an effective currency replacement. Rather than using fiat dollars, it will be based off of the amount of AI runtime it takes to complete a task for the given runtime/ energy calculations of any given workload. Assuming AI can replace all jobs and produce a quality of life better than any human machination can contrive, then the human inputs for the production of goods and services should be 0.
The value of goods is not based solely on labor -- that's Marxism. The value of goods is based on scarcity, which cannot be alleviated by AI (even with advanced robotic labor) for two reasons:
We live in a physical universe with physical limitations, on a single molten rock with limited, albeit abundant, natural resources. The price of the phone in your pocket is based in part on the physical materials used to assemble it, and any use of those has an opportunity cost. The glass in your iPhone can't be used in someone else's Android. So both the raw materials and the assembled goods have an inherent value because they are scarce and alienable.
Human consumption has a huge status component. Even if AI-powered robotics could produce any and all goods, human labor and artistry will still remain valuable, perhaps even moreso, because of its scarcity. Inevitably there will be profit to be made in appealing to conspicuous consumption, and so profit there will be.
More options
Context Copy link
The income of most humans in such a scenario would also be nearly zero. Cognitive and physical labor would be entirely devalued.*
I'd expect anyone with even a modest amount invested would see it soar, and even savings would elevated in terms of purchasing power.
The question is whether this will be enough.
*Even the absolute minimal human existence requires about a hundred watts of power and raw biological feedstock. You can't lower your wages lower than this without dying, and every dollar that could be spent on food and shelter would be much better spent elsewhere. A comfortable existence would be significantly more expensive. I think in a worst-case scenario, humans would be killed outright, slightly less worse but awful would be us being outcompeted and left to die by an uncaring ASI, in less bad scenarios marginalized and unable to meaningfully engage in agency.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link