Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

AsuhoChinami t1_j6hokh5 wrote

A person whose opinion I respect very much - who's frequently been on the conservative side, even - said that he expects costs of goods and services to begin their decline around 2029 thanks to AI and automation. My guess is that there will be a dramatic increase in quality of life for developed nations during the 2030s and developing nations during the 2040s.

14

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hoshi wrote

Thanks for the answer. I know it’s difficult to predict but 2030 seems to be a reasonable timeframe.

3

r0sten t1_j6htxyp wrote

Based on my travels I got a really strong intuition that we are already post-scarcity by production, but we still fail at distribution. As long as we still exist in a system where it's more profitable to pulp goods than give them away we will not ever reach it. Communism unfortunately has a number of severely undesirable failure states but I have some ideas as to how we can make capitalism better at distribution hopefully without having to murder large numbers of people because they wear glasses.

12

CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6i1rkd wrote

The US is a long way from “post scarcity”. It would means goods allocation would not be necessary anymore because all materials needs are more than fulfilled. (Atmospheric O2 is the only current thing with such characteristics I can think of…)

The notion itself is very contentious and hardly even fulfilled even in extremely optimistic science fiction.

My take is that a softer version of it could be achievable through clever manipulation of collective wants and needs through social media.

I think AI could help make aggregate mankind wants much more gentle on hard ressources like helping develop extremely addicting competitive sports or arts/activities so that almost everybody’s attention could be steered towards something more benign…

1

TheDavidMichaels t1_j6hsup4 wrote

never, banks and government will never allow it.

5

cloudrunner69 t1_j6hu6lb wrote

Banks and Government are going to be obliterated along with every other corporate institution.

4

tiny9000 OP t1_j6htpi6 wrote

I think it will benefit them if they allow it. Age of abundance will make people soft and less masculine cause they don’t have to work for anything and that’s exactly what the globalists want.

−7

Hedgehogz_Mom t1_j6hx7dj wrote

The ability to .or ereadily pursue physical goals without being exhausted might make us all stronger. It depends on mindset.

So weakness is not inherently feminine. If you disagree see if you can participate in a womans pregnancy and childbirth, and the first couple years of caring for. A baby. Different perspective.

2

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hxtcb wrote

Did women stand up to tyranny in the past? Did women fight wars? Did women work in the sewers and coal mines? I would chose caring for a baby over those any time of the day.

−2

No_Ask_994 t1_j6hn66v wrote

24 years 6 months and 5 days.

You are welcome.

4

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hnba6 wrote

My fault for expecting serious answers from reddit nerds who sit in their basement all day to type an edgy comment expecting to get likes.

−19

HeronSouki t1_j6hnpoi wrote

Your fault for asking a silly question really. How are we supposed to know something like that?

10

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hnylf wrote

I expected to have some experts in this field predict it based on the current AI advancement patterns but I forgot this is reddit. A paradise for neckbeards who got bullied their entire life and finally have a platform to speak out without repercussions.

−14

MaddMax92 t1_j6ho8dr wrote

Want some cheese to go with that whine?

5

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hoj1t wrote

No but I wanna hear your childhood story about how you got bullied as a fat redhead lgbtq feminist.

−10

MaddMax92 t1_j6horpq wrote

Get used to disappointment. Your parents have. <3

7

iNstein t1_j6howx8 wrote

So mature, people point out how stupid your question is and you move straight to ad hominin attacks.

7

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hp865 wrote

*People who are insecure, watch anime, dye their hair red, never workout, eat cheese and Doritos point out how “stupid” my question is. Lack of self awareness you people have is astounding

−4

BaronDerpsalot t1_j6hv021 wrote

Okay Team fight tactics brah with social anxiety... Looks like you prolly have shrivelscrote but you should grow a pair and stop hiding behind insults.

3

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hv4uu wrote

Hey atleast I am not a junkie and post selfies inside a toilet

−1

BaronDerpsalot t1_j6hv6gr wrote

Waaah

3

iNstein t1_j6horf1 wrote

It was a stupid question and deserved a stupid answer. Honestly what did you fucking expect?

3

jalle007 t1_j6ho9td wrote

Only idiots expect life full of abundance with Klaus Schwab as a ruler

−1

AbeWasHereAgain t1_j6hyy4e wrote

In some respects we are already there. Information and entertainment have never been more abundant.

3

CertainMiddle2382 t1_j6hr9j9 wrote

IMO, in the “beginning” , it will be hard to tell apart improvements coming from fusion power from those coming from AI…

1

ppasanen t1_j6hrrue wrote

Just got my first 3d printer, it certainly feels like the age of abundance now.

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hs884 wrote

Makes me wonder if it’s possible to make a biological printer in the far future. Creating organisms using synthetic RNA.

1

ppasanen t1_j6hssna wrote

Isn't the RNA-based covid vaccine made with something similar you describe?
And also there are printers for stem cells, with which they create new organs etc. Synthetic biology is not from far future, it has been here for a decade or so.

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6htwtb wrote

But there is levels to it. We had flip phones in the past and now we have iphone.

0

ppasanen t1_j6huqa4 wrote

Certainly, still waiting to get my hands on my first molecular printer :)

2

imlaggingsobad t1_j6ht3fp wrote

assuming no nuclear apocalypse, then yeah it's inevitable, and will happen within 50 years imo.

1

IncredibleWaddleDee t1_j6hz2sm wrote

It is contradictory to expect an age of abundance. You cannot create energy, you can only transform it. And transforming energy is costly in.... energy! We have been using fossil fuels to fuel everything we do since we discovered them, without any other energy source being a viable replacement for most of our society. Fossil fuels come from hundreds of thousands of years of natural work to condense energy into a flammable fuel. Our tools are made from elements that come from dying stars that have accumulated in mines over millions of years. Our tools of exploitation (ressources gathering), transport and transformation are mostly fueled by fossil fuels across the world. Nothing in our world is sustainable, and the proof is that we have built our economy on a hundred years of ressource wars, human slavery (outsourcing) and the same fossil fuels we first discovered.

How can you create abundance when right now we are unable to share equally the outputs of our systems? Especially since we have passed out peak in petrol, and in tight petrol. Also we have passed our peaks or we will soon pass it in a lot of critical mineral resources. Finally the whole agricultural sector now relies on the engineering of nitrate, which relies on fossil fuels again. Construction also relies on fossil fuels because petrol is a key ingredient in our infrastructure.

There are very few viable alternatives which an AI can exploit to preserve growth (especially since growth is a mathematical function and not a physical reality in economics).

Solar and wind rely on fossil fuels to build and to maintain. They also have a life span so they have to be replaced (as do any electrical infrastructure). Nuclear is more long-term in matter of output but it requires A LOT of fossil fuels to start the machine, so any new facility should start it's construction ASAP. Even then it's limited in it's usage compared to fossil fuels, which litterally power our boats and planes. Fusion is this problem exponentiated. Fusion takes humungous ammounts of power to collect the energy stored in molecules. And even then to collect enough energy to power itself and create a kind of "cascade effect" where there's some extra energy in the output is, first of all kinda dreamy since energy cannot be created and second, alien tech. Or it's technology from the far future. Idk sounds ridiculous to me to expect it to solve everything since it was the same discourse everyone said about anything after petrol and no one was right about it... Nothing replaced petrol yet. We just added over it, in a complementary-ish way...

So yeah, AI is coming (if it's not here yet). Abundance? I don't think so. The opposite even. Worldwide famines and wars.

EDIT : wording

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6i0v6n wrote

in terms of energy generation, we are not far away from achieving commercial nuclear fusion and there’s plenty of nuclear fission power plants we can build. Fossil fuels are not the end all be all

1

IncredibleWaddleDee t1_j6i5yiq wrote

How... To cause ignition in fusion facilities we need an enormous facility with tools that measure many soccer fields. In what world in the current era do you see it feasible that gathering all the materials needed + starting the process of ignition + capturing enough energy + maintenance = more energy output than energy input. Fusion relies heavily (very heavily) on fossile fuels right now. And it requires a lot of mineral resources that are in a process of rarification.

In what world is it possible to have more energy out than in? Maybe in the far far future but right now?? And even then, maybe you could create one or two functioning facilities in this century in North America or in Europe. Let's say we were to develop a functional energy-producing facility that outputs more usable (for us) energy than it inputs... How do you see the scaling of this as realistic? By then we probably would be in worldwide shortages of fossil fuels (affecting food supplies and everything related to growth) and we would be facing shortages in critical mineral resources...

Unless you tell me that we are gonna have mastery over recycling of minerals (which feels very unrealistic) we are facing a wall with this solution. Like maybe a few cities might have a power grid supported by fusion but I cannot fathom an upcoming world powered by it...

EDIT : grammar

1

LyubomirIko t1_j6hpfsi wrote

Replace "inevitable", with highly unlikely to ever happen.

0

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hpu3k wrote

Then what’s the point of AI if it’s not gonna make our life easier. Might as well stop AI advancement cause the risks are too high.

0

LyubomirIko t1_j6hsn68 wrote

It's systematic and psychological problem to begin with, hardly anything AI related.

Further, so called "Fully Automated Luxury Communism' requires change of the system to begin with, obviously. Current AI development is capitalistic, and I don't see something to be changed soon. AI will(is already) be used for control and profit, and military is among the most interested in the technology. I find it really absurd to believe in sugar coated utopia, given the state of society the system, the ecological problems and whatnot.

1

alexiuss t1_j6hx061 wrote

Current AI development isn't fully capitalistic.

Join the open source movement and help develop ais for everyone for absolutely nothing.

2

LyubomirIko t1_j6i0vg2 wrote

Just like the LAION database is nonprofit but actually literally is harmful to the real artists.

AI 5 years ago was a promise that it will replace boring jobs and give the people more time to create art. Currently young people give up their dreams to persue artistic career because of AI.

Meanwhile the replacement of the artist in the visual industry is based on that same nonprofit LAION database. Artists actually cannot help but "contribute" or simply put - be hostages of data scraping algorithms.

1

alexiuss t1_j6i40o5 wrote

The approach to absolute abundance of everything makes things cheaper. There are no careers in automated luxury communism, there is only passion to do something because you love doing it.

An artist truly passionate about drawing does not give a fuck about whether their art is converted into cash or views.

What is this negativity?

As artist, I can go outside and draw portraits on the street right now with a pencil and no AI will stop me and my hat will be filled with cash because I am making a direct person to person connection!

I can draw in Photoshop for my clients and get tons of cash because they suck at directing AI really, really bad or simply don't have time for playing with Ais.

I can combine my art skills with an AI to make amazing new things and get cash.

Fear of automation is foolish and is obviously being spread by people who aren't passionate about making art with any tools that exist without limits. I refuse to be boxed into fear mongering and imaginary suffering.

0

LyubomirIko t1_j6i53ua wrote

You sound like 14 years old. Artists don't eat air and can't pay bills with air.

To become artist can take 10 or more years, and it was never well played job anyway. In the face of competing with AI young artists are just forced to give up.

0

alexiuss t1_j6i8dia wrote

They give up because they lack passion or are bullied by people like you into a negative belief!

Look, you cannot bully me into your negative belief of "AIs are bad for artists". I've literally been drawing with oils since 1998 and no AI can stop me.

Wake up from your negative perceptions, dude! AIs are amazing tools for artists! I'm telling you this as an artist.

0

LyubomirIko t1_j6i9t8k wrote

Nobody can stop you from believing whatever you like. For instance that you are the driver of a self driving car, of that you are pizza chef by ordering pizza.

0

alexiuss t1_j6iapx7 wrote

Chess playing Ais didn't make chess game stop existing.

Career Artists will exist through human connections even if robots are better at drawing until the singularity which will obliterate every career that exists and then everyone will do what they're passionate about.

0

LyubomirIko t1_j6icj0k wrote

Because they aren't allowed to compete with real humans.

The same way machines aren't allowed to compete with athletes on the Olympic stadium. If machines are allowed to compete with real humans on the Olympic stadium and the other sport events - quickly the real athletes will be outperformed and won't be able to sustain their professional career.

There is no regulation about AI in arts however, so real humans art will only become something luxurious and less real artist will exists.

1

alexiuss t1_j6idnoi wrote

Athletes make money at stadiums by being allowed to be there.

In real life, lots of comicons have already banned AI art. It's a similar irl barrier.

Artists make the most money through human connections, AI can't take that away.

Yes, there will obviously be less of some cheap 2d artists that depend on internet showcase, but as trade there will be more AI using artists that make multimedia projects like games and movies - the barrier of entry to produce multimedia projects is way lower now.

1

LyubomirIko t1_j6ikg4e wrote

Athletes and chess players makes living by not competing with machines, because there is regulations.

Already small freelance artists are being replaced by AI and they have to quit and find other job. Even medium companies are cutting their experienced artist staff because they can make more profit by replacing them. Few visual industries was known to be exploiting artists anyway. It was already hard profession to be sustaining family from.

AI have the intention to replace human to human interaction anyway. There is a sighs that technology is altering our genetics or at least there is obvious boom of autism spectrum disorders.

Seeing in the future where your teacher will be an AI, the doctor will be an AI, your girl/boy friend will be an AI, the psychotherapist will be AI and so on - will just make matters worse.

Real artists are being overwhelmed and buried under ton or so called AI "art". AI "art" is real art the way deep fakes are real people. Just a mimicry that exploit the not mature ethics and morality of society. Plagiarism and mimicking, mostly not based on transformative content, but derivative that hurts directly the real artists on which is based. Artists have the full right to protest against immaturity of society that allows it.

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hthnv wrote

Haven’t goods and services gotten cheaper over time tho? Like in the past only the super rich would drive cars and fly on airplanes but now it’s cheaper so everyone can do it and I believe AI will turbocharge this eventually making everything so cheap that anyone can buy anything they want.

1

LyubomirIko t1_j6hwf65 wrote

Not really. Having a home 30 years ago was way cheaper than today. Having a family and kids today is far demanding, so we have demographic crisis in the development countries. Food products have gotten increasingly worse - full with additives. The stress factor living in current fast pace society is higher too. Medical care costs are getting absurdly high especially in USA.

When cars and jets were only for the super rich? You are talking about the early years of their invention. Currently they are what turns the economics of capitalism, and they for the most part aren't used for vacations as one super rich would use them. But for work. They aren't luxury, but necessary for living.

2

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hy1b2 wrote

If your logic is true then why pursue AI development in the first place? Are we risking getting obliterated by AGI in the future for nothing?

1

LyubomirIko t1_j6hzmy5 wrote

People persue AI out of curiosity, it's simple. And for profit of course. Just like Pandora myth - humanity can't help itself and stop it, nobody can really predict what is in the box.

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6i0f12 wrote

I highly doubt Microsoft is investing billions of dollars into AI just out of curiosity. Profit does’t exist in a vacuum, some kind of value needs to be provided in-order to gain profit which means there is certainly alot of value in AI. It is a pandora box tho.

1

LyubomirIko t1_j6i1h9t wrote

Microsoft specially want absolute control and to scrape every possible data out of their customers. They strive to implement AI in Windows and be ahead of the competitors. The value of power and control is the ultimate of course.

1

alexiuss t1_j6hy3ot wrote

Artists have already entered the age of abundance and many of them hate it since they have no idea how to use this abundance.

First we will enter age of machine intelligence.

For this intelligence to spill over into the world is simply the time it takes to fund and build robot factories.

0

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hymu6 wrote

Artists probably make up less than 1% of world population m. They don’t like it but everyone else does. I agree with the rest.

1

alexiuss t1_j6hzelu wrote

some artists, so it's a % of the 1% who are stuck in their current workflow and refuse to go forward. Am artist and I love the age of insane abundance of what SD AI provides. :∆

1

turnip_burrito t1_j6hphab wrote

I too like to daydream, OP.

Don't let the other posters get you down. We're all entitled to post an unanswerable and unhelpful question once in a while.

My super serious answer is 2060+.

Edit: my answer really is 2060+ btw. You need political change and enough hardware, infrastructure to drive massive material growth.

−1

AsuhoChinami t1_j6hpsee wrote

This feels like really arbitrary bullying to me. The sub is about speculation first and foremost. Many of the threads on this sub are unanswerable but they don't get dogpiled like this.

2

[deleted] t1_j6hq29p wrote

[deleted]

1

AsuhoChinami t1_j6hqeqb wrote

I was defending you, though, if that wasn't clear. I think it's weird that the thread has drawn so many negative reactions towards you.

1

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hqohp wrote

Sorry, I thought it was directed towards me. These are the same people who will make fun of a newbie on his first day in the gym for asking questions about working out but thank god these neckbeards never go to the gym.

2

tiny9000 OP t1_j6hppwl wrote

You play pokemon so your opinion doesn’t matter. It’s like a 10 year old kid hating on elon musk. He doesn’t care.

−5