I know what you mean. Hopefully the advancement of ai and robots will lead to a fundamental change in the economy where all the money isn't sucked up by those who own capital or the means of production.

As ai and robotics can produce more goods at cheaper costs, the prices of said goods should come down dramatically over time. For example, if robots or ai can design and build homes (maybe 3d print homes?) in mass quantities, the cost of home should drop with supply and demand. Same with other products like food and etc.

One other main problem is the government. Too many old politicians that are not willing to change with the times. However, as they die out and the next generation steps into office, things will change for the better.

The reason government take no action because unemployment was never more than 50%. More like 5%. I think this is obvious, not?? Oh you think governments can ignore 50% unemployment??

Difference is this time the new means of production will also have an opinion hat to throw into the ring.

u betta get a gun boy!

I think the people who have the most to fear from AI right now are actually the people at the top - you are right that AI advancement will inevitably lead to societal upheaval, uncertainty and a paradigm shift, but the person with the most to lose isn’t Average Joe whose office job is automated, it’s the elite whose claim to power might come crashing down when AI levels the playing field across the board. At the moment almost all capitalist power structures are based on the idea that while I might resent the wealthy elite, I’m dependent on them for my livelihood. They control my income, which means they control me. Their only choice is to either keep Average Joe happy or to face their own French Revolution.

Beyond that, It’s my hope that in a world where AI is so smart that it can reliably replace a majority of all jobs, it’s also going to be smart enough to quickly come up with policies to keep the world from plunging into anarchy. Any AI that can outthink a human will realize that oppression, starvation and violence can always be avoided. A worst case scenario might be a Brave New World type scenario, where we are “domesticated” by an AI that understands our psychology better than we do and keeps us happy while unnecessarily keeping its elite masters in power.

It’s an interesting prospect; at this point we’re looking at a future that is pretty much impossible to predict; while I have my own ideas of what might happen - anything is possible.

For the record, I agree with you but:

>Expert consensus is that it will not in fact change for the better.

Which experts, in what fields, and how were they polled? Can you link something for this? A poll/survey on economists, economic historians, political scientists, political historians, would be solid evidence in your favor.

>There's tons of evidence of companies gearing up literal humanoid robots to replace laborers

Which companies are you talking about here? Are there any recent examples you were thinking of? An economic study or survey on companies or certain industries would be good.

>but not a single country is even talking about labor reform or support for the soon to be billions of unemployed.

This feels really subjective. Andrew Yang has talked about these issues. Bernie Sanders has. Yet, they don't hold much political sway. Does that mean they don't count in "even talking about labor reform" despite being part of a country's government? What counts as a country "talking" about these issues?

I'm willing to bet there's countless examples of individual politicians, specific government organizations, or other such things that showcase some awareness or preparedness. But I agree that it doesn't seem to be a mainstream discussion in the general and political public.

This is an apples to oranges comparison. Because while productivity gains of the past made workers more efficient, AI gains occurring now will allow synthetic workers, physical and virtual, possessed of every asset that makes a human a valuable economic unit but with some many orders of magnitude fewer costs.

Totally agree.

Their argument is similar to the arguments for UBI (universal basic income), in that people freed from having to work all the time will still utilize their time to be creative and productive.

I will say though, in UBI you have some income coming to everyone so they can maintain a standard of living. In this scenario, people displaced by A.I. are going to be scrambling for jobs and figuring out their careers.

Additionally, if companies just downsize and then beef up their smaller staff with A.I. tools, we are not in a good situation for most people.

For both ideas, a big oversight is the: "How do we get there without a lot of growing pain along the way".

My biggest concern with OpenAI is what I perceive to be a lot of guessing and assumptions on their part in regards to the impact of safety and scalability for their products. They have a very, "we'll deal with it when we cross that bridge", tone. With something so dangerous, a better mid-term and long-term plan for implementation is pretty important I feel.

>the soon to be billions of unemployed.

You know this is real life and not fantasy, correct? This is not going to happen soon.

It's not impossible for it to change for the better.

Well the experts in general are wrong.

Just like one of the few who even predicted this was Kurzweil. Bostrom, Gates, Musk, or many of those with their tiny pictures in the field don't grasp the larger picture. They come to unwise conclusions or understanding often based on emotion.

The data pointing otherwise was published in 2004. The singularity is near, and earlier in 2001 with the law of Accelerating Returns https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns

The book is massive and a huge amount of it is data and graph plotting of that data. Kurzweil's theory of how things will go actually matches your first point. We will achieve higher levels of productivity through use of external AI and eventually (likely with BCI's) we will move closer to a synthesis as beings of human/AI intelligence and capabilities. Our productivity in 10 years may be millions of times more productive per person than today for those who do not opt to be left behind like the Amish.

Kurzweil discusses this in his book from a few years ago "How to create a mind."

To take this further with my own theories (my college education and life's study is economics and I've written about the next industrial revolution for years now) Employment will adapt to these productivity levels, the owners will be trillionaires or quadrillionaires, and so long as social status remains tied to wealth, inequality will widen its chasm.

There will be some structural unemployment, there may be a change in tax codes or sentient rights to address AI use, but the world will keep spinning and ultimately those who use AI as an excuse to stop preparing for the future will be left behind in the wake of the singularity.

Ironically I think that these events will practically result in people spending more time at work for several reasons. 1. Longevity escape velocity is predicted to happen 2029-2033 2. Historical evidence, as you pointed out, shows increased productivity doesn't have statistical significance on reducing hours worked. 3. The greater deterministic control of the owners and concentrated wealth results in greater influence over the rest of us.

It's in the wealthy's interest for the rest of us to be productive and busy. Aside from this increasing their quality of life, idle hands might cause mischief. Curing aging along with AGI means there will be little, if any, pressure to increase the human population, and I suspect Post-Humans will derive meaning from their production. In the 2030s I think we will see 68-80 hour average work weeks (not through mandate or force either, but because that's what people will be inclined towards).

The hard question is what happens with each single human+AI becomes 10 billion times as intelligent as the average person today (2035-2040), the exponential gains become increasingly hard to predict from today as we move closer to the technological singularity.

This is not true.

According to Our World in Data, the average American worked 62 hours per week in 1870. By the year 2000, this had declined to 40.25 hours per week; a decrease of over 35%. As of July 2019, the average American employee on US private nonfarm payrolls worked 34.4 hours per week according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

were working a less than we used to 40 years ago... and making a lot more money