'In an early description of its corporate structure, OpenAI warned its investors that “it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world.” It was a line that always felt like it went too far—the usual AI hocus-pocus, the sort of utopian myth-making that venture capitalists love, and that AI companies love to sell.'
Gold. I feel like the folks at OpenAI in particular - and especially Altman - are riding the far edge of the hubris wave.
Maybe they should ask ChatGPT to teach them about economics. There will never be such a thing as a world without money, because people want access to things that we cannot all have (specifically things that other people have). If we were transported into a world without money, the very first thing that we would invent is money. The only question is *who* will have the money? How will this thing work? *How will it be fair?* "Everyone is equal" (i.e. communism) is not a fair system, *because not everyone puts in the same amount of effort* (plus it leads to corruption as the only other alternative).
I like the golf course example because it is simple to understand:
- Golf courses are large (they take up a lot of physical space), therefore we cannot build them everywhere.
- Playing golf takes time. There is no such thing as a 30-minute game of golf (unless you play like 2 holes, but wth). Therefore, traffic/access is limited. If golf was a free highway, it would always be congested (which is something that can actually happen on golf courses and largely ruins the game, like only being able to eat one bite of food every 5 minutes would ruin a meal -- thus access is limited).
- Many people want to play golf, but this conflicts with the limited access to golf courses. Therefore demand will always be greater that the offer.
- Therefore, golf is expensive. And it will always be expensive. And for some people it is also a status thing.
In a UBI world, who would get to play golf exactly? Maybe we all get allotted one yearly game / course reservation? Maybe we save up for months for our chance to play? Maybe we let everyone stampede the courses? Sounds like a terrible idea TBH.
And what about tourist destinations? Many of them are overrun already. Should we just open the floodgates?
Economics is about managing people's ownership/access to things & places. It is part of the democratic process. We can't just get rid of it, or we'll all be waiting in line for everything. Just ask the communitsts (the honest ones).
If everyone is rich, then no one is (because wealth is relative). Just look at the price of things in resource-rich areas (e.g. a gold rush): everyone is richer, and everything is more expensive, so it's all the same in the end (unless they leave that area, where they then become *comparatively/relatively* richer than others). In areas with high income, the cost of living simply goes up to match that income (unless there is rampant inequality where only a few people have a high income). The average American today is richer than the kings of old (who didn't even have electricity), and yet they don't feel rich because there are so many people so much richer than they are.
Do we want to build a world where the country that leads in AI dominates all others forever? A country to whom the rest of the world is subservient? A country of people that don't need to work, but who somehow consider themselves better than others merely for the great accomplishment of being born there? But sharing AI with the world would be like giving away our wealth/advantage.
This is a difficult problem. It is far from being as simple as they make it sound. And you can't just reinvent the rules overnight, or you risk turning the whole thing upside-down (and it might be very difficult to build back again).
So far, we have come up with a decent system (albeit imperfect): you get what you put in (time, effort, etc.), and this is actually fair (but corruption and other factors introduce unfairness on one end, and charity offsets that on the other end -- but obviously the scales are tipped towards wealth & power). It is not a perfect system since it does trap some people in their socioeconomic status, but at least it allows others to climb. What are they suggesting we replace that with? A communist utopia? Something where we're all trapped together?
Humans are supposed to be the apex of this world (just the way God created it), and we are supposed to regulate each other through social interactions and economic activity (which we are largely failing at, but it's better than nothing). Take that away, and things won't be pretty. When effort & reward are no longer part of the equation, humanity will devolve real quick.
I'm not quite sure they meant it this way, but there is a sort of literal interpretation of that line that I think could make sense, in which they're basically saying "When a certain type of long-valued labor is cheap and fast, money might move around the economy in very unfamiliar ways - as in, like, one person might have all of it." It feels framed as if it were about a moneyless utopia, and I kind of imagine that's what they meant, but I guess they could also say "nyah nyah nyah we just meant we would have all the money."
Do you think the 2008 financial crisis was bad? Just wait until we're hit with the AI financial crisis when a large number of people (previously high earners) are no longer able to pay their mortgage. It will make 2008 look like a mosquito bite.
That's where we're headed, and no one seems to be taking it seriously.
We keep looking over at the AI utopia without realizing that there is no bridge to the other side of the raging river which stands before us.
Eh, yeah, I'm not sure I'm necessarily a believer that the same thing will happen but bigger, but it seems sort of hard to imagine getting through all of this without some real messes along the way.
Weirdly, a lot of the big AI lab manifestos about our future utopias also have a kind of socialist streak to them. It's sort of the horseshoe theory of capitalism and inequality - it's gonna get so bad until one person has all the money, and then it will be sort of equal again, because everyone else will be equal in their destitution.
Personally, my money will always be how high I can kickflip and how long I can tail slide
Not the point at all, but this reminded me of that old Tony Hawk video game. Top five teenage boy video game for sure.
They remastered them - you should try them out. Today. Now!
I'm supposed to be finishing my taxes today, this is not what I needed to know.
Not the point at all
'In an early description of its corporate structure, OpenAI warned its investors that “it may be difficult to know what role money will play in a post-AGI world.” It was a line that always felt like it went too far—the usual AI hocus-pocus, the sort of utopian myth-making that venture capitalists love, and that AI companies love to sell.'
Gold. I feel like the folks at OpenAI in particular - and especially Altman - are riding the far edge of the hubris wave.
Maybe they should ask ChatGPT to teach them about economics. There will never be such a thing as a world without money, because people want access to things that we cannot all have (specifically things that other people have). If we were transported into a world without money, the very first thing that we would invent is money. The only question is *who* will have the money? How will this thing work? *How will it be fair?* "Everyone is equal" (i.e. communism) is not a fair system, *because not everyone puts in the same amount of effort* (plus it leads to corruption as the only other alternative).
I like the golf course example because it is simple to understand:
- Golf courses are large (they take up a lot of physical space), therefore we cannot build them everywhere.
- Playing golf takes time. There is no such thing as a 30-minute game of golf (unless you play like 2 holes, but wth). Therefore, traffic/access is limited. If golf was a free highway, it would always be congested (which is something that can actually happen on golf courses and largely ruins the game, like only being able to eat one bite of food every 5 minutes would ruin a meal -- thus access is limited).
- Many people want to play golf, but this conflicts with the limited access to golf courses. Therefore demand will always be greater that the offer.
- Therefore, golf is expensive. And it will always be expensive. And for some people it is also a status thing.
In a UBI world, who would get to play golf exactly? Maybe we all get allotted one yearly game / course reservation? Maybe we save up for months for our chance to play? Maybe we let everyone stampede the courses? Sounds like a terrible idea TBH.
And what about tourist destinations? Many of them are overrun already. Should we just open the floodgates?
Economics is about managing people's ownership/access to things & places. It is part of the democratic process. We can't just get rid of it, or we'll all be waiting in line for everything. Just ask the communitsts (the honest ones).
If everyone is rich, then no one is (because wealth is relative). Just look at the price of things in resource-rich areas (e.g. a gold rush): everyone is richer, and everything is more expensive, so it's all the same in the end (unless they leave that area, where they then become *comparatively/relatively* richer than others). In areas with high income, the cost of living simply goes up to match that income (unless there is rampant inequality where only a few people have a high income). The average American today is richer than the kings of old (who didn't even have electricity), and yet they don't feel rich because there are so many people so much richer than they are.
Do we want to build a world where the country that leads in AI dominates all others forever? A country to whom the rest of the world is subservient? A country of people that don't need to work, but who somehow consider themselves better than others merely for the great accomplishment of being born there? But sharing AI with the world would be like giving away our wealth/advantage.
This is a difficult problem. It is far from being as simple as they make it sound. And you can't just reinvent the rules overnight, or you risk turning the whole thing upside-down (and it might be very difficult to build back again).
So far, we have come up with a decent system (albeit imperfect): you get what you put in (time, effort, etc.), and this is actually fair (but corruption and other factors introduce unfairness on one end, and charity offsets that on the other end -- but obviously the scales are tipped towards wealth & power). It is not a perfect system since it does trap some people in their socioeconomic status, but at least it allows others to climb. What are they suggesting we replace that with? A communist utopia? Something where we're all trapped together?
Humans are supposed to be the apex of this world (just the way God created it), and we are supposed to regulate each other through social interactions and economic activity (which we are largely failing at, but it's better than nothing). Take that away, and things won't be pretty. When effort & reward are no longer part of the equation, humanity will devolve real quick.
I'm not quite sure they meant it this way, but there is a sort of literal interpretation of that line that I think could make sense, in which they're basically saying "When a certain type of long-valued labor is cheap and fast, money might move around the economy in very unfamiliar ways - as in, like, one person might have all of it." It feels framed as if it were about a moneyless utopia, and I kind of imagine that's what they meant, but I guess they could also say "nyah nyah nyah we just meant we would have all the money."
Do you think the 2008 financial crisis was bad? Just wait until we're hit with the AI financial crisis when a large number of people (previously high earners) are no longer able to pay their mortgage. It will make 2008 look like a mosquito bite.
That's where we're headed, and no one seems to be taking it seriously.
We keep looking over at the AI utopia without realizing that there is no bridge to the other side of the raging river which stands before us.
Eh, yeah, I'm not sure I'm necessarily a believer that the same thing will happen but bigger, but it seems sort of hard to imagine getting through all of this without some real messes along the way.
"Where would you go, if you were in space, where there is no such thing as “up?” - fabulous line
well, according to Karl Marx, post‑AGI money should be Communism :D
Weirdly, a lot of the big AI lab manifestos about our future utopias also have a kind of socialist streak to them. It's sort of the horseshoe theory of capitalism and inequality - it's gonna get so bad until one person has all the money, and then it will be sort of equal again, because everyone else will be equal in their destitution.
Well honestly with AIs, I don’t think that day will be too far - maybe we are gonna see that in our lifetime.
It doesn't *that* crazy to get to revolution-y levels of anger if it keeps going at the pace it's going.
Personally, my money will always be how high I can kickflip and how long I can tail slide