We always think of not working as something negative, we should desire not having to work and machines giving us the opportunity to do so. But the system is scuffed and capitalism works against us rather than for us.
We need a new system where it’s the goal to automate everything and then we only have to work a few hours a week and spend the rest with our loved ones, getting good at a hobby, enjoying life, singing dancing creating art all the fun stuff.
Well, there’s livelihood and work, and so far no one has exactly inspired confidence that the current labor class will receive a livelihood. We’ve let systems solidify that basically demand that the labor class have some semblance of leverage to participate in the benefits. So far the practical result has been that the hypothetical scenario erases that leverage, while avoiding any concessions that may win over the people that would be screwed over. It’s nice to hand wave and say “some new system”, but without more concrete things to look at, there is the risk of “well, let’s remove the labor leverage and just assume that the utopian outcome results instead of the dystopian”.
One thing that concerns me is that a common short story held up as an example of awesome utopia brought on by post-scarity due to AI is “Manna”. The plight of the dystopian half is very plausible, but the “utopian” half has a lot of problems in mechanism of how it happened and issues when “realized”. If even in fiction we can’t make a convincing narrative that lands in an unambiguous utopia, then my hopes for reality is pretty low.
So I guess in short, I agree with your sentiment, but too pessimistic to see the upside being realized and afraid that the optimisim around the upside results in rationalizing the downsides.
You frame it with ambition as a virtue to be desired, but that’s really not a given… ambition is often super toxic. I can imagine a future of luxury automated space communism™ where the ultimate purpose is fulfillment. To be Zen is to release ones self from ego and put desire and ambition in context.
The toxic aspect generally comes from the consequences of pursuing ambition by undermining others in a competitive context. If, hypothetically, the competitive pressure is off, then “ambition” is not nearly as likely to have negative consequences.
Here the person was saying we really need to actually put our minds to use, and that’s not really likely to be the ‘toxic ambition’ you fear.
How about instead of automating everything to use machines that require electricity, maintenance and resources that wreck the planet, we make it so people worldwide only need to work four days out of the week at most while still being able to afford hobbies, holidays, and luxury items such as food that isnt poison.
We always think of not working as something negative, we should desire not having to work and machines giving us the opportunity to do so. But the system is scuffed and capitalism works against us rather than for us.
We need a new system where it’s the goal to automate everything and then we only have to work a few hours a week and spend the rest with our loved ones, getting good at a hobby, enjoying life, singing dancing creating art all the fun stuff.
Well, there’s livelihood and work, and so far no one has exactly inspired confidence that the current labor class will receive a livelihood. We’ve let systems solidify that basically demand that the labor class have some semblance of leverage to participate in the benefits. So far the practical result has been that the hypothetical scenario erases that leverage, while avoiding any concessions that may win over the people that would be screwed over. It’s nice to hand wave and say “some new system”, but without more concrete things to look at, there is the risk of “well, let’s remove the labor leverage and just assume that the utopian outcome results instead of the dystopian”.
One thing that concerns me is that a common short story held up as an example of awesome utopia brought on by post-scarity due to AI is “Manna”. The plight of the dystopian half is very plausible, but the “utopian” half has a lot of problems in mechanism of how it happened and issues when “realized”. If even in fiction we can’t make a convincing narrative that lands in an unambiguous utopia, then my hopes for reality is pretty low.
So I guess in short, I agree with your sentiment, but too pessimistic to see the upside being realized and afraid that the optimisim around the upside results in rationalizing the downsides.
I’d be fine with that, as long as there was some academic aspect involved.
A bunch of idiots doing nothing for a long time isn’t going to accomplish much of anything.
You frame it with ambition as a virtue to be desired, but that’s really not a given… ambition is often super toxic. I can imagine a future of luxury automated space communism™ where the ultimate purpose is fulfillment. To be Zen is to release ones self from ego and put desire and ambition in context.
The toxic aspect generally comes from the consequences of pursuing ambition by undermining others in a competitive context. If, hypothetically, the competitive pressure is off, then “ambition” is not nearly as likely to have negative consequences.
Here the person was saying we really need to actually put our minds to use, and that’s not really likely to be the ‘toxic ambition’ you fear.
How about instead of automating everything to use machines that require electricity, maintenance and resources that wreck the planet, we make it so people worldwide only need to work four days out of the week at most while still being able to afford hobbies, holidays, and luxury items such as food that isnt poison.
And even worse, one of the thing they desperately try to automate is the arts and the humanities…