Could robots eventually make the economy obsolete?

[vger]

I'm just arguing that if we can build a machine that can supply us with "unlimited amounts" of energy then there's no reason to think that we can't build another that can consume "unlimited amounts" of resources, so is absurd to assume that consumption of resources has an upper limit given that setting.

Consumption is limited to production, and if production is unlimited, then consumption should be unlimited as well.

Ultimately, the only way I can forsee us keeping up with such a production, is if we arrive at the conclusion that we need to replicate faster than we do. And I don't just mean getting pregnant every 9 months, but cloning to compensate, or hacking the reproductive cycle so we can do it every month instead.

Yeah, we 'could' build something that actually does consume infinite resources, effectively constructing a galaxy eater, but would there really be any point?

I guess you're suggesting that in a world without want, the only place we'll still be able to show off our macho-ness, is by having the biggest resource hog in the neighborhood?

[m4v]

Oh well, I see that is difficult to believe in unlimited resource consumption, on the other hand unlimited energy generation is feasible and pretty much a given for any enough advanced civilization, go figure.

[vger]

Oh well, I see that is difficult to believe in unlimited resource consumption, on the other hand unlimited energy generation is feasible and pretty much a given for any enough advanced civilization, go figure.

Well to be fair, it's a lot easier to perceive "unlimited energy" than "unlimited resources" (even though when you start burning stuff for fuel, there really isn't much of a difference between the two). And yeah, this example isn't REALLY unlimited, but for the sake of any practical applications it is. When thinking about resources, the complex process of separating the useless materials from the useful ones come to mind, lots of digging, surveying, trial and error, looking for veins. But if we want to see unlimited energy, we just need to go outside at noon and look up.

Edited May 1, 2014 by vger

[Red Iron Crown]

Everything is finite. Neither unlimited energy nor unlimited resources are real things.

The thing about scarcity is that it's relative. Perhaps 400 years ago people dreamed of a post-scarcity society, where everyone was as wealthy as a king. What would there be to fight about or compete for if they were all as rich as a king?

Then it happened.

People living in the Western world are wealthier than any king of the time. We have better access to luxuries from around the world, we have unparalleled freedom of travel (we can get anywhere in a day or so), we have better medical care, lifespans and education than anyone of the time. We can instantly communicate with nearly anyone anywhere. We have the collective wisdom and folly of the world accessible from a device in our pocket. By almost any measure we all live better than kings of the time.

But we still fight. We still compete. There are still kings, though we might call them by different names now.

So if we discover some new technology that gives us more energy or material wealth, I'm sure the average level of wealth will increase for just about everyone. We'll still fight and compete. There will still be kings.

[m4v]

Well to be fair, it's a lot easier to perceive "unlimited energy" than "unlimited resources" (even though when you start burning stuff for fuel, there really isn't much of a difference between the two). And yeah, this example isn't REALLY unlimited, but for the sake of any practical applications it is. When thinking about resources, the complex process of separating the useless materials from the useful ones come to mind, lots of digging, surveying, trial and error, looking for veins.

My point is that you wouldn't go through the trouble of getting an unlimited energy supply if you don't have something that will consume it all, why build it if not?

But if we want to see unlimited energy, we just need to go outside at noon and look up.

Is not unlimited, if we keep it up with our exponential growth we will be consuming as much energy as the Sun gives to Earth in a few centuries. Obviously this means that we can't keep on growing at the rates we do, but that's because we will hit a limit in energy production, not because there's a consumption limit.

Unless you think we can build a Dyson sphere in the next 1500 years.

[Rakaydos]

"Post scarcity" is really just an extreme case of socialisim. Everyone gets their fair share (or options worth their fair share- might as well call it money) while the labor force (the robots) do all the labor they are best suited to.

Imagine if the entire world got retirement benifits at age 16, paid for by the Robot Overlords. Enough money to live comfortably their whole lives. (though life extension therapies would be banned unless you moved off world) But some people would make work their hobby, like a resteraunt that charges extra to have food served by real live human waiters, or an engineer that finds designing a new 3dprinted gadget intelectually stimulating.

[Red Iron Crown]

Imagine if the entire world got retirement benifits at age 16, paid for by the Robot Overlords. Enough money to live comfortably their whole lives. (though life extension therapies would be banned unless you moved off world) But some people would make work their hobby, like a resteraunt that charges extra to have food served by real live human waiters, or an engineer that finds designing a new 3dprinted gadget intelectually stimulating.

Everyone would live like kings billionaires!

[WestAir]

When mechanized workers begin to drastically occupy the workforce, we'll finally reach a point where society can focus on what's actually important in life: The enjoyment of it.

You spend 8 hours sleeping, 8 1/2 hours working, around 2 hours getting ready or commuting to and from work, then you have a little less than 5 hours to accomplish chores and other maintenance related duties in your life. Where's the time for fun, friends, family, sight seeing and self fulfillment?

Remove those 8 1/2 hours because an automated system can do your job better (and it can do it better, more efficiently, without pay, and doesn't need sleep or time off) and suddenly your quality of life has increased tenfold.*

*Assuming the rest of society is in the same predicament and we're no longer worried about the scarcity of resources.

[ecat]

Robots could eventually make many of our current economic dogmas obsolete by increasing efficiency and shifting the means of production allowing greater wealth and free time to be shared amongst the majority but it is more likely they will serve to increase the poverty gap allowing those in control to further strengthen their positions.

I'm not trying to pick on you here Red Iron Crown, but your post provided a most suitable base for discussion

Everything is finite. Neither unlimited energy nor unlimited resources are real things.

Yet our current financial systems strive to create an illusion that defies this reality. Fiat currency is effectively infinite, abuse of this system does of course lead to rampant inflation, but that's okay. Under our economic system those closest to the source of wealth are effectively insulated from the time dependant effect of inflation while the true price is paid by those furthest removed from the source and, lets be honest, who really cares about them? No one, at least no one worth talking about. Revolt or revolution may be a risk but in the short term this can be avoided through welfare and in the long term, given a sufficiently large shift in the balance of power, other more radical means of control can be employed.

The thing about scarcity is that it's relative. Perhaps 400 years ago people dreamed of a post-scarcity society, where everyone was as wealthy as a king. What would there be to fight about or compete for if they were all as rich as a king?

Then it happened.

People living in the Western world are wealthier than any king of the time. We have better access to luxuries from around the world, we have unparalleled freedom of travel (we can get anywhere in a day or so), we have better medical care, lifespans and education than anyone of the time. We can instantly communicate with nearly anyone anywhere. We have the collective wisdom and folly of the world accessible from a device in our pocket. By almost any measure we all live better than kings of the time.

And all that was required in exchange was the dedication of x years of their life to the whims of their pay masters. The system is as old as written history, only the working conditions and benefits have changed. If there were more people trying to find an alternative and fewer trying to invent new ways to make a fast buck off toxic derivatives we could perhaps make some progress. While we accept the illusion presented by our fiscal policies and are content to exchange the hours of our finite days for shiny beads there is little incentive for change.

But we still fight. We still compete.

Because there is little profit to made from equality. Meanwhile, keeping the peons hungry, fighting amongst themselves and arguing over trivia limits the chance of any organised challenge or threat to the status quo.

Edited May 1, 2014 by ecat

[Rakaydos]

The Tabletop RPG "Eclipse Phase" has an interesting take on future society.

There exists a technoligy that makes 3d printers look like medival forges. In the inner worlds, these production facilities are controlled by the great cooporations, and only by competition are prices ever dropped. But in the outer worlds, groups who's managed to get ahold of one of these devices run socialistic, "post scarcity" communes, where anything (within reason) can be made for essentially free, as long as you have the materials and a blueprint.

[ThinkOutsideTheHangar]

I see a problem with your logic.....AI robots don't need to charge insanely high prices for humans to use their services, since they have already taken control of the economy... why sell your services to filthy humans that they cant even afford when you can enslave them, or exterminate them and topple civilization and start a new robot age. And since they have intelligence, maybe more than humans, they will become self sufficient, like repairing themselves making new robots, and (since its ksp here) maybe start a space program! And advance it faster than NASA! (Damn politics!)

Edited May 1, 2014 by ThinkOutsideTheHangar

[Red Iron Crown]

I'm not trying to pick on you here Red Iron Crown, but your post provided a most suitable base for discussion

It's all good, my ideas are always subject to refinement and discussion can only help.

Robots could eventually make many of our current economic dogmas obsolete by increasing efficiency and shifting the means of production allowing greater wealth and free time to be shared amongst the majority but it is more likely they will serve to increase the poverty gap allowing those in control to further strengthen their positions.

Replace "robots" with "computers" and you've got the talk about the Information Age. Replace it with "factories and fossil fuel energy" and you've got the Industrial Revolution. Replace it with "crop rotation, plow and intensive farming" and you've got the Agricultural Revolution. Replace it with "metal tools" and you've got the start of the Bronze Age. The next technological revolution always promises the potential end of scarcity, but it never works out that way. We still have scarcity and the unequal distribution of wealth that we always had, just at a higher level. I'm sure a Robot Revolution could have great benefits for society, but the elimination of scarcity isn't likely to be one of them.

Yet our current financial systems strive to create an illusion that defies this reality. Fiat currency is effectively infinite, abuse of this system does of course lead to rampant inflation, but that's okay. Under our economic system those closest to the source of wealth are effectively insulated from the time dependant effect of inflation while the true price is paid by those furthest removed from the source and, lets be honest, who really cares about them? No one, at least no one worth talking about. Revolt or revolution may be a risk but in the short term this can be avoided through welfare and in the long term, given a sufficiently large shift in the balance of power, other more radical means of control can be employed.

Money isn't wealth, it is the unit of measure of wealth. The supply of value it measures isn't infinite, so if you try to create it faster than wealth is generated it devalues. Setting fiat currency supply just means "we estimate the economy is this big". If the estimate is too high we get inflation. If the estimate is too low we get high interest rates. Other alternatives include the gold standard, which is "the economy is growing at the same rate gold is being mined", with the same results when it's different from reality. Our money systems will have to adjust to the greater level of productivity in a robot economy, but they are equipped for that. There are always haves and have-nots, because the actual wealth supply is finite and people compete for bigger shares of that pie. The haves always manipulate the system to solidify their positions. This is nothing new, and I can't imagine it can be changed. I suspect it is part of the human condition.

And all that was required in exchange was the dedication of x years of their life to the whims of their pay masters. The system is as old as written history, only the working conditions and benefits have changed. If there were more people trying to find an alternative and fewer trying to invent new ways to make a fast buck off toxic derivatives we could perhaps make some progress. While we accept the illusion presented by our fiscal policies and are content to exchange the hours of our finite days for shiny beads there is little incentive for change.

Not to keep beating the same drum here, but that has always been and will always continue to be so. A robot-supported society will still require work from humans, otherwise it's not a human society anymore. Even if it's only 15 minutes a day to set the production schedules of the robots or whatever thing can't be done by the machines, we'll all still be working for the Man. If the new society doesn't need anything from us, then the robots are the society and we are parasites, and that is doomed one way or the other.

Because there is little profit to made from equality. Meanwhile, keeping the peons hungry, fighting amongst themselves and arguing over trivia limits the chance of any organised challenge or threat to the status quo.

Said just about every city-state ruler, pharoah, king, oil tycoon, billionaire. Who makes up the elite changes, but the fact there is an elite does not. I don't see why the Robot Overlords will be any different.

[Rakaydos]

Not to keep beating the same drum here, but that has always been and will always continue to be so. A robot-supported society will still require work from humans, otherwise it's not a human society anymore. Even if it's only 15 minutes a day to set the production schedules of the robots or whatever thing can't be done by the machines, we'll all still be working for the Man. If the new society doesn't need anything from us, then the robots are the society and we are parasites, and that is doomed one way or the other.

When you get chance, I would suggest looking up the "Culture" novels by Ian M Banks, that are set over a backdrop of exactly the kind of post scarcity "parasitic" society you claim is doomed. The short version is that to the superAIs that control ships, colony habitats, and even planetary surfaces, having more organics supported by you is a Status symbol, balanced by said organic's free choice to emmigrate to another place if they dont feel like they fit in. (or if they just like to travel, but then they might just take a "crew" position on an AI ship.)

It feels like the best possible robot overlord controlled utopia... which is why the books all deal with Contact (the organization that handles contact with other supertech organizations, which may disagree with the Culture's philosophies) or Special Circumstances, the Culture's black-ops division that culture-forms primitive societies that they might someday grow up to be good neighbors.

[Red Iron Crown]

When you get chance, I would suggest looking up the "Culture" novels by Ian M Banks, that are set over a backdrop of exactly the kind of post scarcity "parasitic" society you claim is doomed. The short version is that to the superAIs that control ships, colony habitats, and even planetary surfaces, having more organics supported by you is a Status symbol, balanced by said organic's free choice to emmigrate to another place if they dont feel like they fit in. (or if they just like to travel, but then they might just take a "crew" position on an AI ship.)

It feels like the best possible robot overlord controlled utopia... which is why the books all deal with Contact (the organization that handles contact with other supertech organizations, which may disagree with the Culture's philosophies) or Special Circumstances, the Culture's black-ops division that culture-forms primitive societies that they might someday grow up to be good neighbors.

I must admit, I haven't read those books, but it is a subject I'm interested in so I'll add them to my "books to read" list (oddly, this list gets longer the more I read). I might suggest Isaac Asimov's The Naked Sun if you haven't read it, it also describes a robotic society consisting entirely of a leisure class. Despite its utopian appearance, under the surface there are fundamental flaws that have doomed the society to hubris, hedonism and population decline. It really is a great treatment of this exact subject, and I must admit it has shaped my ideas about it. Asimov wrote an awful lot about robots and their potential effect on society, if you are interested in the subject I cannot recommend him highly enough.

Edit: Wow, that's a ten book series. Do they have to go in order or can you recommend a good one that stands alone?

Edit again: Yes, I see the irony in complaining about ten books when Asimov's written dozens.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Red Iron Crown

[Jouni]

In a utopian future, robots make work obsolete, and we become something similar to the Culture. In a dystopian future, robots make people obsolete. The small minority that owns the robots will have everything, while the rest have nothing.

A significant fraction of Western middle class is already approaching post-scarcity society. They feel they have everything they need, and as a result, they are working less and less. Why work 1600 hours a year, when you can have everything for just 1000 hours of work?

[xcorps]

A significant fraction of Western middle class is already approaching post-scarcity society. They feel they have everything they need, and as a result, they are working less and less. Why work 1600 hours a year, when you can have everything for just 1000 hours of work?

I'm almost interested in where you come up with 1600 hours a year, what defines a "significant" fraction of the middle class, who you interviewed to come to the conclusion about what "they" feel, and in what Western country are the middles class working less and less.

Almost. So if you don't want to be bothered to reply, that's ok.

[Rakaydos]

Edit: Wow, that's a ten book series. Do they have to go in order or can you recommend a good one that stands alone?

Edit again: Yes, I see the irony in complaining about ten books when Asimov's written dozens.

Each one is standalone- though they are roughly chronological, the galaxy is big enough that very few things have an effect over multiple books. Player of Games is widely considered to be one of the better ones, as is Use of Weapons.

[Jouni]

I'm almost interested in where you come up with 1600 hours a year, what defines a "significant" fraction of the middle class, who you interviewed to come to the conclusion about what "they" feel, and in what Western country are the middles class working less and less.

Almost. So if you don't want to be bothered to reply, that's ok.

That 1600 hours a year is quite typical for the average full-time job in a rich Western country. The average is around 1700 hours in the US, 1500 hours in France, and 1400 hours in Germany. In the rich East Asian countries (except Japan), the numbers are generally much higher, ranging from 2200 hours to 2400 hours.

Downshifting has been a widespread phenomenon in the West for a couple of decades now.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Jouni

[Seret]

The fundamental assumption of the OP in this thread is that increasing automaton decreases economic productivity. That's not been the actual lesson of the last couple of hundred years.

Industrial activity is only one sector of the economy, and is already highly automated compared to where we were a hundred years ago (or even 50). We seem to have found jobs for all the displaced meatbags. There will always be jobs providing services that the other meatbags think are important.

[Drunkrobot]

For as long as the humans are still indisputably "in charge", they can decide whatever jobs they desire to have, and whatever jobs they want to relegate to the robots. Humans like intellectual challenges, and others appreciating their work. Robots can do heavy-labor and repetitive, dangerous tasks. If we manage to skirt around the impending environmental disaster and increase the resource base to NEOs and the Moon, the global (now a retrospectively-archaic term) economy has space to expand for a long time, centuries at the least.

An increase in wealth (here, "wealth" is food, water, housing, healthcare etc.) means one of two things:

1. An increase in population.

2. An increase in living standards.

Right now, the global trend in families is moving towards having less children (less than three). As the developing world develops, and welfare spreads to those people, population growth will slow down, even stabilize. That mean the only avenue for humanity to dedicate it's wealth towards is improving living standards. The services and goods enjoyed by the middle class of today's developed world would be universally available, and god knows what the richer end of society will have access to.

Of course, it might all come crashing down when the robots start asking the big questions, like "Am I alive?", "Do I have rights?" and "Why do I have to clear that minefield?". But maybe we should avoid thinking of it like 'The unstoppable killer machines enslaving and exterminating the helpless humans 4 teh evulz.' and approach it rationally. Even when there comes an AI, either by accident or concious effort on our part, that is smarter than a human, it will have no reason to turn on us, assuming we don't freak the frick out and try to delete it. Even if it was apparently superior to us in every way (which might not ever happen, we don't know yet), it will understand Darwinism, and not that pig-offal 'social Darwinism' you see employed by supervillians. An ecosystem is most versatile with the maximum number of species running the maximum number of strategies. It would be logical to favor a synergy of humans and AI in this brave new world, staying with the status quo, in a way, us doing what we do best and the robots doing what they do best. The questions on a robots standing in society might change, but we won't be made obsolete and turned into WD40, if that answers your question.

[Seret]

Of course, it might all come crashing down when the robots start asking the big questions, like "Am I alive?", "Do I have rights?"

I think the question of rights for machine intelligences is a really important one we're going to have to face sooner or later. What rights do we grant them? Do we have the moral authority to withhold any rights we grant ourselves? Should we listen to what rights they think they should have?

The nature of our relationship to our machines is currently one of master/slave, but our intention is to create machines that transcend that. What will be our relationship to them then? Perhaps parent/child where we grant them some independence but retain the right to make the important decisions for them? Will the relationship eventually evolve to the point where we can let go and grant them equal rights? How would we know that time had come, and would we be able to let go?

[Rakaydos]

the question of "Why do I have to cler that minefield" is easilly answered by "Why dont we just send telepresence rigs to clear that minefield? Doesnt matter if it's human or AI on the other end of the rig, the sophant isnt in any danger and may enjoy the thrill of actually doing something important.

[Idobox]

The fundamental assumption of the OP in this thread is that increasing automaton decreases economic productivity. That's not been the actual lesson of the last couple of hundred years.

Industrial activity is only one sector of the economy, and is already highly automated compared to where we were a hundred years ago (or even 50). We seem to have found jobs for all the displaced meatbags. There will always be jobs providing services that the other meatbags think are important.

Western countries have high structural unemployment, because between automation and outsourcing, we don't need so much workers.

When every fast food worker is replaced by a robot, every administrative worker by a software, how are all the displaced meatbags supposed to pay for anything?

In the past, better technology meant one worker could produce more, but we're entering an era were technology can completely replace a worker.

The idea behind your reasoning is that as production costs drop, so people can purchase more stuff with their salary, hence demand increase and the displaced workers find a job somewhere else, but that suppose there is still a job for these people to do. But with good AI and robots, there will be very few jobs where a human is competitive.

The result is a progressive shift of power towards those who own, whether they own machines, land, mines, or else, because they will be less and less dependent on workers to generate wealth.

Try to imagine the ultimate exaggeration of this situation: one man owns all the arable land, all the factories, all the mines, all the robots. He has AI that can design new robots, new products and deal with logistic issues. What could anybody give him in exchange of food and useful products? He might hire a number of them to be his servants, even though a robot would do the job better, just because he finds it fun,.

In practice, he would either let most of them die of starvation, or he would give them stuff in exchange for status and power.

The solution to this problem is obviously to make a larger share of the average jo's income be something else than wages. Socialist welfare is an obvious solution (and if you look, you will notice all rich countries have some form of social welfare or subsidizing, because their economies depend on consumption, which is dependent on people's income, but the workers are not competitive), communism is another, but pure capitalism would lead to unbearable inequalities.

[szputnyik]

The downside of this "giving up all human work" approach is that eventually, almost no one will study anything, maybe illiteracy will also become widespread, and the majority of the population will essentially become big pre-schoolers, whom the robots entertain with simple games. If this happens, the robots will be already de facto masters of humanity, without any dramatic Terminator or Matrix-like takeover.

Don't think that the majority of people will learn anything if they don't need to, for example to get a better job.

I know young Austrians who don't study anything after finishing primary school, because factory work or becoming a cleaner or a waitress pays enough in Austria to live a good life, so they do it until retirement.

In Saudi Arabia, the newest generation studies almost nothing, since the state hands them out benefits for nothing because of all the capital coming in from selling their oil.

Edited May 1, 2014 by szputnyik

[vger]

The downside of this "giving up all human work" approach is that eventually, almost no one will study everything, maybe illiteracy will also become widespread, and the majority of the population will essentially become big pre-schoolers, whom the robots entertain with simple games. If this happens, the robots will be already de facto masters of humanity, without any dramatic Terminator or Matrix-like takeover.

We already have that now with school research papers being 95% Wikipedia links. Remember when you couldn't even cut & paste, and actually had to play scholar and type out what you were reading in a book?

How about remembering phone numbers?

Memorizing how to drive from point A to point B?

We're already on the verge of having our portable devices 'take care of us.' Because as soon as we "trust" them, then they'll start sneaking the commercials in, and we won't even know when we're being advertised to.

I think the question of rights for machine intelligences is a really important one we're going to have to face sooner or later. What rights do we grant them? Do we have the moral authority to withhold any rights we grant ourselves? Should we listen to what rights they think they should have?

The nature of our relationship to our machines is currently one of master/slave, but our intention is to create machines that transcend that.

IS our intention to create machines with true free will? I've never known how to look at this one really. It's possible that an AI will actually start asking the deep questions, but we won't know it until we see it happen. It's also possible that all of this advanced capability is possible without it. A LOT of factors would probably have to fall into place correctly in order for a robot to develop such a conscience. We can easily teach an AI to avoid threats, but that is radically different from giving it an emotional sense of fear (which is what enables us to sense danger without having to analyze the situation logically). Fear combined with curiosity is the type of thing that would encourage one to ponder something like, "Where do we go when we die?"

And if we actually intend to create sentient machines, what would be the ultimate purpose of that? Do we really want a labor class to have feelings? Wouldn't that be detrimental to both us and them? It would make them feel exploited and it would make us worry about an uprising. One of the reasons robots are developed is to get away from dealing with angry workers.

Edited May 1, 2014 by vger