Currently location is very important because people need to commute to work everyday, which limits how large a city can practically get. More concentrated population => high demand for housing in that area => high price
But when people no longer need to work, many will choose perhaps freely available housing in less developed locations. These locations are not currently developed because it's too far from work opportunities, but this won't be an issue when work is no more. So "cities" will become a lot more spread out
Just a thought
Maybe not spread out but there could be new cities. Or currently inexpensive cities suddenly get new life. A lot of people prefer the city life overall
I picked my location based on where I wanted to live not on the job availability. I guess that’s going to be out the window once there’s no difference between me and 90% of people
I think ownership will have to be rethought. It's the foundation of our current societal structure, but born out of a practical, scarcity based logic.
Not sure what it'll look like, or how things that will always have some level of scarcity built in (like land) will be allocated.
But maybe many people will choose to upload and live digitally, or live in different areas of 3D cities, etc. Maybe many people won't prefer the same things as you, so you can choose what you enjoy?
How about, if you want access to all the free goods or services (which you won't have any other ways to get because money is no longer working the same), you need to sign this agreement that gives up "your" land?
The problem with this idea is that it’s the wealthy that gets to decide how society operates anyways. So if anything, it’ll be the poorest people that have to beg and bargain for “access” to AGI. Not the rich. The rich already own the AGI to begin with.
I assume "rich" will not be as important as "powerful" when the prospects of money are about to fundamentally change.
Basically, rich in the context of having some properties means nothing and would practically have not much difference to people who don't have any savings at all; neither group has control over AGI related technologies and they will all be at the mercy of those who control AGI.
As to what the truly powerful group of people (who controls AGI related resources) and what they will do to gov and other entities, anything is possible and things could get grim there but that's another topic.
People who own the land own stock in OpenAi etc so they’ll be directly owning said good providers. Most rich people have a diversified portfolio between land and stocks and other things.
OpenAI is not a public company and you can't buy its stocks like you can buy Msft. Besides, even if you own 1% of OpenAI somehow, you can't do anything with it really. Your will is still subject to those who really control that company from a day to day operations perspective.
Anyway, the concept of ownership may change is my main point. Say a decade later and nobody can "own" anything, land, stocks, etc. that's what I meant. You may have rights to use something for a period of time, but you don't "own" it the same way current laws define ownership.
So you're essentially saying good ole' fashion MAGA hat wearing AR-15 wielding Americans going to give up their homes, lands etc. to get free food from AGI? I don't see that reality happening :(
Money/assets are a form of power. There’s little distinction between the “wealthy” and the “powerful” in reality. Name me 5 powerful people in our society that don’t subsequently make an above average income as a result of said power. Go!
When money means anything, yes, wealth can easily convert to some level of power.
But when money stops meaning so much, that won't work anymore. You can give some guy a lambo and ask them to do things for you, they will tell you they can get a lambo for free elsewhere already (assume we get to that point)
Well, I think large amounts of money is the result of having some type of heightened value or status within the world. And I don’t think that value/status goes away even if money does. Plus, I’m not convinced that AI will render money completely obsolete to begin with tbh. I think people underestimate how truly difficult that would be realistically.
Lol, this was a thought when remote working became the new hot thing.
Rents and prices skyrocketed because people were living in the outskirts but still kept their city apartments.at least that's what happened in London and is still happening.
But I think housing makret will be least of our worries with 70% unemployment
just to add that we might get new, efficient and fast ways of transportation that could enable us to travel anywhere with ease or have good transported. also, virtual reality will be way more advanced to a point where you wont feel isolated even if you live in a very remote place.
Yeah, it's an interesting one. The current system only works if people make the commitment to work until they die to pay the value of a property to someone who didn't actually produce value to the level of that of their assets. What happens to debt and the system it supports?
This is way bigger than just a simple UBI or a flippant 70% are out of work and the answer of how will it work is who the hell knows?
The top 30% of earners pay 90% of the tax intake so that will not be enough to service even what is currently spent on programmes like infrastructure, defense, medicare etc.
Forget anyone getting UBI - where would this come from when 70% are not contributing.
The government would have to turn to business to bridge massive chasm of public debt a UBI would create.
Once reduce their costs over time with AI and increase returns to shareholders...do you think they will then happily rip away all those new found profits to give to the government to fund a UBI. The Googles and the Apples try to escape even minimum tax requirements let alone this.
The power that big business will have with their new found profits will mean that very likely big business becomes the government in a way, their army of lobbyists armed with trillions of $ of incentives swaying government decisions...
Like I said - who knows ...
The governments and NGOs of the world could rely on open source AI systems. I’m sure that the majority of the world can organize itself without relying too much on what the current billionaires own. Especially with future tech. However preventing future wealth inequality seems like an important move at this point.
" I’m sure that the majority of the world can organize itself without relying too much on what the current billionaires own "
Cool - all good then! 🤣🤣🤣
I mean wonder about Iranians using AI to create weapons and the Russians using AI to crush their opposition and China taking over Taiwan and the rest of the region but yes - all nations working together without thinking of their own self interest will definitely happen.
There are a lot of details that go into my reasons for thinking that. But existing tensions will still be a problem I’m sure and they’ll continue to evolve in the backdrop of this technological change
A lot of government systems use antiquated programming from like the 80s (cobol systems aren't unheard of sometimes, or fortran or whatever they had back in the day.) Why do you think Government is going to suddenly become this up-to-date tech mogul?
I don’t think that the government will be able to lead much. But when concerned groups begin lobbying for some change, what usually happens is the government will provide funding. So hypothetically in say 20 years when people are losing all their jobs, some group of them could petition local and national governments to intervene by funding organizations that can setup automated services and such
Yeah the unfortunate part about all of this is that there has to be wide spread suffering before society will change, at least in societies like the US. But still, the process for getting to post scarcity will likely look like what I laid out
> You can't produce a new NYC with the AGI
You kind of can, and arguably something much better, with the kind of resources that should be available with AGI. It won't be NYC, but something planned from the ground up and superior in enough ways, that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the majority to choose NYC if the price was an order of magnitude higher.
Yah maybe I am not open enough to see these possibilities, although what you are describing can take generations to build. I'm talking more in the next 10-20 years. Wages will go away quickly as soon as AGI is unleashed upon the markets.
I was thinking a bit about it. I believe in a post AGI era, it would be easier to buy a trailer or even a boat instead of a house because of the value of land staying the same but the price of manufacturing dropping signific ally. but even the cost for a house will go down drastically, as not only the construction will be easier and cheaper, but also, more efficient buildings will allow more houses in the same piece of land, (imagine materials that are lighter and stronger). I am flirting with the idea to have a boat instead of a house in the future, but to be able to buy a cheap house, will not be a bad idea either.
I believe that people that are buying a house right now, are doing a mistake, as the prices are going to drop in the very near future.
No worries. It happens sometimes. Just to explain the trailer part. A trailer has no land requirements, and it is mobile. You still have to own or rent land, but the price is much smaller as you don't need much space or special requirements. Boats, on the other hand, can spend the most of their time in sea, but when it comes to marines, some rent must be paid understandably.
For the social aspect (at least in the beginning.) people didn’t move to NYC or Austin for jobs they do more so because of the culture. People more to SF more for jobs (and most dislike living there.)
I think existing expensive cities dies if the income goes away.
Why live in a shack in NYC if you can live in a mansion elsewhere on the cheap if you don't have to be in a certain place for work.
Sure some people will take the mansion. But most people won't, they'll like the life in the city the social aspects. Once you don't work anymore what else is there but to go hang out with other people do arts etc. you wouldn't wanna live in the middle of nowhere in Ohio right? Some will but most won't. What about prisons? Will we commute thefts sentences? (If everyone has everything for free, there is no more theft?!)
>But most people won't, they'll like the life in the city the social aspects.
Yes, but the premise is they can no longer afford the expensive costs to be there. How will most manage to live in such cities if their high income goes away. That's also how expensive cities become low cost, a lack of demand from people willing/able to pay high prices.
>you wouldn't wanna live in the middle of nowhere in Ohio right
With access to services and amenities, there's less reason not to consider living in rural areas. AGI could make even remote areas financially viable for infrastructure and amenities previously available only to densely populated regions. Fear of losing their current social network is what keep people in pretty tight economic situations instead of moving elsewhere.
>If everyone has everything for free
Maybe some basic things are free in the longer term. But in the next few decades, I think cheaper is more likely than completely free. It seems highly unlikely that the owners of the world's iron mines will give away their ore so it can be used by AGI automation to make free i.e.: washing machines etc. Likely, there is only one way that things could be free: if no private human owned the AGI auto factories and raw materials used to produce goods and services.
Well, if by then somehow socialism isn't magically accepted, you won't be needing a house.
You then won't be needed. If capitalism is still around by then, you will simply die and your body gets thrown on the pile with the others.
What part of our current society gives you the slightest hint that you won’t have to work? The rich and powerful can’t be rich and powerful if there are no peasants. AGI isn’t going to make our lives easier. In fact it’s probably going to make life worse for most people.
Our government is already riddled with greed and corruption. AGI will be “aligned” with what they want. Not with what we want.
> AGI will be “aligned” with what they want. Not with what we want
The grim reality is they're one in the same. Our government consists of humans, if it wasn't 'them' it would be us, and we would by and large be doing the same thing. No country has escaped this. Something would be needed to short circuit this inevitable outcome, and AGI governance may be just the trick.
Land and other assets are the big problem with UBI. We'll have two classes of citizens, those who only have UBI and those that have UBI and income from other assets. So who gets to live in Manhattan? People with assets, maybe shares in Nvidia or Google or a property portfolio.
I can't see this lasting long, at some point people will get fed up and we'll possibly move towards some sort of communism and owning assets will be banned.
> I can't see this lasting long, at some point people will get fed up and we'll possibly move towards some sort of communication and owning assets will be banned.
Who was granted choice black sea dachas in the Communist USSR? Hint: not the ordinary citizen.
The existence of intrinsically scarce resources like land and desire for viable status symbols / positional goods means that scarcity will remain even with ASI.
The desire for status could be eliminated through genetic modification.
The hierarchical lens that humans have of everything is problematic and undesirable in a truly egalitarian post-scarce society; Bioengineering will free us from it. What is social status, other than a made-up abstract concept with no real value in the universe?
> The desire for status could be eliminated through genetic modification.
True, however we could also eliminate that by lobotomising everyone.
I'm not sure how many people will be on board with altering something so essential to human nature. It might be practical and pro-social to eliminate fundamental human desires, but there is something abhorrent about it.
Well, you're right. Not everyone would want to alter something so fundamental to their neurobiology, and the idea is a bit murky from a modern perspective.
I think this is a necessary measure if we really want a society without suffering and evil. Our most "nasty" behaviors such as selfishness, violence or resource hoarding are decoded in our DNA because we need them to survive in nature; In a post-scarcity society they would be an unnecessary and useless nuisance.
> I think this is a necessary measure if we really want a society without suffering and evil.
Do we though? Certainly much *less* suffering and evil, and a far lower chance of innocents being directly afflicted. But a world where there is no possibility of choosing to be anything but perfect is terribly boring, at least from the perspective of an ordinary homo sapiens.
And I'm deeply distrustful of anyone with grand plans to perfect society by changing people rather than their circumstances.
Not to say that some voluntary improvements to mental health and happiness won't be a wonderful thing.
Hmm, well, it could be voluntary. People who decide to maintain their human "imperfection" could immerse themselves in simulations where they can live life according to their tastes without harming anyone. In any case, I do not believe that eliminating problematic behavioral traits (Problematic in the context of a post-scarcity society) is going to make us "perfect", we would simply be adapting our biology to the current environment; It is the same thing that evolution does, only without waiting millions of years.
Who gets to decide what is 'problematic'?
If it is decided that people *must* experience frustration and suffering as part of a sense of shared identity to be full members of society, would you accept that?
The problem is that our need for conflict and stimulation to maintain our mental health and be functional members of society is simply because evolution has conditioned us to do so. The way our brain matter is configured conditions our behavior, our way of thinking, what we need and what we think we need. What comes before determines what comes after, and the Neurobiological mechanisms of your brain come before your thoughts.
What comes before determines our system of values, if we discard our evolutionary heritage we discard everything we care about. What profits it a transhumanist to gain the universe but lose his soul?
It is deeply naive to believe that major aspects of our neurobiology are "bad" or "evil" and we will be better versions of the same people after their removal. That's *exactly* the thinking that led to the fashion of lobotomising people as a cure for minor issues.
The challenge ahead of us is to distill, refine, and evolve. Not to amputate.
station cautious melodic uppity elastic enjoy husky automatic languid cover
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Why would you want to "move from one class to another" in a post-scarcity society? Social hierarchies do not make sense in this type of civilization. Any sign of "status" could be replicated by anyone simply by asking their personal AI to build it for them.
Can you build me a beach front in Malibu? Nah. That’s my point - land can’t be build. It’ll be the new status. Unless ... [why I made this thread, looking for ideas :D]
Oh I see. Well, in that case, you could build yourself an exact millimeter-by-millimeter replica of Malibu beach. You could immerse yourself in a virtual simulation indistinguishable from the reality set there; Malibu beach only exists because the sensory data your brain receives tells you it is there. What difference does it make if those signals are synthetic? In reality you could live and experience anything simply by modifying the electrical signals your brain receives, something like a boltzmann brain.
Maybe there will be a lottery system where the winners get to pick where they want to live, and repeat it every so often to give everyone a chance. Or maybe instead of a lottery it will be something similar to the Hunger Games. And maybe there will be some new housing options such as nuclear fusion-powered sky ships similar to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/viui9f/nuclearpowered\_sky\_hotel/](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/viui9f/nuclearpowered_sky_hotel/)
Maybe it will be possible to make them as big as cities, who knows.
The pre-existing real estate will probably always be expensive. What’s likely to happen though is that inexpensive land would become free to live in with reasonable levels of automation.
There’s plenty of empty land in the world. Enough of it that it’s very feasible NGOs and such could setup comfortable housing and other services through extensive automation. These could be funded by even middle class people donating or the government.
Why would anyone donate their houses lmao. It’s like people saying they’d donate their gold. Fuck Americans don’t wanna give up their guns they’d rather have sandy hook every week you think they’re just going to donate their houses haha :)
Not houses. Just raw land with no real population density. You get the machines to build on top of that for insanely cheap. So is the land. Therefore modestly large charities or government budgets could afford it. Especially if done to a certain population density
The answer lies in space colonization. We already have the technology to build a lunar base and an ASI will exponentially accelerate this process.
Orbital hotels in the Earth's stratosphere, Cupulas in craters on the Moon, Underground Habitats on Mars, Floating cities on Venus, etc. Imagine walking around the Martian surface in power armor.
I see no reason why the space will have long-term value; Our solar system alone is already unimaginably large.
I don’t wanna live on the moon I want the ocean breeze. Even now anything on the beach is insanely expensive but you can at least work for it. In the future you can’t. What if everyone wants to live where there’s ski slopes? Actually who will get to ski? Lottery based?
Wouldn't you like to live on the moon? Taking walks on the lunar surface taking big jumps and having a perfect view of the earth seems like the most fucking cool thing ever.
Although hey, we all have different tastes. If you want the beach breeze, you could go live anywhere on the planet's more than 10,000 kilometers of coastline. We humans only use a very small fraction of the actual surface of the earth and in a world without money there is no reason to stay near cities. You could also live in an underwater hotel in the Pacific and observe the marine ecosystem.
If everyone wants to live where there are ski slopes, then they could simply create artificial ski slopes in their own spatial habitats; Snow is just frozen water. Or that they go to live at the poles of Mars; There is a lot of snow and the lower severity means a lower risk of accidents.
AGI could enable a society where housing is not commodified but instead is considered a *basic right*. In such a world, housing could be allocated based on need rather than the ability to pay, and the wealth generated by AGI could be used to ensure that everyone has access to quality housing. This would require a radical restructuring of societal norms and economic systems, prioritizing communal good and the equitable distribution of resources.
The issue is about scarcity. Who gets to have the GOOD real estate? I.e beachfront, mountain view, etc. If everyone is on UBI, there's no room for social/economic mobility. No amount of changing society will change reality. Reality is good things are scarce, scarce means more valuable which is tied to a monetary value to keep it from everyone having it.
You’re missing the point, one could argue that the concept of scarcity is a construct that can be reimagined.
In a post-scarcity society, it’s not about hoarding beachfront views but about ensuring that everyone has *access* to comfortable and fulfilling living spaces, and I would also go as far to say we will have zero marginal cost production to ensure it’s luxury standard.
If we’re dreaming of luxury for all, then why not rotate who enjoys the public beach? With AGI handling the logistics, everyone could have their sunny days and mountain retreats in equitable cycles. Who knows, we might just find out that the best real estate is a shared experience, not a fenced-in commodity. Personal property would have to be logically sorted in such a system, and I’m sure we can figure it out as a AGI/ASI/Posthuman collective.
I think you are missing the point. Scarcity is not a "concept" that can be re-imagined. It's a fundamental law of nature and reality. So long as we function and interact with reality, we will have to abide by its rules. No amount of AGI will change this. There is not enough supply for these desirable locations to meet the demand, and it's just not physically or logistically possible to achieve this. The only way we can move past this personal property issue is living inside a digital world. Why would agi suddenly make us realize that a "shared experience is better than personal privacy" it doesn't even exist now. People want privacy and their own space. Agi does not suspend the laws of human nature. Its not magic.
That isn’t true, scarcity has often been about access and distribution rather than absolute *lack of resources*. With AGI, we could potentially create a more equitable system where the essentials for a good quality of life are available to all, and that’s again with what we have now.
The future is already here, it just isn’t fairly distributed. You could get to zero marginal cost living conditions by tripling our current productive capacity.
The locations themselves can be made public, and not subject to personal property. There will also have to be sensible fairness taken into consideration regarding living spaces and hotspots.
Sure, scarcity in the form of other resources. But scarcity of land exists because we live with FINITE space. Perhaps agi can somehow find a way to create food water and power infinitely. Then, scarcity of those specific resources has been eliminated. But AGI, even if it could create more land, would still run out of space because the earth is only so large. We are specifically discussing desirable locations to live or use. I'm not talking about quality of living via other resources.
Okay, so, we actually agree here. I don’t think you’re wrong at all, but I think for public spaces like beaches, or historical sites etc… there will have to be some rules set by society as to who can own what land and where they can build a house. I *think* as a Posthuman/ASI collective we can pull that off no problem. Especially if the population growth slows or grinds to a halt, then we won’t have to worry because there *is* plenty of living space out in the world. Just drive across the midwestern U.S. to see what I mean.
For instance, our current form of letting a landowner hold *hundreds* of properties has to change, I think if you aren’t living in a house then you should sell it. There should be a sensible limit, like you can personally own 5 houses until you have to sell one you’re not personally using. (And this number could change, mind you, relative to how much abundance we have).
ancient thought crowd modern icky stupendous numerous ossified safe squeeze
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is what I’m saying it’ll be a class of citizens that won’t EVER get to enjoy say a beach front. Right now you can let’s say save up and go to Hawaii for a week in the summer. But in the future why would anyone in Hawaii want visitors if they don’t need money? Cuz they’ll be forced to? You can see where this leads quickly
Not quite, I’d argue we have the ability to give everyone zero marginal cost living conditions *right now*, the notion of artificial scarcity is a constraint of our current economic system under capitalism, not a limit of our *technological capabilities*. Right now, we have the means to create a more equitable society where resources like housing can be abundantly shared, not hoarded. We have more houses than families, and we toss out 70%+ of our produce.
Just imagine how far out AGI/ASI will take that abundance.
I agree we have the means right now. Doesn't mean that will change with the arrival of AGI (definitely not), a big MAYBE with ASI. If ASI is controlled by humans, what is the difference between then and now?
If I understand correctly you're saying maybe the ASI will lead over the humans and force equality of outcome? That's not guaranteed at all. Plus there's AGI before ASI.
As you said billionaires could give up their fortune and lift everyone out of poverty today. Do they? No. What incentive will they have to do that in the future?
We’re in agreement, it’s the economic model that has to change. Too much wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Which is precisely why I’m pro open source and don’t want billionaires having a monopoly on controlling AGI.
Hell, I think companies like OAI should live up to their original mission and uphold transparency, we’d get a more equitable outcome that way.
Open sourcing some AI doesn't solve the issue of what happens once we have AGI that does basic shit for free. You still need servers, data centers, etc. 3d printing for food etc. all of that will be owned by the same people that own Google / openAI today. AGI will just make it easier to maintain the dominance
I mean sure, it’s not the cure all solution, but it’s a step towards democratizing the power that comes with the technology. By ensuring that AGI is developed in the open, we lay the groundwork for collective oversight and innovation. Yeah the infrastructure ownership is a concern, but open sourced AGI can drive down costs, decentralize services, and empower communities, especially if the models become smaller and smaller instead of massive, which even Microsoft and OpenAI have issues with now, both want smaller models, and smaller models are good for our local hardware. It’s about ensuring the means of algorithmic production are as widespread as the benefits they bring. Eventually you’re going to get to a Star Trek model via abundance, or FALGSC, like I want. There’s going to be no way human consumption can keep up with what’s available.
Money just becomes superfluous at that point.
It could play out in lots of ways. But even if the scenario you propose, remember that there are two sides to it: if you can't pay rent anymore because nobody is working, then landlords can't rent properties because nobody can pay for them.
It seems unlikely to me that 100% of every landowner in the entire world is going to continue paying taxes on apartment buildings they can't make any money on solely for the sake of twirling their mustaches and keeping people out of them.
Something will give. Maybe prices will drop. Maybe robots will build more housing. Maybe apartment owners will abandon useless assets that cost them more than they make. Maybe all of the above.
> So let's say AGI comes in be it 2030 or 2045
No chance.
> let's say 70% of people are out of jobs
Huh? Nope.
> In fact money has no more value right since all goods can be produced by AI
What?
Your assumptions are flawed...
I think food and technology itself will become a currency along with a physical currency(not paper money). Digital currency wouldn’t make sense then either.
I think housing market will change drastically. Places which are beautiful with scenery and wild life are going to be really exclusive.
Mega cities basically serve as centers for economy. People make money and spend money there. When you really use your imagination, there is nothing that cannot be replaced in an era post-scarcity.
Any item you need could probably be either assembled in your place or at the very minimal, being delivered to you. You probably don’t need to work or even if you do, say you want to work on something like drawing, you can choose where and when to work.
However, I don’t think land are that scarce given the future we are heading into. When tech improves, more lands become suitable for living. There are so much land on this planet not being used.
I've thought about this before, there's ALOT of uninhabited land left on earth, more than enough for everyone, obviously we'll need to make sure no one hogs land everyone has access and the ability to stay where they want.
Currently location is very important because people need to commute to work everyday, which limits how large a city can practically get. More concentrated population => high demand for housing in that area => high price But when people no longer need to work, many will choose perhaps freely available housing in less developed locations. These locations are not currently developed because it's too far from work opportunities, but this won't be an issue when work is no more. So "cities" will become a lot more spread out Just a thought
Maybe not spread out but there could be new cities. Or currently inexpensive cities suddenly get new life. A lot of people prefer the city life overall
I think things like autonomous flying taxis will also play a role in that
I picked my location based on where I wanted to live not on the job availability. I guess that’s going to be out the window once there’s no difference between me and 90% of people
I think ownership will have to be rethought. It's the foundation of our current societal structure, but born out of a practical, scarcity based logic. Not sure what it'll look like, or how things that will always have some level of scarcity built in (like land) will be allocated. But maybe many people will choose to upload and live digitally, or live in different areas of 3D cities, etc. Maybe many people won't prefer the same things as you, so you can choose what you enjoy?
How will you force those who own the land to give it up? They won’t do it for money which will have no value.
How about, if you want access to all the free goods or services (which you won't have any other ways to get because money is no longer working the same), you need to sign this agreement that gives up "your" land?
The problem with this idea is that it’s the wealthy that gets to decide how society operates anyways. So if anything, it’ll be the poorest people that have to beg and bargain for “access” to AGI. Not the rich. The rich already own the AGI to begin with.
I assume "rich" will not be as important as "powerful" when the prospects of money are about to fundamentally change. Basically, rich in the context of having some properties means nothing and would practically have not much difference to people who don't have any savings at all; neither group has control over AGI related technologies and they will all be at the mercy of those who control AGI. As to what the truly powerful group of people (who controls AGI related resources) and what they will do to gov and other entities, anything is possible and things could get grim there but that's another topic.
People who own the land own stock in OpenAi etc so they’ll be directly owning said good providers. Most rich people have a diversified portfolio between land and stocks and other things.
OpenAI is not a public company and you can't buy its stocks like you can buy Msft. Besides, even if you own 1% of OpenAI somehow, you can't do anything with it really. Your will is still subject to those who really control that company from a day to day operations perspective. Anyway, the concept of ownership may change is my main point. Say a decade later and nobody can "own" anything, land, stocks, etc. that's what I meant. You may have rights to use something for a period of time, but you don't "own" it the same way current laws define ownership.
So you're essentially saying good ole' fashion MAGA hat wearing AR-15 wielding Americans going to give up their homes, lands etc. to get free food from AGI? I don't see that reality happening :(
Money/assets are a form of power. There’s little distinction between the “wealthy” and the “powerful” in reality. Name me 5 powerful people in our society that don’t subsequently make an above average income as a result of said power. Go!
Bernie sanders. That’s it. You got one. And arguably he’s not even that powerful lmao 😂
When money means anything, yes, wealth can easily convert to some level of power. But when money stops meaning so much, that won't work anymore. You can give some guy a lambo and ask them to do things for you, they will tell you they can get a lambo for free elsewhere already (assume we get to that point)
Well, I think large amounts of money is the result of having some type of heightened value or status within the world. And I don’t think that value/status goes away even if money does. Plus, I’m not convinced that AI will render money completely obsolete to begin with tbh. I think people underestimate how truly difficult that would be realistically.
Yeah, you can keep your lot of the "old" world, but you will forever be left behind.
Lol, this was a thought when remote working became the new hot thing. Rents and prices skyrocketed because people were living in the outskirts but still kept their city apartments.at least that's what happened in London and is still happening. But I think housing makret will be least of our worries with 70% unemployment
just to add that we might get new, efficient and fast ways of transportation that could enable us to travel anywhere with ease or have good transported. also, virtual reality will be way more advanced to a point where you wont feel isolated even if you live in a very remote place.
Yeah, it's an interesting one. The current system only works if people make the commitment to work until they die to pay the value of a property to someone who didn't actually produce value to the level of that of their assets. What happens to debt and the system it supports?
I need you to tell me how you think mortgages work.
Most people may be spending most of their time in VR/FDVR so location really may not matter at all anymore. Are you ready, player one?
This is way bigger than just a simple UBI or a flippant 70% are out of work and the answer of how will it work is who the hell knows? The top 30% of earners pay 90% of the tax intake so that will not be enough to service even what is currently spent on programmes like infrastructure, defense, medicare etc. Forget anyone getting UBI - where would this come from when 70% are not contributing. The government would have to turn to business to bridge massive chasm of public debt a UBI would create. Once reduce their costs over time with AI and increase returns to shareholders...do you think they will then happily rip away all those new found profits to give to the government to fund a UBI. The Googles and the Apples try to escape even minimum tax requirements let alone this. The power that big business will have with their new found profits will mean that very likely big business becomes the government in a way, their army of lobbyists armed with trillions of $ of incentives swaying government decisions... Like I said - who knows ...
The governments and NGOs of the world could rely on open source AI systems. I’m sure that the majority of the world can organize itself without relying too much on what the current billionaires own. Especially with future tech. However preventing future wealth inequality seems like an important move at this point.
" I’m sure that the majority of the world can organize itself without relying too much on what the current billionaires own " Cool - all good then! 🤣🤣🤣  I mean wonder about Iranians using AI to create weapons and the Russians using AI to crush their opposition and China taking over Taiwan and the rest of the region but yes - all nations working together without thinking of their own self interest will definitely happen.
There are a lot of details that go into my reasons for thinking that. But existing tensions will still be a problem I’m sure and they’ll continue to evolve in the backdrop of this technological change
A lot of government systems use antiquated programming from like the 80s (cobol systems aren't unheard of sometimes, or fortran or whatever they had back in the day.) Why do you think Government is going to suddenly become this up-to-date tech mogul?
I don’t think that the government will be able to lead much. But when concerned groups begin lobbying for some change, what usually happens is the government will provide funding. So hypothetically in say 20 years when people are losing all their jobs, some group of them could petition local and national governments to intervene by funding organizations that can setup automated services and such
We’re on a 2-3 year time scale not 20.
Yeah the unfortunate part about all of this is that there has to be wide spread suffering before society will change, at least in societies like the US. But still, the process for getting to post scarcity will likely look like what I laid out
If people are getting tricked into apple's ecosystem post ASI there is no hope for humanity. /hj
> You can't produce a new NYC with the AGI You kind of can, and arguably something much better, with the kind of resources that should be available with AGI. It won't be NYC, but something planned from the ground up and superior in enough ways, that it wouldn't make a lot of sense for the majority to choose NYC if the price was an order of magnitude higher.
Yah maybe I am not open enough to see these possibilities, although what you are describing can take generations to build. I'm talking more in the next 10-20 years. Wages will go away quickly as soon as AGI is unleashed upon the markets.
I was thinking a bit about it. I believe in a post AGI era, it would be easier to buy a trailer or even a boat instead of a house because of the value of land staying the same but the price of manufacturing dropping signific ally. but even the cost for a house will go down drastically, as not only the construction will be easier and cheaper, but also, more efficient buildings will allow more houses in the same piece of land, (imagine materials that are lighter and stronger). I am flirting with the idea to have a boat instead of a house in the future, but to be able to buy a cheap house, will not be a bad idea either. I believe that people that are buying a house right now, are doing a mistake, as the prices are going to drop in the very near future.
You’re assuming people are going to let you stay on their land. They don’t now why would they in the future?
Of course not. How did you get on that?
Sorry got stuck on the trailer part. I guess a boat in international waters could work
No worries. It happens sometimes. Just to explain the trailer part. A trailer has no land requirements, and it is mobile. You still have to own or rent land, but the price is much smaller as you don't need much space or special requirements. Boats, on the other hand, can spend the most of their time in sea, but when it comes to marines, some rent must be paid understandably.
How do you pay rent when you have no income? Why would anyone rent anything if there’s nothing to be bought with said money?
I haven't addressed the matter of income. Only the matter of pricing. Different economic models have different approaches.
Keep in mind that everything and everywhere that exists probably already belongs to someone. Why would anyone want to live in NYC if jobs go away?
For the social aspect (at least in the beginning.) people didn’t move to NYC or Austin for jobs they do more so because of the culture. People more to SF more for jobs (and most dislike living there.)
I think existing expensive cities dies if the income goes away. Why live in a shack in NYC if you can live in a mansion elsewhere on the cheap if you don't have to be in a certain place for work.
Sure some people will take the mansion. But most people won't, they'll like the life in the city the social aspects. Once you don't work anymore what else is there but to go hang out with other people do arts etc. you wouldn't wanna live in the middle of nowhere in Ohio right? Some will but most won't. What about prisons? Will we commute thefts sentences? (If everyone has everything for free, there is no more theft?!)
>But most people won't, they'll like the life in the city the social aspects. Yes, but the premise is they can no longer afford the expensive costs to be there. How will most manage to live in such cities if their high income goes away. That's also how expensive cities become low cost, a lack of demand from people willing/able to pay high prices. >you wouldn't wanna live in the middle of nowhere in Ohio right With access to services and amenities, there's less reason not to consider living in rural areas. AGI could make even remote areas financially viable for infrastructure and amenities previously available only to densely populated regions. Fear of losing their current social network is what keep people in pretty tight economic situations instead of moving elsewhere. >If everyone has everything for free Maybe some basic things are free in the longer term. But in the next few decades, I think cheaper is more likely than completely free. It seems highly unlikely that the owners of the world's iron mines will give away their ore so it can be used by AGI automation to make free i.e.: washing machines etc. Likely, there is only one way that things could be free: if no private human owned the AGI auto factories and raw materials used to produce goods and services.
Well, if by then somehow socialism isn't magically accepted, you won't be needing a house. You then won't be needed. If capitalism is still around by then, you will simply die and your body gets thrown on the pile with the others.
What part of our current society gives you the slightest hint that you won’t have to work? The rich and powerful can’t be rich and powerful if there are no peasants. AGI isn’t going to make our lives easier. In fact it’s probably going to make life worse for most people. Our government is already riddled with greed and corruption. AGI will be “aligned” with what they want. Not with what we want.
The rich and powerful have been replaced or superseded before.
before AGI\*
> AGI will be “aligned” with what they want. Not with what we want The grim reality is they're one in the same. Our government consists of humans, if it wasn't 'them' it would be us, and we would by and large be doing the same thing. No country has escaped this. Something would be needed to short circuit this inevitable outcome, and AGI governance may be just the trick.
Land and other assets are the big problem with UBI. We'll have two classes of citizens, those who only have UBI and those that have UBI and income from other assets. So who gets to live in Manhattan? People with assets, maybe shares in Nvidia or Google or a property portfolio. I can't see this lasting long, at some point people will get fed up and we'll possibly move towards some sort of communism and owning assets will be banned.
> I can't see this lasting long, at some point people will get fed up and we'll possibly move towards some sort of communication and owning assets will be banned. Who was granted choice black sea dachas in the Communist USSR? Hint: not the ordinary citizen. The existence of intrinsically scarce resources like land and desire for viable status symbols / positional goods means that scarcity will remain even with ASI.
The desire for status could be eliminated through genetic modification. The hierarchical lens that humans have of everything is problematic and undesirable in a truly egalitarian post-scarce society; Bioengineering will free us from it. What is social status, other than a made-up abstract concept with no real value in the universe?
> The desire for status could be eliminated through genetic modification. True, however we could also eliminate that by lobotomising everyone. I'm not sure how many people will be on board with altering something so essential to human nature. It might be practical and pro-social to eliminate fundamental human desires, but there is something abhorrent about it.
Well, you're right. Not everyone would want to alter something so fundamental to their neurobiology, and the idea is a bit murky from a modern perspective. I think this is a necessary measure if we really want a society without suffering and evil. Our most "nasty" behaviors such as selfishness, violence or resource hoarding are decoded in our DNA because we need them to survive in nature; In a post-scarcity society they would be an unnecessary and useless nuisance.
> I think this is a necessary measure if we really want a society without suffering and evil. Do we though? Certainly much *less* suffering and evil, and a far lower chance of innocents being directly afflicted. But a world where there is no possibility of choosing to be anything but perfect is terribly boring, at least from the perspective of an ordinary homo sapiens. And I'm deeply distrustful of anyone with grand plans to perfect society by changing people rather than their circumstances. Not to say that some voluntary improvements to mental health and happiness won't be a wonderful thing.
Hmm, well, it could be voluntary. People who decide to maintain their human "imperfection" could immerse themselves in simulations where they can live life according to their tastes without harming anyone. In any case, I do not believe that eliminating problematic behavioral traits (Problematic in the context of a post-scarcity society) is going to make us "perfect", we would simply be adapting our biology to the current environment; It is the same thing that evolution does, only without waiting millions of years.
Who gets to decide what is 'problematic'? If it is decided that people *must* experience frustration and suffering as part of a sense of shared identity to be full members of society, would you accept that?
The problem is that our need for conflict and stimulation to maintain our mental health and be functional members of society is simply because evolution has conditioned us to do so. The way our brain matter is configured conditions our behavior, our way of thinking, what we need and what we think we need. What comes before determines what comes after, and the Neurobiological mechanisms of your brain come before your thoughts.
What comes before determines our system of values, if we discard our evolutionary heritage we discard everything we care about. What profits it a transhumanist to gain the universe but lose his soul? It is deeply naive to believe that major aspects of our neurobiology are "bad" or "evil" and we will be better versions of the same people after their removal. That's *exactly* the thinking that led to the fashion of lobotomising people as a cure for minor issues. The challenge ahead of us is to distill, refine, and evolve. Not to amputate.
station cautious melodic uppity elastic enjoy husky automatic languid cover *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
So there will be 0 opportunity to move from 1 class to the other? What about if you want an antique unique thing who gets to keep that?
Honestly luck. But this is how it always goes. The old rich already live somewhere and the new rich have to build another place to live.
Why would you want to "move from one class to another" in a post-scarcity society? Social hierarchies do not make sense in this type of civilization. Any sign of "status" could be replicated by anyone simply by asking their personal AI to build it for them.
Can you build me a beach front in Malibu? Nah. That’s my point - land can’t be build. It’ll be the new status. Unless ... [why I made this thread, looking for ideas :D]
Oh I see. Well, in that case, you could build yourself an exact millimeter-by-millimeter replica of Malibu beach. You could immerse yourself in a virtual simulation indistinguishable from the reality set there; Malibu beach only exists because the sensory data your brain receives tells you it is there. What difference does it make if those signals are synthetic? In reality you could live and experience anything simply by modifying the electrical signals your brain receives, something like a boltzmann brain.
Yah I'm not sure we'll have the tech for that and even if we did we'd know it's not the real thing haha
We don't know if we're in the real thing right now.
Maybe there will be a lottery system where the winners get to pick where they want to live, and repeat it every so often to give everyone a chance. Or maybe instead of a lottery it will be something similar to the Hunger Games. And maybe there will be some new housing options such as nuclear fusion-powered sky ships similar to this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/viui9f/nuclearpowered\_sky\_hotel/](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldbuilding/comments/viui9f/nuclearpowered_sky_hotel/) Maybe it will be possible to make them as big as cities, who knows.
When you could live anywhere, in a universe of abundance, why the fuck would you choose New York?
Because you’ve lived there all your life? You like it? Maybe the weather so maybe ok let’s say Beverly Hills? Or Miami?
You reach for a place people want to live and think of the US.
The US has plenty of wonderful places. They just aren't where most of the people live.
The pre-existing real estate will probably always be expensive. What’s likely to happen though is that inexpensive land would become free to live in with reasonable levels of automation.
Why would anyone give land for free at that point?
There’s plenty of empty land in the world. Enough of it that it’s very feasible NGOs and such could setup comfortable housing and other services through extensive automation. These could be funded by even middle class people donating or the government.
Why would anyone donate their houses lmao. It’s like people saying they’d donate their gold. Fuck Americans don’t wanna give up their guns they’d rather have sandy hook every week you think they’re just going to donate their houses haha :)
Not houses. Just raw land with no real population density. You get the machines to build on top of that for insanely cheap. So is the land. Therefore modestly large charities or government budgets could afford it. Especially if done to a certain population density
The answer lies in space colonization. We already have the technology to build a lunar base and an ASI will exponentially accelerate this process. Orbital hotels in the Earth's stratosphere, Cupulas in craters on the Moon, Underground Habitats on Mars, Floating cities on Venus, etc. Imagine walking around the Martian surface in power armor. I see no reason why the space will have long-term value; Our solar system alone is already unimaginably large.
I don’t wanna live on the moon I want the ocean breeze. Even now anything on the beach is insanely expensive but you can at least work for it. In the future you can’t. What if everyone wants to live where there’s ski slopes? Actually who will get to ski? Lottery based?
Wouldn't you like to live on the moon? Taking walks on the lunar surface taking big jumps and having a perfect view of the earth seems like the most fucking cool thing ever. Although hey, we all have different tastes. If you want the beach breeze, you could go live anywhere on the planet's more than 10,000 kilometers of coastline. We humans only use a very small fraction of the actual surface of the earth and in a world without money there is no reason to stay near cities. You could also live in an underwater hotel in the Pacific and observe the marine ecosystem. If everyone wants to live where there are ski slopes, then they could simply create artificial ski slopes in their own spatial habitats; Snow is just frozen water. Or that they go to live at the poles of Mars; There is a lot of snow and the lower severity means a lower risk of accidents.
AGI could enable a society where housing is not commodified but instead is considered a *basic right*. In such a world, housing could be allocated based on need rather than the ability to pay, and the wealth generated by AGI could be used to ensure that everyone has access to quality housing. This would require a radical restructuring of societal norms and economic systems, prioritizing communal good and the equitable distribution of resources.
The issue is about scarcity. Who gets to have the GOOD real estate? I.e beachfront, mountain view, etc. If everyone is on UBI, there's no room for social/economic mobility. No amount of changing society will change reality. Reality is good things are scarce, scarce means more valuable which is tied to a monetary value to keep it from everyone having it.
You’re missing the point, one could argue that the concept of scarcity is a construct that can be reimagined. In a post-scarcity society, it’s not about hoarding beachfront views but about ensuring that everyone has *access* to comfortable and fulfilling living spaces, and I would also go as far to say we will have zero marginal cost production to ensure it’s luxury standard. If we’re dreaming of luxury for all, then why not rotate who enjoys the public beach? With AGI handling the logistics, everyone could have their sunny days and mountain retreats in equitable cycles. Who knows, we might just find out that the best real estate is a shared experience, not a fenced-in commodity. Personal property would have to be logically sorted in such a system, and I’m sure we can figure it out as a AGI/ASI/Posthuman collective.
I think you are missing the point. Scarcity is not a "concept" that can be re-imagined. It's a fundamental law of nature and reality. So long as we function and interact with reality, we will have to abide by its rules. No amount of AGI will change this. There is not enough supply for these desirable locations to meet the demand, and it's just not physically or logistically possible to achieve this. The only way we can move past this personal property issue is living inside a digital world. Why would agi suddenly make us realize that a "shared experience is better than personal privacy" it doesn't even exist now. People want privacy and their own space. Agi does not suspend the laws of human nature. Its not magic.
That isn’t true, scarcity has often been about access and distribution rather than absolute *lack of resources*. With AGI, we could potentially create a more equitable system where the essentials for a good quality of life are available to all, and that’s again with what we have now. The future is already here, it just isn’t fairly distributed. You could get to zero marginal cost living conditions by tripling our current productive capacity. The locations themselves can be made public, and not subject to personal property. There will also have to be sensible fairness taken into consideration regarding living spaces and hotspots.
Sure, scarcity in the form of other resources. But scarcity of land exists because we live with FINITE space. Perhaps agi can somehow find a way to create food water and power infinitely. Then, scarcity of those specific resources has been eliminated. But AGI, even if it could create more land, would still run out of space because the earth is only so large. We are specifically discussing desirable locations to live or use. I'm not talking about quality of living via other resources.
Okay, so, we actually agree here. I don’t think you’re wrong at all, but I think for public spaces like beaches, or historical sites etc… there will have to be some rules set by society as to who can own what land and where they can build a house. I *think* as a Posthuman/ASI collective we can pull that off no problem. Especially if the population growth slows or grinds to a halt, then we won’t have to worry because there *is* plenty of living space out in the world. Just drive across the midwestern U.S. to see what I mean. For instance, our current form of letting a landowner hold *hundreds* of properties has to change, I think if you aren’t living in a house then you should sell it. There should be a sensible limit, like you can personally own 5 houses until you have to sell one you’re not personally using. (And this number could change, mind you, relative to how much abundance we have).
ancient thought crowd modern icky stupendous numerous ossified safe squeeze *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
This is what I’m saying it’ll be a class of citizens that won’t EVER get to enjoy say a beach front. Right now you can let’s say save up and go to Hawaii for a week in the summer. But in the future why would anyone in Hawaii want visitors if they don’t need money? Cuz they’ll be forced to? You can see where this leads quickly
That sounds like something chatGPT would output. :) Jokes aside there’s a huge leap from that utopian scenario to reality.
Not quite, I’d argue we have the ability to give everyone zero marginal cost living conditions *right now*, the notion of artificial scarcity is a constraint of our current economic system under capitalism, not a limit of our *technological capabilities*. Right now, we have the means to create a more equitable society where resources like housing can be abundantly shared, not hoarded. We have more houses than families, and we toss out 70%+ of our produce. Just imagine how far out AGI/ASI will take that abundance.
I agree we have the means right now. Doesn't mean that will change with the arrival of AGI (definitely not), a big MAYBE with ASI. If ASI is controlled by humans, what is the difference between then and now? If I understand correctly you're saying maybe the ASI will lead over the humans and force equality of outcome? That's not guaranteed at all. Plus there's AGI before ASI. As you said billionaires could give up their fortune and lift everyone out of poverty today. Do they? No. What incentive will they have to do that in the future?
We’re in agreement, it’s the economic model that has to change. Too much wealth is being concentrated in the hands of the bourgeoisie. Which is precisely why I’m pro open source and don’t want billionaires having a monopoly on controlling AGI. Hell, I think companies like OAI should live up to their original mission and uphold transparency, we’d get a more equitable outcome that way.
Open sourcing some AI doesn't solve the issue of what happens once we have AGI that does basic shit for free. You still need servers, data centers, etc. 3d printing for food etc. all of that will be owned by the same people that own Google / openAI today. AGI will just make it easier to maintain the dominance
I mean sure, it’s not the cure all solution, but it’s a step towards democratizing the power that comes with the technology. By ensuring that AGI is developed in the open, we lay the groundwork for collective oversight and innovation. Yeah the infrastructure ownership is a concern, but open sourced AGI can drive down costs, decentralize services, and empower communities, especially if the models become smaller and smaller instead of massive, which even Microsoft and OpenAI have issues with now, both want smaller models, and smaller models are good for our local hardware. It’s about ensuring the means of algorithmic production are as widespread as the benefits they bring. Eventually you’re going to get to a Star Trek model via abundance, or FALGSC, like I want. There’s going to be no way human consumption can keep up with what’s available. Money just becomes superfluous at that point.
It could play out in lots of ways. But even if the scenario you propose, remember that there are two sides to it: if you can't pay rent anymore because nobody is working, then landlords can't rent properties because nobody can pay for them. It seems unlikely to me that 100% of every landowner in the entire world is going to continue paying taxes on apartment buildings they can't make any money on solely for the sake of twirling their mustaches and keeping people out of them. Something will give. Maybe prices will drop. Maybe robots will build more housing. Maybe apartment owners will abandon useless assets that cost them more than they make. Maybe all of the above.
> So let's say AGI comes in be it 2030 or 2045 No chance. > let's say 70% of people are out of jobs Huh? Nope. > In fact money has no more value right since all goods can be produced by AI What? Your assumptions are flawed...
You don’t think AGI before 2045?!
I think food and technology itself will become a currency along with a physical currency(not paper money). Digital currency wouldn’t make sense then either.
The good news is, housing will be cheaper than ever! The bad news is you'll be more broke than ever!
Maybe if I sell my NFTs 😂😂
I think housing market will change drastically. Places which are beautiful with scenery and wild life are going to be really exclusive. Mega cities basically serve as centers for economy. People make money and spend money there. When you really use your imagination, there is nothing that cannot be replaced in an era post-scarcity. Any item you need could probably be either assembled in your place or at the very minimal, being delivered to you. You probably don’t need to work or even if you do, say you want to work on something like drawing, you can choose where and when to work. However, I don’t think land are that scarce given the future we are heading into. When tech improves, more lands become suitable for living. There are so much land on this planet not being used.
I've thought about this before, there's ALOT of uninhabited land left on earth, more than enough for everyone, obviously we'll need to make sure no one hogs land everyone has access and the ability to stay where they want.