Quote from logic_man:
Well, what I read you kept saying that humans would just migrate to other industries they would create, like they have in the past. You made the analogy to the people freed up from the horse and buggy industry by the auto industry.
I clearly addressed two scenarios:
1) the natural technological progression of mankind (electricity, car, computer etc), and it's impact on employment/wealth.
2) the "end game" of technology, the introduction of AI, the end of labor, and it's social/political consequences.
Please go back and re-read. Let me know when we're on the same page.
Quote from logic_man:
I see the problem, though. You think that because the cost of production is zero, the cost to the consumer will be zero.
Yeah, right.
What's the marginal cost of production of another copy of MS Office? What's the retail price?
Wrong. Under AI, the cost of production is zero. Under a human economy, production costs exist because humans demand compensation for their time. Further, you ignored the affect of supply, on price. This is simple supply and demand, micro 101, stuff. Price is usually set at whatever the market will bear. Competition drives down price.
A more appropriate analogy would be this: how much would one copy of MS Office retail for, on a shelf with 99 other Office-type software suites, whom each are far more powerful and intuitive, priced at 1/one millionth of a cent (all written by AI)?
Quote from logic_man:
Price is based on value, not production cost.
Wrong again. Water is essential to life. Why shouldn't it cost one thousand dollars a gallon? Air is even more valuable. Why shouldn't it cost 500 dollars a cubic meter? After all, water and air are invaluable to our existence?!?!??
Let me help you out.... Price is based on *relative* value and production cost. Relative to what, you ask? Relative to supply.
Quote from logic_man:
That being the case, if there are virtually no humans who can create value to exchange for goods and services, regardless of whether those goods and services can be produced for zero cost, they won't be distributed to those who cannot create value to exchange for them. If there is no labor to be done, most people won't be able to create value.
Even if my cost of production is zero, I can still view the existence of humans who cannot create value as a negative externality (they take up space and are generally unpleasant to be around), so I would choose not to provide them with the "free" goods and services I can produce at no cost.
Congratulations. You basically just made the argument for the Terminator scenario. "Worthless prolls don't deserve to live, I've got everything I want, fuck 'em." There's a third outcome to all this I didn't mention. The plutocrats keep their AI, and break-off into separate national entities, or enclaves, whatever u want to call it. Nations that lack AI technology, retain human-based economies, and institute a total embargo on imports from AI-driven economies, to protect their human industry. If you think about it, the moment AI puts humanity out of work AND charges a cost for their product, people would form their own networks of trade and labor again, to meet their needs. Basically, two economies running in tandem, but completely isolated from each other, in terms of trade and exchange. AI societies, if populated by guys like you (heartless psychos), would have no need or desire to "export" their products to the less advanced economies (since, like you mentioned, there's nothing of value they could receive in return). And the traditional societies couldn't offer anything in return to import AI products. In essence, you get North and South Korea. Something like that.
