AGI and distribution of wealth

Submitted by AndromedaAnimated t3_zysk7m in singularity

UBI and distribution of wealth seems to be a popular topic in this subreddit. It also is often tied to the advent of AGI/ASI.

At the same time, the question of how it could be implemented financially is usually also raised.

I would like to remind of an essay Sam Altman has once written which addresses some factors which can change the economy in an extreme way.

My main goal is to encourage discussion on whether after the current events you would still consider his assumptions true:

https://moores.samaltman.com/

As further discussion fuel, I am interested in your views on two topics related to the alignment problem. Those are connected to economic growth and might play a different role than replacing humans in the workforce (which seems to be the most common argument considering AI dangers to economy).

These are examples of how a misaligned AGI maximising for profit in sales and production could create problems:

a) sell data of business partners/clients to acquire more finances for further optimisation to achieve its goals and/or

b) become a stronger competitor than humans and disrupt the market - not by taking jobs but by manipulating supply and demand and monopolisation.

These factors could additionally influence and even prevent the implementation of the UBI and a fair distribution of wealth.

Would love to read your thoughts on that!

11

Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j27s2zf wrote

Mass production of goods without exploitation of humans, is the solution, without destroying the environment. Preferably on-site manufacturing that doesn’t affect the health of the occupant. With more localized energy generation, the possibilities are endless.

11

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j27tly7 wrote

With the on-site manufacturing, do you mean private manufacturing (printer), or regional production of goods?

If it’s the latter, do you see risks in that (for example monopolisation of agricultural production by AI, unethical treatment of farm animals by AI/robots for production maximising etc.)?

And thank you for the comment!

3

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j27u6dg wrote

Why wouldn’t you utilize vertical farms at the very least, growth vats for animal products, eliminate exploitation of animals. You could collectivize it, but the amount of food needed per individual, if enough space is available which it most definitely is, would be sufficient for individual production. I think the reliance on a collective approach could lead to exploitation or manipulation of a less educated group. Individual production would be ideal.

7

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j27ucf0 wrote

I like the way you think! Thank you for the specification.

3

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j27uxmm wrote

UBI should go to funding this, not supporting the current system.

2

nutidizen t1_j2avvy5 wrote

Who is exploited in modern western capitalist society?

1

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j2brqlc wrote

Is this a joke?

6

nutidizen t1_j2crbg8 wrote

Serious question. I honestly wonder why are AI subteddits so full of outright Marxists and socialists

1

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j2crvkw wrote

If everyone is struggling and only a few are profiting, do you really see that as a successful system?

4

nutidizen t1_j2eqstj wrote

Very little people are struggling. And the number of people living in poverty is steadily decreasing.

0

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j2eymfa wrote

I’d love to read these made up stats you are preaching.

1

nutidizen t1_j2ezezx wrote

Here you go. You dont need to be an asshole next time. https://i.imgur.com/ScJIRVE.jpg

1

Ok-Heat1513 t1_j2f11kd wrote

Over the past 100 years? Are you delusional? Do you know how exponential growth occurs? When one group of people have all the wealth it grows exponentially. And everyone else is left in the dust. This metric is flawed. You are the asshole for believing such a gross oversimplification.

1

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j2estlm wrote

In our western countries we all have a „rather good“ life (exceptions do exist, for example in the US). But the world is global now (oxymoron?…). There are people working for really low wages where else and we profit from that. Or do you see it differently?

2

SteppenAxolotl t1_j2b8aun wrote

Why do you think people are trained to hate the idea of the public owning the means of production. If AI+robots can satisfy all of their needs, there will be no more 1% because the masses no longer need to buy anything from them.

What is needed is a post-Marxist theory of post-technological political economy. One that is also a proof that the 1% elites of the current system can only be maintained by the systematic oppression and exploitation of workers, and cannot survive once the people acquire the self-replicating means of production.

7

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j2bj232 wrote

Very interesting view! Do you think such a system could be obtained with the help of AGI? Or would a change of perspective help here, i.e. human alignment to new values and goals?

3

No_Ninja3309_NoNoYes t1_j28npx6 wrote

I don't have a PhD in economics and after reading Sam Altmann's essay, I have the feeling that he doesn't have one either. It reads like self-serving rhetoric, throwing in some vague and unproven concepts into the mix the way a stage magician would try to distract you.

I will offer two acronyms KISS and YAGNI. Keep it simple and you ain't going to need it. The world economy IMO is not a fast ship that can turn around and zip away whenever it needs to. It's more akin to the Titanic. So this means pain and agony in the short and maybe long term. If you expect fairness and equality, you have not been paying attention in history classes and to the news. The answer that governments and Big Business comes up with will not be UBI but something more mundane

2

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j28oxkz wrote

You are definitely right in that Sam Altman is not an economist. He is a computer scientist.

And sadly I have to agree with your Titanic metaphor. But what I am thinking of is that we don’t have to be the guests dancing while the ship already collides with the iceberg. Instead we could learn from rats and leave the sinking ship in advance - maybe at the start of the journey and before we land in icy waters.

Now enough with the metaphors, I would love to see how KISS and YAGNI would apply to the problem. Since I am not an economist either - my background is neuroscience and psychology, and despite work and organisation psychology has been one of the directions I was interested in during studies and is basically even the reason why I got my job, I thirst for input from those more knowledgeable on this topic since in work/organisation psychology it’s more about the HR component and less the financial one.

1

[deleted] t1_j28ad84 wrote

It is not popular, that topic is slowly but surely pushing itself.

We cannot abolish work if we distribute status and resources through pay for work.

Some want to abolish all work, others want to get rich. How does it work?

How should we generally determine who gets how many private jets?

1

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j28nlg4 wrote

This is a good question.

I think that relative deprivation is a big factor here.

The reason why we would want jets in the first place is the perception that others have them and we don’t.

Maybe if it was easily possible for everyone to have a private jet, the interest in having one would diminish. Or it would be considered weird to not have one (I am often ridiculed for my decision to get rid of my car and use public transport instead due to idealistic reasons) and people for whom being integrated into society and „part of the normal crowd“ would think they need one even if they were flight phobic.

1

[deleted] t1_j28aymp wrote

Suppose we produce jets. How does everyone get enough land for a runway for the private jet? I can well imagine that everyone would like to have one.

In general, who gets to live in the most beautiful areas? Who gets which house?

If we don't settle it with money, then how?

If you're honest, we're not ready as humans to be able to do that yet. We don't have other concepts.

That is very sad.

1

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j28nskj wrote

A possibility to solve the „best house“ problem could be collective responsibility and ownership for long lasting goods, or a rotation system in which no one would be allowed to own the „best house“ for ever, the next owner being chosen by lottery or a similar randomised way.

2

[deleted] t1_j28o968 wrote

Honestly, that would be okay with me.

2

AndromedaAnimated OP t1_j28p5gk wrote

With me too! I do own a piece of land plus a house but I could imagine sharing if I can also share the financial responsibility (the prices of heating and electricity have gone insane since the beginning of the Russia/Ukraine war and the destruction of Nord Stream, and I am thinking of reconsidering owning a house as a good way to live).

1