Understanding the possibilities depends on what happens in another topic covered here: population.
AI and robots advocates propose the potential for a “future of abundance”, glossing over that this can only mean man-made abundance, with the ability to enjoy nature or live in a \ home by the beach-side or other desired location determined by their availability on this finite planet, divided by the total population. See the population topic for more.
Reality is, not only is abundance limited to man-made things which can be in greater abundance than ever before, but not infinite abundance, which means just as with “natural wealth” the big question becomes just how will what abundance there is, be distributed. (the question of distribution)
Capitalism: Before AI changes everything.
In our current predominantly capitalist system, theory is the creation of wealth requires both capital (or assets) and labour, and provides economic returns for both.
But another way to look at is to consider the ability of a person to perform labour (or work), over their life time also as an asset. Banks will even lend money against the value of this assets, and, as when buying a house, potentially large sums. Increase reputation of qualifications, and the asset can rise in value.
When considering it from this point of view, society relies upon sufficient value being allocated to the potential of a person to work in order for that person to be able to have a satisfactory life.
The analogy is that that everyone is allocated the basic asset of the ability to work, and that asset is of sufficient value, or society just won’t function.
While today, everyone can work, some people define a class system, which could be seen as having:
- a working class, who work for a living, or depending on that “work asset” alone.
- A middle class, who also work for a living, but either have assets or earn enough to be able to build assets that would enable supplementing their income with returns from capital investments.
- A wealthy, or upper class, who may work, but in theory, could exist on the basis of their other assets alone.
Capitalism: Before AI changes everything.
In the videos on “the economy is like an egg” farm, linked below, I argue that, the average person stopped benefiting from
population growth at some point in the 20th century, with timing dependant on country,
but under this current system, “the economy”, governments, and owners of any asset in finite supply, all benefit from population growth, which is why many in those groups are panicking about population growth ending.
Ever wondered why you hear the government promise more jobs, only to then hear the finance report say that “employment is in the target range”, and that if it drops lower interest rates will rise? When governments say “more jobs” they really rub their hands and think more consumers and taxpayers.
But AI and robots, change that outlook.
AI Future: What happens to work ?
The “future of abundance” promises that while previous technology lifted the productivity of each person in farming and manufacturing and production and reduced workers required, AI and robots promise the ability entirely to automate huge amounts of work.
Yes, it will enable new jobs, but the trend is new jobs tend less and less connected with what is needed to maintain society, and more about optional enhancements to life.
While the ability work and contribute, whether paid or not, is always desirable, I would argue at som e point, the output of the work stops being necessary for society.
AI champions have argued that at this point, the solution is a UBI, or universal basic income. While, I do support a UBI scheme as an optimal way to run a welfare scheme, I see this suggestion as assuming a large percent rage of the population is not only placed on welfare, but faces no prospect of going beyond being on welfare. But that isn’t even the biggest problem.
This future effectively ends the ability to rely on the asset of labour. Yes, we already have welfare for those who do not have that asset, but those on welfare do come at an economic cost, the economy must be able to meet.
If we have a UBI, or even as Elon Must has suggested, a “not so basic” universal income, who pays it? And more importantly, why do they pay it.
Currently governments always want more people, but of paying tax and spending their earnings, all but the wealth upper class would simply be an expense to whoever pays the UBI.
Future: utopia all or dystopia for most?
Is this is the end of the working and middle class as we know it.[house with robot servants] Ideally we all become like a new upper weathly class living in our own manner houses with robots as servants.
But for governments or others paying the bills, the could see it as is less expensive to just eliminate people.
Those current plans of governments to try and fight a coming natural population decline may in hindsight become a problem.
What determines whether most people can become like a new upper class or just cast aside, depends on either effectively developing a new economic system, or under the current system, allocating everyone an asset. Whether it can work under the current system, and people will still be seen as adding value, will depend on what that asset is, and how it is created.
The UBI type plan is effectively allocate shares in some fund that pays each person a return, but no-one is answering where the fund-pool comes from, or looking at other solutions.
Further videos will follow on those questions.
And if we don’t solve it .. what else do we do…. just banish all but the current upper/wealthy class to mars?