
Artificial Intelligence Will Kill Capitalism - mark_l_watson
http://www.worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/artificial-intelligence-will-kill-capitalism/google-transhumanism-ai-facebook-ibm-apple-cyborg-robot/c7s17977/#.VMY744FHarU
======
mojuba
I don't think a future with AI is as easy as "robots will produce everything".
There are two important factors usually being ignored in these discussions:

\- Human labour is not only about producing _stuff_ or advancing sciences,
that's a narrow-minded, or even consumerist view of life. We are also
creative, we like to appreciate beauty and like to be appreciated for things
we create. Even when every thinkable and unthinkable _thing_ will be produced
by the machines, we will be able to focus on arts. We will be creating unique
things, re-distribute it among ourselves and inevitably some of us will prove
to be better at that than the others. Appreciation on one hand and the show-
off factor on the other are in our nature, I don't think they will ever become
an atavism.

\- Scarcity of natural resources: something suggests our fight for (possession
of) resources will continue until at least we have a technology that
transforms any matter to anything, which has nothing or very little to do with
the AI per se. But then there will be a problem of habitable space. We will
fight for possessing more than the others, that's also part of our nature.
More habitable planets, more powerful machines, more possibilities. Because
those who possess less have smaller chances to survive.

So no, inequality and survivalism (in a broader sense) are not going away. And
to satisfy our need to be better and to have more we'll have to maintain a
socio-economic system that ensures inequality is always in place. It's going
to be Capitalism 2.0 rather than Communism.

~~~
TeMPOraL
I think those factors are being ignored partly because not relevant to the
"capitalism vs. technology discussion" and partly because they're not on
capitalism's side.

\- RE creation. It's true that people like to create and be created, but as
sad as it is, being "human-made" is hardly a quality you can run entire
economics on. Say, I create a new work of art. How can I exchange it for food?
I could sell it for a bunch of credits to someone who appreciates my work, and
then use those credits to buy food made by machines. But machines don't need
that money, they just make food and run on machine-controlled power
generation, etc. They're not participating in the economy; paying for that
food becomes just a weird kind of tax, at which point we'd be better off just
giving the food away - eliminating the unneccessary theatre.

Being able to focus on creating beautiful and interesting things is the
promise of automated future. I don't think anyone in their right mind could
think that there will be no economy of anything at all - as long as you have
people exchanging things, there's always one. It doesn't really matter much
what kind of economy it is (though you could get a good guess by observing
content creation and sharing dynamics on the Internet when no one is trying to
monetize it) - what matters is that it won't be the same system you use for
getting your basic needs (food, shelter) fulfilled.

\- RE scarcity. I see two problems with it. One that in western societies
there's almost no visible scarcity at all. You look around and see shops
overflowing with all sorts of dirt-cheap products. We're isolated from the
actual scarcity by many layers of abstraction, and it isn't even reflected in
the prices - otherwise gas or meat wouldn't be so cheap as they are right now.

Humans do have a drive for achieving more (or more than others), but our
economic system is built completely around the concept of growth - to the
point that we use up resources in an exponentially increasing rate and have to
invent artificial scarcities just to keep the whole machine from falling apart
on the edges (see the thread about jewlery currently on HN). Not to mention
increasing numbers of bullshit jobs. That system needs to go, it's
unsustainable.

Inequality and survivalism are not going away. Nor should they, really - what
history showed us is that people don't react well when forced to be equal. The
drive to get more will always be there, but it doesn't preclude us from
raising the low point from "starving to death" to "comfortable, if minimalist,
life". Basics can totally be Communism 2.0 and let sulprus be whatever
develops, only moderated so that it doesn't go exponential.

~~~
mojuba
But there will always be scarcity of something: materials, energy, land.
Things will always have a price, because they at least require energy and
space for production. It will be unbelievably cheap, but never absolute zero.

And then someone will own the land (along with what's underneath) and the
machines themselves, unless of course we dump private property altogether. I
don't see how this is substantially different from what we have now. It's just
the machines will get better, living standards will be higher, there will be
more bullshit jobs, and more time for creativity.

So essentially the discussion comes down to whether there will be private
property rights in the future. As someone who grew up in the USSR, where
nominally there was no private property per se, I can only say the humanity
will need a very, very good reason to abandon it for good. It's almost like
saying prohibit sex in all of its forms and purposes, i.e. going against the
nature.

------
bottled_poe
"In our meritocratic societies, the difference in intellectual abilities are,
rightly or wrongly, the primary reason for the wage and capital gap"

Which country do you live in? I want to live there...

~~~
lotsofmangos
The fact that people use the word meritocracy in complete seriousness always
jars with me, as the word was coined in satire as a warning.

[http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment)

~~~
random_pr
The word is separate from the political beliefs of the person who happened to
come up with it (or popularize it) first.

~~~
twoodfin
Exactly. If you're going to complain about "meritocracy", just wait until you
find out where "capitalism" originates!

~~~
lotsofmangos
I'm not likely to be that surprised. My dad used to be a Marxist.

------
placebo
This probably will not be a popular opinion, but here it is anyway. I'm sure
all the famous names mentioned in this article as prophets of the AI impending
doom are exceptionally gifted entrepreneurs, technologists and business men
(and I should add I hold some in the highest respect in terms of their vision
and work), but that does not convince me they have any qualifications to
predict where artificial intelligence will take us. To speak about if and when
AI will become self-aware is nothing more than a guess. To speak about whether
capitalism will end as a result is a guess upon a guess. As far as I'm
concerned there's one sure way to tell if someone has the ability to predict
the future at these levels: if they are human - they can't.

------
warcode
_It will kill capitalism_

Who controls/owns the hardware that the AI runs on, and the AI itself? Who are
these people giving away augments for free? Why would they not limit the
capabilities of low-tier augments to ensure the very few at the top can still
remain there?

Clearly you haven't played deus ex.

------
filoeleven
There's a short story, Manna [1] by Marshall Brain, which illustrates two
potential outcomes of an AI revolution.

In one scenario, the people who are out of work (i.e., most of them) are
housed in prison-like welfare dorms. Most jobs are done by robots, so ending
up in the dorms is basically a life sentence. They are "strongly discouraged"
from even going too far from the dorm buildings. This scenario plays out in
the United States.

In the other scenario, taking place in Australia, the AI/machines handle all
of the infrastructure of the society, and due to the efficiency with which
they do so, the human members live a leisurely existence. It's essentially a
post-scarcity society in which energy is the only limiting factor, so everyone
gets a certain amount of disposable credits per month with which they can do
what they choose--be it create art, buy custom clothing, participate in
entertainment, perform research, or donate it to someone whose work they enjoy
or find to be worthwhile. It reminds me of the outcome hoped for by proponents
of Basic Income, which is that letting everyone do what they are most
interested in doing will result in a richer existence for all of humankind.

The author also explores interesting interpersonal and technological aspects
whose degree of plausibility will depend on how much you buy into the
Singularity, but my main point in posting this, besides hopefully introducing
someone to a good read, is to say that AI does not represent some inevitable
force that is bound to change the course of human existence in one particular
way. AI itself and the environment in which it exists are things that are
continually shaped by human actions both individual and collective. If an AI
revolution is brewing, it is in its very early stages. I have no doubt that
powerful interests are interested in remaining powerful, so those of us who
pay attention to developments in the field should also pay attention to the
uses they are put to, and to do all we can to guide them towards humanitarian
ends instead of pure profitability.

[1] [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

------
twoodfin
The trend has been just the opposite: Computers display far more
"intelligence" than ever before, if you accept the (admittedly somewhat glib)
definition of AI as anything computers still can't do. Logistics, navigation,
trading... Yet globally, despite a few shocks, poverty has been falling for
decades. Essentially everywhere capitalism is practiced and computers with
their existing labor-replacing-intelligence are increasingly integral, the
standard of living has been rising steadily. What about more capable computers
will reverse this trend?

------
asgard1024
Good riddance! Better start working on it.. :-)

Seriously, we have problems with distribution of capital already. There are
two mainstream theories of value:

First pretty much argues that value is subjective, so the distribution of
capital, whatever it is, is never a problem. It's more of a cop-out than an
attempt to describe the world.

The second is the (Marxist) labor theory of value, which argues that all the
value comes from human work. However, it is unfortunately logically
inconsistent.

In the reality probably lots of value already comes from machines (and
biological systems), and we have lots of social conventions and pretending
(calling it "meritocracy" etc.) around it concerning how to distribute this
added value to humans. In reality I don't believe there are many people (maybe
some homeless ones) in the western society who deserve their current living
standard, for the labor they do.

I don't think that this sort of social construction is going to be eliminated
by artificial intelligence. We will just see more of it, if anything.

------
CmonDev
..and cancer drugs will cure cancer. Unless they start charging $1000 a pill.
Which they did.

------
jqm
I think capitalism will kill artificial intelligence. Just look in boardrooms
and classrooms and senates across the world and see what it's done to the real
thing.

~~~
cpursley
You mean politics.

~~~
foolrush
No. They likely mean capitalism, as capitalism comes with politics and
ideology.

Hard to generate an AI when bright young minds have their schooling, medical,
public libraries, social welfare systems, to name a few, degraded beyond all
repair to shave a few billion off of the balance books.

It is capitalism's endgame, much like a UFC match without a referee.

~~~
cpursley
Ok, then you mean crony-capitalism:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crony_capitalism)

------
known
But
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I,_Robot_%28film%29)
differs

------
pella
edge.org "2015 : WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT MACHINES THAT THINK?"

[http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-
machines-t...](http://edge.org/responses/what-do-you-think-about-machines-
that-think)

------
hyperbovine
Oh good, kurzweil is on board. We should be safe for another three centuries
or so :-)

------
wisienkas
Should an AI be able to own its own hardware and have a company by itself?

How will this affect us?

~~~
lotsofmangos
Should stops being part of the discussion when you are no longer the adult. If
it is considerably brighter than us and it wants these things, then it will
get them.

------
mark_l_watson
I submitted this story. This is a conversation I have with non-tech friends
who don't yet grok just how much society is going to change in the next few
decades because of technology.

~~~
boon
And you have a single paragraph explaining anything at all as to why you think
that will happen, and it's basically, "too much efficiency will ruin
capitalism." I'm going to need more convincing than that.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Try this: [http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-
moloch/](http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/). Long,
but very much worth the time.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Wow, quite a good rant on the state of the world! I only had time to read the
first 1/3 but will enjoy the rest tonight. Thanks.

~~~
mark_l_watson
edit: I finished it. Good read, and recommended.

------
boona
When the right control most of the media "We will have 20 hour work weeks!".
When the left control most of the media "capitalism will destroy us all!".

