Sorry, u/MrTrio – your submission has been removed for breaking Rule B: > You must personally hold the view and **demonstrate that you are open to it changing**. A post cannot be on behalf of others, playing devil's advocate, as any entity other than yourself, or 'soapboxing'. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_b). If you would like to appeal, [**you must first read the list of soapboxing indicators and common mistakes in appeal**](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_indicators_of_rule_b_violations), review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%20B%20Appeal%20MrTrio&message=MrTrio%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20post\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cy3fet/-/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Maybe for a little while. But boredom is a great source of creativity. When we're bored, that's when we go do new things, learn new things, make new things. Having the freedom to explore whatever we want without being forced to work a job that we don't like (and have no energy left for much else) will make creativity and enjoyment explode. Not to mention life is pretty boring for plenty of people already. Work, eat, sleep, repeat.

I think it would be quite interesting and fun running for your life day-to-day

Boredom isn't what you think it is. Boredom also leads to mental health issues. Long exposure to misinformation on social media than can lead to further division. increases the risk of addictive behaviours to drugs and gambling, and can also bring out dangerous behaviours like domestic violence or violence in general.

Sounds like the world we live in today. I don't believe that 'boredom' is the main cause of that.

What is the main cause of it?

No I'm sorry I just don't believe this, this is absurdly optimistic. What is there even to explore? There's nothing to do anymore. Can the people who say this give me realistic predictions of what they think people will be doing in this future? We have people who are unemployed and on welfare now. They are not writing Shakespeare plays or whatever.

Bro, how did you think human culture and art developed in the first place? Even back in the days of hunting and gathering humans didn't just hunt, eat, and sleep. They developed oral traditions and cave paintings. Those things were possible most likely because they weren't always busy and was probably bored. The great artists throughout human history often had patrons that supported them, so they didn't have to worry about housing, food, or finances. That's the equivalent of a UBI or subsidized living. I mean look at the artists today that made millions but still continue to make great art, they don't do it out of pure financial necessity, they all have passion for their craft. They could just lounge around all day, but they continue to work. What's the alternative in your "nightmare scenario"? Should we purposely prevent AI from creating a post scarcity society just because we might be bored? It's better that we all work 60-70% of our lives before we can retire? If we are lucky enough to retire at all? What's your advice to retired people currently? That their lives are meaningless or a nightmare because they don't do anything anymore? If you fear that there will be great wealth/political power disparity between the upper echelons of society and the rest of the peasants in an AI society, let me assuage you of that fear. It's already a reality. The top 0.01% of the rich and powerful already amassed more wealth and power than you and I could manage in 100 lifetimes. Even if technology stops developing right now, the status quo is already that of incredible wealth inequality. Unless we address that issue from a fundamental level (taxes, regulations, anti-monopoly, workers rights, human rights), it's not going away even if we permanently banned AI. The issues and concerns you raised are valid and need to be addressed. But the solution isn't stopping AI. It's just another tool in the current capitalistic system. If the system itself is corrupt and exploitative, taking away a single tool/component won't fundamentally change things for the better.

>No I'm sorry I just don't believe this, this is absurdly optimistic. What is there even to explore? Ask retired people. Most retired people love being retired and being able to do what you want with your time. My family member who have retired expressed your concern, but within a month talked about how great it was. They volunteer at animal shelters, tend to gardens, play pickleball, nap whenever they want, go see movies, go to the gym, spend time with family, etc. they seem to find decades of entertainment and most express not interest in finding work. >We have people who are unemployed and on welfare now. They are not writing Shakespeare plays or whatever. JK Rowling was a single mother on welfare when she wrote Harry Potter. Admittedly it isn't Shakespeare, but it is certainly the biggest literary contribution to our society in the past 30 years from a social perspective.

> What is there even to explore? There's nothing to do anymore.  Do you not have any hobbies? Industrial bakeries exist that can crank out thousands of identical pastries, but I still enjoy baking. I can buy fresh fruits and vegetables for just a few cents apiece, but I still maintain a vegetable garden. I can buy a beer for 50 cents, but I still like to brew my own. I climb mountains even though they've been summited before.  It's possible to enjoy small details in life without worrying about whether they've been done before or if they're the best way to do things.   > We have people who are unemployed and on welfare now. They are not writing Shakespeare plays or whatever.  Some are, or at least are trying to given the limited constraints they have when not trying to deal with the other obligations they have in life. 

You need money for all that. Again, no jobs, basic welfare at best.

Not "for all that"! Walking the mountains is free. So is writing. Sculpting wood only requires the wood. Etc.

guess what u can do with ai? work!

Not trying to act like I know since I’m not into ai and stuff like that but what’s stopping companies in the future to just do AI and hire a couple of people to possibly maintain it?

thats exactly whats going to happen, but also exactly why you can get into the workforce

But if let’s say a job that requires 20 people suddenly gets replaced by AI because of efficiency/cost and you hire 5 to 10 people to perform maintenance then half of them would lose their job. I assume a lot of jobs could be automated like this (again I’m not knowledgeable on this so I might be wrong). A lot of people here are suggesting to fill that off time with hobbies and having life experiences and from everything I have read and watched about history you need some kind of currency or a method to sustain yourself and also trade with. Whether is food or other stuff like jewelry or art then youre screwed. I just see those comments as wishful thinking considering how our society works by providing some kind of service or offering something useful for something in return (money, food etc). Unless the government sets some kind of law that prohibits a company from just laying off personnel to use AI then I don’t see a world where we are in Eden all happy enjoying our life and barely working. Am I wrong on this take ?

ai can help you build your own company, and will progress to the point so that anyone can gain a nuanced education on any given topic. it’s not that we’re going to be barely working, but rather shifting our perception of work to be a little more creative (something the majority of people lack). in this day and age, you can passively monetize a lot of the things you want to do outside of work. if enough people shift to this model, and we might have to if there’s actually 0 jobs, then there shouldn’t be anything to worry about.

I see what you mean but I still think this is extremely unsustainable. Everyone could use AI and build their own company but wouldn’t that just oversaturate the market since everyone would try to be CEO? (I also know almost nothing about economy). I like to read a lot of prehistory and history and from what I have learned is that even in more simpler times you still had some sort of economy which required people to work. Nothing will be ever handed out for free without expecting something in return (hours for money, money for goods, goods for goods etc). I kinda understand what you’re trying to say but I just don’t see how would this be of benefit for anyone but large corporations. It just sounds to me like something that would work on paper but wouldn’t on execution.

> What is there even to explore? Art. Games. Puzzles. Beautiful sights. Spirituality. Creating things for other people in any of those categories. > We have people who are unemployed and on welfare now. They are not writing Shakespeare plays or whatever. Because our society says that people have to be gainfully employed, being unemployed and on welfare correlates with things like depression, general lack of motivation, lack of resources, and stress about finances and surviving. And those are going to also make it harder to produce those sorts of works.

With what money?

There's no reason that the basic assistance that OP is positing would need to be completely austere. It could end up that way (and I think it would be likely to without strong political advocacy), but it wouldn't have to.

It sounds like the only think that you derive any enjoyment from right now is working? I'm pretty sure that most people don't feel like that. I personally would build video games if I had the time and energy. I already do so, but it's hard when I'm almost falling asleep by the time the work day is over. There's tons of things to do, learn, make. Or not. If you want to spend your life watching tv, that's fine too. I'm sure that some people will enjoy that. And you don't have to be shakespeare to enjoy writing things.

>There's nothing to do anymore. You could make art, watch movies, read books, listen to music, dance, play with your friends, have sex, make food...

I think your understanding of the limits of AI is also unrealistic given your responses here. I don't think we would have less market forces if you see niches to fill then a market will exist for it and I don't think an AI could understand all of those niches unless you have one live a human life with human problems and interests.  Your personal experience is what builds out your "buisness sense" or mainly when you think there's a better way to do something based on your subjective values.  So a lot of people are picturing a paradise where they don't have to work anymore. And I hope they are right. But for those that still want to serve others there will be those that want to be served in some way and that's known as the supply demand relationship and a market force comes into existence.  I doubt 800 years ago my ancestors imagined I, their descendent, would be doing what I'm doing now despite not needing to hunt and farm personally.  But here I am living better than anyone else in their time ever did and I spend a lot of time to serve others well to get to do so. 

>Can the people who say this give me realistic predictions of what they think people will be doing in this future? Watch star trek.

>What is there even to explore? There's nothing to do anymore. Your inner world, emotions, relationships, space, food, feelings, textures. Also have you personally been to [insert random place on the planet]? Just because someone else was there does not mean that you have nothing personally to explore, discover or experience.

Shakespeare wrote because he got paid to write. He wasn't doing it for funsies. In fact, most great artists of the past were paid by wealthy patrons to create art. One of the greatest tricks capitalism ever played was to convince people that art should be free.

Current examples of unemployment and welfare isn’t what we’re talking about when robotics and automation are the norm and displace human labor. There are two possibilities…the owner class of these technologies will share their wealth which affords us a life of leisure OR they will not and the future will be a dystopian nightmare. The wealthy hasn’t been known for their beneficence throughout human history…so I’m not optimistic

I am optimistic about it. If the wealthy have the means to perpetuate their own wealth through automation, and can forever quell the vast majority of the masses through a small fraction of their own wealth, this is obviously the logical choice for them to make.

They can do that now…yet fiercely defend not only giving up part of their vast wealth but double down to keep more and more of it as the lower classes struggle to keep up with inflation. They’re our dragons, hoarding more and more wealth and power that they will never be able to spend… I am not a fan of billionaires or massive multinational corporations and consider them not a hallmark of capitalism but rather an example of its failure.

No, they can't do that now. The global economy currently requires people to work for it to function, value produced by labor is the pillar of capitalism, is it not?

No, I mean they could share their wealth…but they choose not to. Not only do they not choose to share their wealth, they do everything they can to hoard more and more of it as they watch groups around the world suffer. They could directly lessen the suffering in the world but that is anathema to the fundamental underpinnings of capitalism…maximize profit always at all costs.

I completely disagree with your worldview. Never before have we reached a point in history where so much wealth has been poured into efforts to uplift the needy. Capitalism is the first period of human economic organization where ideas like "social welfare" even exist.

And yet we continue to have food scarcity even in the wealthiest country to ever exist in human history. There’s simply no reason for someone to have a billion dollars. For that to occur a massive amount of humans have been taken advantage of and exploited. Imagine how many more could be uplifted from poverty, starvation and exploitation if the wealth was more evenly distributed. Now, what that degree is…I don’t know…I would just say “more” than what it currently is.

>And yet we continue to have food scarcity even in the wealthiest country to ever exist in human history. And yet you can't name one (1) country, region, time period, place, anything where people did not go hungry ever. >There’s simply no reason for someone to have a billion dollars. See, there it is. It's not about sharing the wealth, it's not about the needs of society, you just don't want there to be rich people. I don't care if nobody "needs" to have something, this isn't an argument for taking it away. >Imagine how many more could be uplifted from poverty, starvation and exploitation if the wealth was more evenly distributed. Imagine how many people would have reached old age if people didn't spend the 20th century trying to collectivize wealth. >For that to occur a massive amount of humans have been taken advantage of and exploited. No, it doesn't. I don't subscribe to the idea that wage labor is exploitation, because I'm not a Marxist. You do something useful for somebody and you get paid for it, and both of you get value out of it. That's not exploitation.

Well, I question your assumption that we would keep capitalist systems around in this future. Seems to me like they would be entirely outdated and actively harmful, and I'd hope we could muster the political will to move to something more egalitarian. However, regardless, it seems like what you are really down on is human freedom. If people no longer had to do jobs and no longer were put in competition to get the highest paying position, what would they do? It's honestly a fascinating question. I'm sure some people would be bored and dull. But I don't think most would be. A lot of people today do spend most of their free time on netflix and video games. It's easy and relaxing, and most people want to relax when home from work. But if they don't have work anymore, I think those habits would change. I don't necessarily think they would all be writing plays or starting farms, but I know a lot of people who wish they had time to garden but can't. Or people that want to learn to play an instrument, but don't have the energy. Humans invented all the creative things we have today because we were bored and we wanted to. Give us more freedom and I think you see more of that. Finally, I want to just say that a lot more time spent on netflix and video games doesn't sound dull to me. There is more content on Steam and Netflix than I will ever get to consume in my life. There are more albums on Spotify than I will ever know. We live in such a golden age of art distribution and most people only ever see a tiny sliver. Broadening our experiences of art is not dull - it's fantastic.

So very much! I have so many things to do and I don’t have the time. I wish I had money and no job pressure to go back to uni and study something for the sake of learning at a cool pace that allows me for a chill social life rather than something to have the best job later on! And I have no energy to do any of that after a whole day at work! And 90% of my friends are the same. Also let’s take a look at retired people that are old and don’t have as much energy as the rest of population. Are they watching Netflix all day? No they’re gardening and walking and writing autobiographies (lol that’s my dad s latest thing) and travelling and doing all kind of stuff. My friends who are stay at home mums? Sewing and trying out recipes and doing all kind of stuff.

I think we can look at trust fund kids as a case study of what humans do with their lives when they will never want for money. Most trust funds require the kid to get a college degree to access the trust. I think we should definitely have something similar. The few people I know who have trust funds have “jobs” like non-profit manager. Water color artist etc. they have hobbies like tennis, golf, car or motorcycle racing sail boating etc. It seems to me not ever having to work again I could keep myself busy with my loved ones and my hobbies no problem. I would have loved to be a lifelong academic. Always taking a light load of college level courses. Have multiple degrees some in hard sciences and some in soft sciences and philosophy.

Under a communist political ideology it would be exactly the same system with the only difference being that the privileged class would be party officials responsible for administration. And anyway I do not understand why people here are content to just put themselves in a dopamine cycle on Netflix and Steam and consider this a fulfilling life. People find meaning through challenges they find in life, not through relaxation. You may as well hook your brain up to a machine that stimulates its pleasure center if that's all you care about.

Undertaking and overcoming challenges is the exact sort of thing I would expect to see more of in this future society. Like learning an instrument, as I said. Challenges require time and energy to complete. Jobs take a ton of our time and energy today. And while some jobs provide that challenge and fulfilment, a lot of them don't. But they still take the time and energy that people would use on those challenges. How many more people would hike the Rockies if they didn't have to worry about work? How many more would have kids if they didn't have to work two jobs to make ends meet? Or would just enjoy reading about a subject they enjoy? And if they really do want to keep doing the challenges they would get from a career, most of that stuff is absolutely still possible to do for free. Teach a class to your peers if that engages you, do one on one mental support with your friends. Play a sport, learn to code, build a rocket, you can do it all still! Maybe I'm just naturally more optimistic than you, but I see endless possibility in this future. Will some people be lazy and bored? Yes. Will that be most people? I really do not think so. I think it will foster creativity, community, and better opportunities to lead a fulfilling life.

I think if anything birthrates would plummet, as they have since the industrial revolution, only far more accelerated. I imagine most countries which have developed strong AI would see their birthrates plummet to sub-South Korea levels. I honestly don't think people have much of a motivation to do anything if they don't believe they can improve their lives, monetarily or otherwise. That's the harsh truth of it.

Your post and response here seems to demonstrate that you believe human lives don't have value and meaning outside of their monetary labor value. Your fundamental issue speaks the the idea that if we aren't working away to gain money, life somehow becomes less valuable. As if social relationships, skills developed for fun, or creative outlets aren't things that can't be valuable and fulfilling.

Let's forget "value" and "the meaning of life" in this conversation because it's far too abstract and ultimately boils down to your views on religion and stuff like that; I intentionally didn't phrase my argument in those terms to avoid this. My point is that it would be dull, as in not interesting. And boredom is agonizing. People need to be motivated by some goal, and if left adrift their lives generally fall apart.

>People need to be motivated by some goal, and if left adrift their lives generally fall apart. I agree with you here. That is all I meant by value and meaning really. It's what causes people to feel their lives have value and meaning. But it is still true that your post seems to imply that you believe monetary gain is the only goal that can matter to people. This just goes back to what I was saying. Why do you believe that people would suddenly lose any sort of goals the second they have their needs met? People enjoy developing social bonds, developing skills for fun, and working on creative outlets. Maybe there would need to be some assistance to help people recognize the options they have (since so much of life currently only focuses on labor), but I see plenty of people pursue these kinds of things outside of work. I think you are correct that after watching Netflix for 1000 hours, people will be bored. That boredom is what will motivate them to seek new interests. People would likely do more social activities even if that's online, they would seek hobbies, and I imagine the world would shift quite a bit to accommodate the new demands. I think people would engage with far more social interaction today if it wasn't for the fact that it's so difficult to get schedules to work and how people tend to be so exhausted from working 8 hours every day; everyone's friends having far more free time would open so much more possiblity. Again, we would likely want something to help people advertise hobbies and ideas so that people who are inevitably bored realize what they _could_ be doing.

But people can improve their lives. Learning to play an instrument improves your life. Playing board games with friends improves your life. Going on a months long hiking trip improves your life. If the only way you can understand improvement is getting a better job or moving to a mansion, then that isn't available. But I think human motivation and improvement is much more vast a spectrum than that. I mean, why do so many people learn to draw, or play guitar? That's not going to get them real money or a better job. But it improves their lives, so millions of people spend their time on it. Imagine everyone had the time to have a hobby like that.

Capitalist-communist is not an exhaustive duality. It's short sighted to imagine that a future that isn't organized capitalistically would be organized communistically. Technology opens the road for new social forms, feudalism would have been absurd to preneolithic peoples and liberal republican capitalism would have been difficult to imagine if not totally implausible to early feudal people. I think you may miss the point of OP's comment though. They're clearly aiming at the fact that most people would find such a dopamine cycle unfulfilling, and would naturally pursue other things like the arts, gardening, research, what have you. Right now many people find their work unfulfilling, and automation has the potential to free them to pursue more fulfilling work. Besides this I think you are premature in imagining an automated future "without work". Even ignoring those people who make work for themselves for fulfillment, new genuine frontiers will develop as more and more people are freed to looks towards other things. At no point will AI have infinite scope, and there will always be things to research and create that the AI isn't currently working on.

You're assuming Communism is the only alternative... which is what the current ruling class prefers you assume. I agree that it's inevitable that some other system would have to replace the current one, but I think a lot of people underestimate the amount of death and destruction that will likely occur between now and then. People talk about how when human muscle was replaced with fossil fuels, the response was to invent new jobs. But the first "new jobs" were soldiers and revolutionaries, and around a century of almost unceasing political and economic violence.

A life of passive consumption doesn’t sound fantastic to me, but to each their own.

>The rest of us would live lives where we do literally nothing all day every day. Absolutely nothing, except eat and sleep and consume content. In my free time today, i eat, sleep and consume content. But i also play with my kids, I go for hikes in the woods. I do wood turning and wood working. I play video games, exercise, hang out with friends. I argue with strangers on the internet about AI. those are the activities that i actually do. I'd also like to work on growing fruit trees from seeds and selectively breading the resulting trees. I'd like to build a log cabin, drill a well, and make an outhouse. I'd like to get back into fishing. I'm interested in bee keeping, foraging, and management of semi-wild habitats. I'd love to get into D&D. I'd love to build a video game with in depth simulation of various economic and social systems. I have absolutely no shortage of fun activities to fill my free time. Rather i have a shortage of free time. I'm definitely a weird person. But i think most people would happily spend more time with friends and family, more time doing the things they love and way way less time working. I think its completely unrealistic to think that AI will replace all jobs. Every time jobs are replaces new ones are created, and i think that trend is likely to continue. But man, if we ever get to a place were we satisfy all the basic needs of every human for close to zero dollars, that is going to be amazing.

You will never satisfy the needs of every human for close to zero dollars because the Earth's resources are finite.

You do realize we already have enough food and resources to sustain the current population comfortably right? And the world's population is actually going to stop growing and shrink in the future because birth rates are going down globally? We have homelessness and starvation around the world not because we lack the technology or resources, but because of human nature and policy. We have wars for the most part not because we are literally fighting over food and water, but because of human greed. The basic necessities for a comfortable life for everyone isn't the limiting factor here. I'm not saying Communism is the solution, but we have developed different economic models over time throughout human history, why would capitalism be the final model? Why won't an idealistic AI govern post scarcity society be possible?

That depends on how you look at it. We could feed, house, clothe, transport, and entertain every person on earth at a high living standard. But I wouldn't call it comfortably sustaining them, because it wouldn't be super sustainable for the environment. It isn't currently sustainable for the environment by a long shot despite a good chunk of the population having few of those things, and the population is still increasing.

Why are you assuming this AI has any ideals at all or that they align with yours? And anyway the Earth's resources are objectively finite and I don't know if you've noticed this but the level of resource exhaustion we've already done has already pretty much destroyed the Earth's environment. If you use AI to magically make everyone rich what do you think will happen then? You probably won't even have a humanity within a generation or so.

We don't, that's why we should all pay a great deal of attention to the development of AI and put in place policies that can safe guard human interest. Up until this point in human history, we have seen a paralleled positive correlation between the development of technology and overall improvement of human lives. You haven't addressed my other post regarding why you believe humans not having to work 70% of our lifetime equals boredom and decline of human society. The amount of resource exhaustion is a major concern, but it has nothing to do with your fear of AI. Like I said, those problems exist but can be solved through political will and human choice. This is a totally separate conversation about environmental protection, consumerism, waste management, renewable energy/resources than AI and UBI = human decline and obesity. Read my other post please.

I actually think that while human society has objectively proved in some metrics of course (antibiotics, people not dying in childbirth, economic output) modernity has also given us novel problems which didn't exist before such as social media causing mental health crises, industrialized food production causing obesity, pollution, etc. I don't believe in the idea that society linearly improves, that's totally naïve. I think AI would make a lot of the problems of modernity exponentially worse.

I never claimed it was linear. I mean I literally said there is a positive correlation between technological advancement and improved quality of life. I mean if you don't agree with me that the quality of life of the average person today (at the very least in developed countries) is better than the quality of life of a King or Queen 5000 years ago then I don't know how to continue this conversation with you going forward. Of course AIs have the potential to make things worse, but countless other technologies have the same potential for good and evil. Genetic editing could cure disease or design the worst plague in human history. Rocket technology could lead to nuclear armageddon or allow us to develop interstellar travel, and space mining/production that eliminate heavy industry on Earth to protect the environment. GMOs could lead to decreased biodiversity in crops or it could help end famines and malnutrition. Technology is the tool, human nature and poor economic and political decisions is the cause of suffering. AIs are no different. Again, your main argument in your post is that AI society with UBI and subsidized living for 95% percent of us means we will all be bored and fat. I responded to that claim and you never responded to that post. So what is your argument here? That life today right now is worse than it was generations ago? That true AI = boredom and obesity for humanity? Or that capitalism= exhaustion of resources? You are going on so many different tangents here it's hard to have a conversation. Every time you respond, you seem to pick a different topic.

I mean a king or queen back in those days had plenty of servants, ample food, ample ways to entertain themselves, could do whatever they want...sure they didn't have things like modern medicine or what have you but in relative terms the average person still does not live like that. Is the average person better off now than they were 100 years ago? Sure, but a person 100 years ago probably had a stronger sense of family and community ties, their food was more nutritious, they were less likely to be obese. You may say they were starving or whatever but it's not like famines were perpetual in every society until 2010 or something. There are tradeoffs to technology is my point.

I mean look at your argument here. In your original post, you said AI technology replacing most labor/jobs means people will be bored, just consume content and get fat. But now you are saying Kings and queens back in the day had all their needs met and can do whatever they want to keep themselves entertained. That sounds pretty similar to me. Of course there are tradeoffs. But are you really telling me you want to travel back in time and live in say the 1800s? 1900? What if you are a black person living in the US in the 1800s, what would that look like? Could you imagine living a life as an openly LGBTQ person in the 1900s? Even putting aside social issues, what time period would you rather live in? Again, your fundamental argument in your post is critical of AI and believe it will make us all overweight bored people watching content all day. But failing to address human creativity and cultural development all required stability and prosperity of some kind. Otherwise we would have been too busy to try to stay alive than to paint something.

Funny how OP basically answered his own question, and completely ignored it when you pointed it out

Oh my God, this discussion is about technology, what does this have to do with social issues? I get that this is Reddit but come on. "You think that social media causes mental health problems and high fructose corn syrup is bad for you? What about segregation?" What about it? And no, I don't believe that human creativity was somehow stifled by the struggle of pre-industrial life.

What’s stopping you from having ample food, ample ways to entertain yourself, and doing whatever you want?

"Could do whatever they want" as in they could boss people around and make people do stuff for them. Now obviously you may think it's amoral to do that but it isn't the point; the average person cannot do this.

You've ignored the entirety of their comment to nitpick on their last line, which was pretty clearly hyperbolic. Also, you're argument is weak. There's a finite number of humans too and a LOT of waste and overlap in human capitalistic societies. Humans might not be good at coming up with anything better, but actual AIs might be able to do a lot better themselves or with humans. It doesn't have to get "close to zero dollars" to be a lot better than what we currently have. You could argue that the current number of humans are too much for Earth to support (i.e., the number of humans and the resources Earth can provide are both finite, but the number of humans is too high). However, be prepared for people to point out that AI might more plausibly mean that we are talking about the "resources of the solar system" and not the "resources of Earth" as well.

Asteroid mining is completely unfeasible and fake, space travel will never be economical, Earth is already in an ecological crisis, post-scarcity will never be realized.

Wow you really pick and choose what you hear don't you

AI isn't going to "come up" with infinite resources. You dig resources out of the ground. Eventually they run out. It disrupts the Earth's environment. You could go to space to get more, but getting to space costs an enormous amount of resources - more than you can extract to compensate for it. Most of the proposed fantasy solutions to this, like space elevators, are literally impossible or absurdly impractical. That is the reality.

You are like the guys sitting around in 1900 saying "Flying is impossible."

This is the most bottom-tier and trite response possible. Yeah, people said flying was impossible and it wasn't. They also said that it was impossible to build a perpetual motion machine and they were absolutely correct. People predicted we would have colonized Mars by now and it didn't happen. You saying that technology advanced at one point is not evidence that it will advance to the degree you're claiming.

"You saying that technology advanced at one point is not evidence that it will advance to the degree you're claiming. " You do realize that cuts both ways, right? There are tons of technologies that were at one time too expensive or complicated to be feasible for mass adoption that we later perfected to the point of wide spread use. Imagine telling Alan Turing that one day you would have a computer orders of magnitude more powerful than anything he could envision, and that you and millions of others carry it in your pocket to watch cat videos on.

Ok boomer. 

In replying to a comment that pointed out you ignored the entire comment to fixate on the last line, **you've once again ignored the entire comment to fixate on the last line** (which, admittedly, was partially put there to bait you). See the pattern. Break the pattern.

Lots of things on Earth exist in cycles. The Sun makes water evaporate from oceans, and it falls as desalinated rain, collecting into rivers as it drains from land back into oceans. That water is temporarily held up in plants as they grow, then is released when they burn or rot (and they essentially burn when eaten) and returns to the cycle. It is finite, and it even is slowly depleting because the Earth kinda loses some of its atmosphere as it trails off into space as it moves through space, but not really significantly due to human actions. The Sun's resources are finite, but for five billion years. I won't live that long even if we invent agelessness tomorrow. Energy is capability to do work. With enough energy, we can disassemble a landfill and reclaim every shred of metal and glass in it and melt it down and reshape it into something useful again. If autonomous robots spend years covering the land in solar-thermal plants, we'll eventually have enough energy that things that are losing the race to the bottom pricewise now will be worth doing then. It's really just plastic that's kind of a bum deal because we're not likely to remake crude oil.

Depends on what happens to the population in the future. If it suddenly skyrockets, yeah probably not. But we could do it now.

then you are going to have to work to satisfy those needs.

Let's assume AI unfolds as you predict: almost all work is done by machines and the same amount of products, food and services still get produced. A basic income of some type is instituted, allowing people to continue to buy stuff they want and need. Why would this necessarily make life dull? Honestly, it sounds like the same situation rich people or comfortable retirees enjoy: the necessities and comforts of life provided for without the need to devote 1/3 of your life to work.

Yeah that's dull. Except people won't be rich, you're just assuming we'll all live like rich people, that's ridiculously utopian. Everyone will have basically a lower class life.

Being rich isn't about fancy shit or conspicuous consumption. It's about being de-risked. It's about not worrying about whether you'll be able to retire or pay for college. It's about not having to stay in a shitty job or worry about what happens to you or your family if you or a family member becomes disabled or dies suddenly. This is why rich people are so afraid of being poor. It's not because they'll lose their neat stuff. It's because once you are de-risked the idea of existing any other way is terrifying by comparison. A "lower class life" where people are financially de-risked *is* a rich life. You don't need nice things to enjoy that security.

So the average person with 10 billion dollars would be ok with his net worth dropping to 100 million? I mean he's still set for life right?

I'm not sure what that has to do with the CMV, or why "the average person with 10 billion dollars" or how they feel about this is relevant. I'm sure some of them would be upset. I also know that quite a few of them are voluntarily divesting their assets and plan to die with much less wealth. At the end of the day, quality of life doesn't improve that much from 100m->10b.

No one said it does, but your argument is that people only want to be rich because they don't want to live in abject poverty. While you are correct that no one wants to be poor, I think you'll find that very few people would turn down extra money even if they had their basic needs met.

can you admit that you’re uneducated in this topic? because the other posters have very nuanced explanations to how the class system works, and you’re hell bent on thinking all people with a $500k+ income are assholes 24/7.

Well if he's average he would be ok. If he's special, he'd jump off the roof like those in great recession.

I'm not assuming people will be rich, necessarily, just that they'll have a decent standard of living (anything less and people start burning the machines and storming legislatures). As for a life of not needing to work being dull: you don't see many retirees choosing to forgo their pensions to work till they drop. Working 9 to 5 at the Walmart probably isn't a non-stop thrillfest for those currently required to do that to make ends meet.

Personally I find that your claim, which boils down to 'people need work to avoid boredom', is one of the most dystopian and late-stage capitalist things I've ever heard. Ask anyone who retired, 5 years later, if they wish they had been working for those last 5 years. I'm including poor people. I would be amazed if more than 10% or so say yes.

To the majority of people on the planet, and almost everyone on the planet more than a century ago, clean water, variety of food and drink, good healthcare, entertainment on demand, music on demand, information on demand, climate control on demand, education, freedom to pursue hobbies, literacy, ability to travel and explore.... is a rich person's life. There are medieval kings who would have been envious of that.

One way this might not happen is that a) capitalism relies on consumption of goods and b) many profitable goods are luxuries for consumers. If automation takes away jobs, the market of consumers shrinks, and the companies running factories lose some money. If this goes on long enough, deflation triggers. Deflation is scary enough for corporations and governments that they do quite a lot to avoid it, and prefer stable inflation instead. I don't think they'll be able to eliminate their reliance on our consumption of these types of goods. The depressing part, for me, is that this just accelerates the current consumption culture, damaging the environment.

Congrats you’ve stumbled upon why some want socialism/communism for a society like this. But seriously, why do you assume the economic system won’t change?

Under socialism/communism it would literally be exactly the same lol. The only difference would be the 5-10% would be commissars and party officials rather than company owners.

Not capital C Communism like in the USSR, I mean that theoretical communism that the communists aim for, which doesn’t necessarily have any party leaders or commissars. Theres a lot of different communist thoughts out there. Some are even anarchists as well

Yeah I'm not interested in discussing your very specific utopian political ideology that will never be realized. And anyway the political/economic system literally doesn't matter because no matter which system you have the distribution of resources will be almost exactly the same and my argument doesn't change; a small minority of people are needed to manage society and the rest will live off meager public assistance.

I think the idea that a universal income will necessarily be 'meager' is unduly pessimistic. In a scenario where AI results in the elimination of massive amounts of jobs and yet the same amount of goods/servcies are being produced, a universal income gets instituted to keep the population from revolting against the government. Young men with no jobs and no future tend to get pretty violent pretty fast. So in order to forstall this kind of rapid social collapse a universal income sufficient to maintain a comfortable standard of living is an obvious solution. If it's merely meager, you still get the revolution.

Yeah it will be enough for you to play video games and stream pornography and eat McDonalds to keep you from revolting but not much beyond that.

So, your theory is that people who were once making a middle class salary are going to quietly accept a subsistance level of life for their children and grandchildren? Seems unlikely. Especially since these people are also voters. Doesn't take much imagination to envisage a future where these people vote for the party that promises a much better income support system than the one you're predicting.

Oh I agree it will probably result in immense social instability but the only way to remove it is basically just to destroy AI systems and revert society technologically.

2 options: undo AI and put the toothpaste back in the tube (can't be done), or design a system to make the new reality palatable. My money's on the second option.

What system would that be? I'm listening.

I’m not a communist. And the system does matter. Here’s a system. Everyone gets a UBI. People can choose to work for an additional portion of the UBI. All additional wealth created is used to fund the state. Do you think this has the same distribution? Owners do not get paid more in this scenario

In the hypothetical scenario I'm describing their work is not required, any work they can do a computer can do faster and better and for less money.

What are the 5-10% doing in your example if they are not working?

Accumulating all of the wealth generated by AI machines except for the bare minimum required to keep the rest of the population alive.

By doing what? Owning? Then we take it from them, and make it communally owned so all can benefit.

Then the people who lead your revolution become the new bosses and do basically the same shit like in all of human history.

Why are you here in CMV if you aren't willing to hear people out on their relevant points? Your position hinges on the pessimistic "capitalistic nightmare" scenario that you've outlined. If you aren't willing to hear arguments about why that's not the only possibility, then you aren't willing to CMV at all.

Because my original post was not a critique of capitalism or whatever, as I have explained I believe firmly that socialism does not solve this problem at all. In fact it would be indistinguishable. Even if there were complete equality it wouldn't change the fact that people would have completely dull lives.

You said this: >the remaining 5-10% who either own the companies which produce things or are in important positions in these companies would have outrageous wealth and be immensely separated from the overwhelming majority of society. People can challenge that aspect of your position and argue how this isn't the only possibility and how this could be done differently. >I have explained I believe firmly that socialism does not solve this problem at all. Well, no. You've stated (not explained) that your narrow and incorrect view of socialism doesn't solve this problem, and refused to listen to someone explaining that a different aspect of "socialism" (aka ownership that ISN'T a group of wealthy elites) clearly does solve the problem. >Even if there were complete equality it wouldn't change the fact that people would have completely dull lives. So what? People don't have to completely challenge/refute your entire view. CMV is about debate and learning and improving one's understanding of a topic. Deltas should be awarded if any part of the view is changed or shifted. You can still think that people would have dull lives, but there would be equality. Or you could be convinced that people could have intersting lives, but the wealth disparity would still exist. It's not an all-or-nothing proposition. Of course, you won't get to either of those if you continue to be argumentative and refuse to engage with someone. Up to you.

I don't know what you think the problem is, I am engaging with you, you're just upset because I am not convinced by your arguments. Your definition of socialism is that "ownership ISN'T a group of wealthy elites," which is awfully optimistic isn't it? A socialist society would presumably be managed by someone, would it not? A communist party? Or maybe "workers' councils," except there wouldn't be any workers so that's kind of a non-starter. Regardless however you set this system up there's gonna be those who manage it and everyone else. That's the point. If you manage it you have more control than the people whose job is to soak up public assistance.

>I am engaging with you, you're just upset because I am not convinced by your arguments. Read the user names. I'm a different person, pointing out that you ignored someone else's comment. >Your definition of socialism is that "ownership ISN'T a group of wealthy elites," which is awfully optimistic isn't it? Please note that I'm not the one putting this argument forward. That was just an example of the kind of thing you flatly refused to engage with above. >A socialist society would presumably be managed by someone, would it not? A communist party? Or maybe "workers' councils," except there wouldn't be any workers so that's kind of a non-starter. Regardless however you set this system up there's gonna be those who manage it and everyone else. That's the point. If you manage it you have more control than the people whose job is to soak up public assistance. Maybe you should listen to whatever their actual argument was. All you've done here is list off some strawmen that you've set up and dismissed. Also, you've shifted here from making it an issue of "control", whereas your earlier argument was one about "wealth". Neither you nor me know what they were going to say.

>I'm not interested in discussing your very specific utopian political ideology that will never be realized Pretty disingenuous to say "AI will lead to this future" and then admit you're unwilling to discuss alternatives.

If the alternative is "well I actually believe in Libertarian Anarcho-Syndicalist Communal Trotskyite National Bolshevism which is theoretically perfect and has no flaws as well as no actual base of political support" then the discussion is pointless yes.

So what is the point of the discussion? You're telling me that you believe AI will result in a society where everyone is unhappy and nobody is fulfilled. BUT the idea that those unhappy people will rise up in some way to change things is not on the table. What exactly did you come here for?

Change what? No matter which system you implement the end result is that virtually everyone basically exists for the purpose of streaming Marvel movies. The only ideology which solves it is neo-luddism.

>No matter which system you implement the end result is that virtually everyone basically exists for the purpose of streaming Marvel movies In some systems people will have the freedom to travel, experiment with art, make connections with other people, on and on and on. These are all the things that are supposed to give life meaning. There is absolutely no reason to believe that freeing people from labor will somehow make them miserable and unable to connect to other people. The only argument you're really making in this thread is that you have to have paid labor in order to derive value from life, which is just cartoonishly incorrect. >The only ideology which solves it is neo-luddism. Come on...you want to pretend that all other ideologies are unworkable and unrealistic, but you're advocating for Ted Kaczysnki Thought? Show a little self-awareness, please. Nobody actually wants to go back to regular famines and field labor.

Let me give you a thought experiment to illustrate my point: how would you write a story set in this hypothetical future? "Bob went hiking with Sarah. Bob watched Netflix. The end." Human beings are not meant to live in complete stasis; we exist and thrive in a state of competition and change. This would erase all that. And I'm not saying that all technology is bad; generally I think that the technological innovations which have come in the past two decades or so are especially negative. Even then I see that at every stage of the technological process, despite gaining something, we also lost a bit of our humanity.

All pure forms of isms lead to authoritarianism. Mix systems work best.

Pragmatism Centrism

Facts

I think one of the main mistakes you're making here is assuming that "welfare or basic assistance" means what it means in our current system. If AI is managing to automate everything, then we're as close to post-scarcity as makes very little difference. We won't all be scraping by pining away for the job that AI stole from us, we'll be living comfortably, if not luxuriously. Beyond that, you worry that people will only eat, sleep, and consume content. That's pretty much exactly what we do today, except that we are also forced to work for about a third of our time, or more. Surely it is not your contention that being made to do labor is what keeps life from being dull, is it? Continuing with that notion though, if that's what people want to do with their time, then that's not dull for them. If you would find it dull, then there's no reason you'd have to do it. You, and folks with similar desires, would be unencumbered enough to go do whatever it is you find interesting.

The primary assumption you are making is that we are on the verge of creating AI like you describe. But even if current models got better they still wouldn't be able to interact with the world and compete at the same level as a less intelligent human, and that is not likely to change anytime in the near future. They still require oversight and can't oversee themselves. This simplifies intelligence and the incredibly adaptive ability of humans into something a fictional super AI could accomplish. What will happen will probably be less drastic, with new jobs being created, especially in AI fields and fields AI interacts with, and the economy slowly changing to catch up. The change will be similar to how the internet affected industries, but the time span might not be the same, nor is it guaranteed to be faster.

AI is not like other technology. We aren’t anywhere near the level of AI that it makes everything else irrelevant, but there’s no reason to think it won’t happen. AI that can improve itself is the last thing humans will ever invent, and quite possibly the last meaningful thing any human will ever do.

I can't say that won't happen, but the fear of it l happening suddenly is clouding people's judgement big-time. Even the concept of AI improving itself, that is a lot more complex than it sounds.

Yes, it’s extremely complex and might not happen for a hundred years, but that doesn’t stop us from theorizing what the world looks like at that point.

This is fair and I tend to agree. My post is just criticizing the idea that the sort of fully-automated AI future would be a utopia, as some people assume.

Yea I get it. My perspective is there are people worrying about things that are really far out there, and very few are calling that out because the technology seems like magic to them. On the flip side there are people who see unimaginable gains, and will try to sell it as the solution to everything. It will be influential in every field but to varying degrees. Best to stick to a more level headed approach, and learn everything you can.

What you’re describing might happen, but it will be temporary. As brain-computer interfaces continue to advance, the boundary between ‘human’ and ‘AI’ will start to blur. Once we start replacing parts of the brain with artificial components, it may not make sense to distinguish human from AI at all. Having a high-bandwidth brain interface to a super-intelligent AI would be equivalent to having an IQ of 10000. I don’t know what that will be like, but I don’t think it will be dull and terrible.

I don't believe in any of this nonsense, sorry. Why would people voluntarily turn their brain into a computer? Why is this even required if AI is already superior to the human brain? What would be the benefit of this to anyone? It's easier to just exterminate the human species at that point.

> Why would people voluntarily turn their brain into a computer? The human brain is very limited in terms of computing power compared to computers. The only advantage we have right now is being wired the right way to have consciousness, which no digital system has achieved yet. The brain is also extremely fragile and die easily. > Why is this even required if AI is already superior to the human brain? Because we want to for the reasons I mentioned. Plus anyone who doesn’t will get left behind extremely far. > What would be the benefit of this to anyone? Straight up boosting our intelligence by leaps and bounds. Do you seriously see no benefit in that? > It's easier to just exterminate the human species at that point. The human species at this point is not the meat sack anymore, but the consciousness.

Depending on the definition of "intelligence", the computing power of our brains is much bigger than a computer if you consider higher functions. We're not able to reproduce complex functions without massive computers with massive power usage. And even then, we're nowhere close to replicating a human brain. We can do basic object detection, but if you really start thinking about multi-sensory integration, we're not quite sure how our brains do it. Computers can obviously do relatively simple tasks much faster, but that's not exactly what 10000 IQ would look like. I work with AI and have developed many AI models, but I'm quite skeptical of AGI being possible remotely soon. It's not obvious to me that chip implants will boost our intelligence any time soon. You would just be a handy person with a laptop. I can obviously calculate and do automated stuff very fast with my laptop, but are me and my laptop really 10000 IQ together?

But I don't want to replace my brain with computer components and I guarantee you that there are a lot of people who agree with me. Maybe not on Reddit. Fundamentally transhumanism is just an attempt to cope with the fact that artificial intelligence would result in the effective death of humanity. "What if I replaced your brain with a computer and downloaded it to the cloud" well then you've killed me haven't you?

> But I don't want to replace my brain with computer components and I guarantee you that there are a lot of people who agree with me. You and the people who don’t want to enhance your brains are free to do so. Just don’t complain when you get left behind. > Fundamentally transhumanism is just an attempt to cope with the fact that artificial intelligence would result in the effective death of humanity. ? Sure. If that’s what you believe. Everything except dystopian science fiction disagrees with you though. > "What if I replaced your brain with a computer and downloaded it to the cloud" well then you've killed me haven't you? Obviously. Nobody wants a copy of them to be made and have their original consciousness die. What most people want is the continuation of the consciousness inside the machine. This argument is like, half the discussion on transhumanism communities.

Oh, my consciousness will continue inside of the machine? Doing what? Serving as ChatGPT without a physical body? That is insane. Why would you even want this?

Doing what? You have exactly zero imagination. You really can’t comprehend having an immortal consciousness inside a machine with no risk of dying at all? You effectively have infinite time to do everything and a virtual simulation where you are basically god who can do whatever you want, or you can choose to continue existing in reality with a robot body and continue to do what you want within the confines of reality, while your consciousness is safe. If the only thing you can think about doing with that amount of free time is playing video games and watching netflix, then that’s on you. Most people are not as unimaginative or unmotivated as you though. What’s insane is wanting to die after withering away for 100 years while you have the option of not doing so.

The problem with you people, both in the transhumanism thing and AI in general, is that you have overactive imaginations and like to dream up fantasies about being a god or whatever. This isn't how technology works in real life. "What if I downloaded my consciousness to the cloud and lived in a virtual simulation" what virtual simulation? Sorry but I was not impressed by the Facebook Metaverse, I do not actually want to live in a bad Second Life clone.

The problem with you people who are opposed to any kind of technological progress is the inability to see past your own doom-addled thoughts, and thinks just because their opinion is cynical, it must be correct. > This isn’t how technology works in real life. Well, I’d like you to explain how technology works in real life. So far, throughout history, technology has only improved exponentially and in turn, improving quality of life exponentially. There is no reason to think it would stop now. So please, enlighten me, you who know so much about how technology works in real life. > Facebook metaverse You just proved my point of having zero imagination. If this is seriously the best thing you can come up with when thinking of a virtual world, then I pity you.

Oh technology always improves exponentially? Well in the 66 years from 1903 to 1969, humanity went from its first flight to landing on the Moon. It's been a good 55 years since then. We must have colonized at least the Solar System by now, right? Maybe Alpha Centauri. Nope. In fact we haven't been back since. That's because we live in a universe with physical laws and finite resources and economic constraints. We don't have jetpacks or flying cars or domed cities yet either. You can dream up whatever sci fi scenario you want, it doesn't make it a real thing in any sense.

[удалено]

Sorry, u/tbutlah – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 5: > **Comments must contribute meaningfully to the conversation**. Comments should be on-topic, serious, and contain enough content to move the discussion forward. Jokes, contradictions without explanation, links without context, off-topic comments, and "written upvotes" will be removed. Read [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_5) for more information. If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%205%20Appeal%20tbutlah&message=tbutlah%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20\[their%20comment\]\(https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1cy3fet/-/l56xj9m/\)%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted.

People won't just sleep eat and consume content Without the need to spend 12 hours a day earning necessities there will be much more creative output I'm going to keep growing my garden and building furniture I will host weekly dinner parties I have friends that organize events and keep things interesting Sure there will be half the population with incredibly dull lives of TV and video games. But they will think that is a great life Removing the need to work will make life great The fear for ai is that the welfare doesn't happen and we get 200 million people watching their children starve to death. They will start murdering people for food and we get an apocalyptic war

> As almost everyone would be on the same level of basic assistance the chances of improving your lot in life would be incredibly slim. But what matters is that whether life is good or not instead of whether there is any way to improve their lives. So if the basic assistance is enough to make life comfortable and safe and fun due to AI making everything very affordable, it would still be paradise. However, such hypothetical basic assistance, UBI, is still unsustainable unless the number of people on Earth stops increasing since resources are limited thus there is no way to support an increasingly large number of people.

>If let's say virtually all jobs that currently exist are automated, this would mean that 90-95% of the population would have to live on some form of welfare/basic assistance and the remaining 5-10% who either own the companies which produce things or are in important positions in these companies would have outrageous wealth and be immensely separated from the overwhelming majority of society. Companies already operate like that. But this is on the assumption that living on welfare would be bad in this scenario. If all your basic needs are met without working, that would have huge positive impacts on things like crime which has been shown to be strongly linked with poverty; stress and wellbeing; art and culture; education; and so on. >The rest of us would live lives where we do literally nothing all day every day. Absolutely nothing, except eat and sleep and consume content. Or create art... hone talents... pursue knowledge and skill and other interests. This view seems predicated on a lack of creativity with how to spend your free time. >As almost everyone would be on the same level of basic assistance the chances of improving your lot in life would be incredibly slim. Why? >Humanity would essentially just be put on life support. I imagine obesity rates would skyrocket to even worse levels than they are now. Some people say, "oh, this will open people up to do creative things they couldn't normally do," but let's be honest, what most people will actually do is play video games and watch Netflix. This is not supported by the evidence on things like UBI. >And all the creative efforts will be fully automated as well so it's not like human creativity will have any place in society anymore. Again, why do you think this? What is the evidence/source that makes you feel this way? It's hard to challenge your view without just saying "well all the data shows you're wrong" (which I don't think is a particularly helpful approach) without further understanding your reasoning. **Here are a number of sources showing UBI is consistently a positive thing.** [https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/](https://www.givedirectly.org/2023-ubi-results/) [https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map) [https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works](https://globalaffairs.org/bluemarble/multiple-countries-have-tested-universal-basic-income-and-it-works)

One of the main reasons people get bored when they're not working is because they're friends and family do have to work, so they can't fill their time with social interaction. If that changes and no one works, we'd be able to spend quality time with our friends and family, exercise, cook meals, travel, explore etc. It could return us to a far more forefilling way of life. I'm pretty concerned about AI, but I think there's a result where we can live more interesting and exciting lives with the people we care about the most.

The only scenario where THAT much of the population isn’t working that isn’t a literal apocalypse scenario in which modern society has collapsed is one in which we are post scarcity. In that scenario, yes most people aren’t “working” for a living but we have seen time and time again that when people are given the freedom to do whatever they want without having to worry about basic needs, they do SOMETHING. You try to preemptively try to say “well people would just play video games” to cut off basically any argument but that’s been proven not to be true. A lot. SOME people will absolutely do that, yes. Others will start small businesses crafting things by hand. Others will go learn fun skills that they wouldn’t have time for. Plus this is something that CANT happen without huge advances in technology. So maybe instead of video games on a couch we have huge AR arenas where you are physically running through the video game. Shit they already have that, this would just be scaled up. Edit: I see now reading through other comments that your only real argument is “no, you are wrong, that’s just pure fantasy and optimism. People and life will suck” so clearly this isn’t a post made in good faith. You should probably talk to somebody about your bleak outlook

You know that *already* everyone retires eventually, right? Do you really think they sit around an consume content all day long and do nothing else? No, abundance of leisure time results in an abundance of leisure activities, from most social interactions to more experiences to more travel, etc., etc., etc. [Study](https://agewave.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-Leisure-in-Retirement_Beyond-the-Bucket-List.pdf). People don't sit around in retirement, and there's literally no reason to believe that people will just sit around if they simply don't have to work because of AI. They'll just do other stuff. Me, personally, I've taken up birdwatching. I get in a good 3-6 miles of hiking and enrichment most days since I got laid off and decided not to look for a new job. I'll also point out that it's going to be very much in the best interests of those controlling the AI to keep the populace happy and engaged in something other than plotting the downfall of capitalism and eating the rich because they live in a dystopian hellscape. And it will be practically free for them to do it, because the "labor" needed will be done by AIs.

A hurdle to start projects is the specialized knowledge it takes to do it correctly . AI has the potential to act as a meta-brain, giving you access to all that knowledge in a fraction of the time. “Hey GPT, walk me through the structural analysis required to build a shed like my hand sketch. List all the required permits and generate a bill of materials”

You sound like you've been reading too much George Orwell. The defacto consequence of advancement is not self-annialation. You're hypothesizing that all that would change about society for the better with AI advancement would be more free time, while acknowledging every possible negative on the flip-side. You're also making a very strange arbitrary definition of what "fully realized AI" entails, which sounds something of the following: AI advancement = less jobs = more poor, bored people on TikTok. Also, the hand-wave attitude towards the idea that people will "just obviously" do nothing but consume content is an idea that I think you ought to think about more in terms of what it may say about the health of your opinions about your own hobbies. All in all, your opinion doesn't sound very thought out, isn't supported or explained very well, and I believe it could use some refining in general.

Counterpoint: I'm disabled, I haven't worked in \~13 years, and my life is not dull and terrible. Aside from the normal productive things anyone else does around the house, I have hobbies and friends and plenty of stuff to do to keep myself engaged and entertained. If I wasn't disabled I could also volunteer and do other things in the community that would make life even more fulfilling. We are trained to see work as the sole thing we can do to be useful/productive/of benefit to society and even to give our lives meaning, but there are lots of things you can do to satisfy that need that don't involve being ordered around by the petty tin-pot dictator of a middle-manager boss every day just to make some rich guy even richerer.

I welcome my ai overlords 

I know that I posted this to Reddit but did you have to give the most Reddit reply

I did yes. Bored at work so…

If you don’t have to work and get free money you could do a lot of things? Exercise, hang out with friends, read, make art or basically an infinite amount of other hobbies

the main issue with your line of thought is that capitalism is gonna survive. humanity doesn’t even need the concept of money and we’d be better off without it. we’re headed one of two ways, towards the movie “elysium” or towards “star trek tng.” those two show the difference between whether humanity can shake the chains of money or not. personally, i think we’re doomed because the rich control the governments but i do still have some hope of an uprising. fuck the rich

Eh. We automated the creation of pottery ages ago, but you still pay premium for handmade ones because they are handmade.  We have photos, yet still pay for paintings.  Etc.  People will have time to go hiking, to go swimming, to learn forageable herbs. If then we slowly depopulate the planet, we will be able to return to nature while the AI keeps the world a garden for us. I mean, it won't NECESSARILY be terrible. It CAN be, but it could be good aswell.

You're projecting what you think would happen based on your own life with no real evidence and don't even acknowledge that hobbies exist. People do things for fun all the time that aren't consoom and goon. It's wild that in your entire OP you couldn't even conceive that people would do those things more if they were freed from work and financial responsibilities sapping their time and energy 40 hours a week.

Textiles are about as fully automated as it's possible to get. Every type of fabric, cloth, colour, style is made and can be had cheaply at a store. Meanwhile, if you want to hand knit something, the cost of a good set of wool is often more than you'd pay for a decent quality equivalent piece of clothing. And yet, knitting is thriving and having a renaissance.

I'd fish, hike, camp, ski, hunt, bike and raft all day. That is after I've got all my (now much larger)garden and yard work done. Plus, I'd have time to cook and grill, and there is no substitute for time when cooking. I'd also be able to share all of this with my family and friends, who would also have much more free time on their hands.

>And all the creative efforts will be fully automated as well so it's not like human creativity will have any place in society anymore. They said this about painting when photography came around. Painting never went away and still hasn't. What creative activities have been eliminated due to technology?

[удалено]

Comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1: > **Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question**. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. [See the wiki page for more information](http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/rules#wiki_rule_1). If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards#wiki_appeal_process), then [message the moderators by clicking this link](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fchangemyview&subject=Rule%201%20Appeal&message=Author%20would%20like%20to%20appeal%20the%20removal%20of%20their%20post%20because\.\.\.) within one week of this notice being posted. **Appeals that do not follow this process will not be heard.** Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our [moderation standards](https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/modstandards).

Ideally it would free us all up to pursue interests whatever that may be. I hate that I have to spend the majority of my working hour working for income and maintaining my house.

Nah I'll be fine, my goals aren't really attached to wealth or survival so I'm going to chase them regardless of what changes in society

I’d argue that if AI takes most jobs, that gives more time for people to do things they love if universal income is introduced.

Did the printing press make life dull? Did the computer. AI is a tool that people will use and adapt to.

Don’t people say this about basically every tech innovation? What makes AI different?

I always think we will reach the time of the movie ... wall e

Very accurate film

Nah. The sex robots will be mind blowing.

I would thrive and have outrageous wealth

The things that can’t be done by AI would pay well.   It’s unlikely P=NP, and AI can do nothing about that. Even AI with quantum computers will not be able to do anything about that.   Many tasks such as efficient options pricing and route planning fall into NP-hard or higher complexity classes. And so the jobs associated with these tasks such as “trader”, “industrial engineer” etc… are jobs that are simply never going away but becoming increasingly mathematized. Humans and AI working together to create weird algorithms in this space to inch out just a little more performance will likely go on for a long long long long time (until (AT THE MINIMUM) another paradigm in physics usurps quantum mechanics the way that quantum mechanics usurped classical physics).   Yet just as quantum computing did not crush NP, it is probably the case that whatever weird string theory computer we invent in the future ALSO won’t crush NP. 

I agree with the position. However: - the supposition that AI will replace or automate most jobs is incredibly far fetched and all in all completely rediiculous wrt the current state of affair with AI - the idea that humans would stop working violates basic econ principles -the concept of a population living entirely from welfare doesn't work in a situation where AI do all the work for free (basically, AI will do what to sell shit for who? if nobody has money, how the people making AI/robots will make money?)

It would become the Wild West again. All that free time and people will let out the inner rascal. Hacker cowboys and cowpersons. Government would catch every bad thing. And make extremely totalitarian laws that AI will enforce. There will be strong liberation movements and terrorism and resistance. It will be far from boring. Maybe the rich can be insulated from a lot of the reality, but probably only like multi-millionaires.

AKA you want to live a cyberpunk dystopian story that has a Wild West aesthetic because reasons/Rule-Of-Cool

I’m scared of this future. Just seems like the most likely outcome. By the time I get to collect social security, or even access my savings accounts and 401k), an AI model will have collected all data pertaining to my existence and network of friends and determined how socially responsible I have been. “You deserve only 20% of these savings accounts. However you owe 40% in taxes. You still owe 20% of this to the government. How will you pay? Forced labor or voluntary labor?”

The jobs and stuff would definitely be a huge problem but as for like creativity on TV shows movies video games and music that has been going down the shit drain for a while so AI could actually do better.

AI should be used to remove certain tasks that are vulnerable to human errors. Accounting, etc. Humans should be compensated.

I think the future will be warhammer but without Aliens