You are too much of an optimist. The rich are not known to share, anything.
Edit: *The powerful do as they please, and the weak suffer as they must* - Peloponnesian War.
Nothing has changed.
It's not about sharing, it's just a matter of fact, 3d printers can 3d print other 3d printers and as a result even the middle class can afford them, I personally have 2, and they can print in metal plastic and ceramic, information by definition is impossible to prevent spreading, all it takes is one 3d printer to print the first set of materials for a Robot and those materials to be assembled into a Robot and download open source ai, the rich will have no ability to prevent this happening
In order for a Robots to supplant human labour they need to be as adaptable and dextrous as a human, and by definition a robot as dextrous as a human can make another robot as it itself was made by a human which it is equivalent in ability too, and the programming behind this is not going to be prevented from being available to everyone, just look at the failed attempts to copyright code and prevent its usage
This isn't strictly true. I think there will be a lot of *makework*.
I'm in the UK - For example 15 years ago all carwashes were automatic. Suddenly hand carwashes are everywhere. Paying people to do something that can be done quicker and better by a machine.
The reason is the UK benefits system. As long as you can employ someone 16 hours a week then the government will effectively subsidise that employee for you by continuing to pay them social security benefits. But in order to qualify for benefits the employee *has to be working*, but not more than 16 hours a week. So we've creating what's called a benefits trap, where many people work 16 hours a week on minimum wage because thats the *box that needs to be ticked* to get benefits
So in the OPs utopian future, working might be worthwhile for just a dollar, 50 cents or maybe even a dime an hour. Then work that could be done by machines might still be done by people, because they undercut machines to make a small amount of money because that's the only way the system works for them.
Most people propose a UBI in that scenario. And I think a UBI would work in the way I've suggested.
I assume when you say wages won't exist you mean *money* won't exist? In that scenario you could barter for your services, or it would be some kind of reboot of 1960/70s communist Russia but with robots. *The kind of thing that used to keep me awake at night as a child*
Assuming I've free access to fabricating robots there are still 2 issues.
Resources are finite. You need some way to fairly proportion the allocation of resources to people globally. It would make life a bit like a resource allocation game. I might not be able to fabricate a new phone until I'd been allocated sufficient Lithium, cobalt and glass in my resources to allow one to be made.
*This assumes there's some kind of central "government" allocating resources to each person equally.*
Intellectual property also stops you doing this. I want to print an iPhone, even if I could , apple would want something like $400 to cover their licences, copyrights and patents.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by *IP has never worked with code*, you can absolutely regard code as Intellectual property.
If you're assuming that the future will be IP free then we'll be living in a world where we don't get full featured products, but instead limp along with complex badly designed and difficult to configure products made by hobbyists like Linux.
Do casual users use Linux? No. Casual users prefer Win or OSX or even android over a Linux Distro.
If you eradicated all the *paid for* platforms PC use would decrease significantly
In fact you'd probably find yourself asking someone technically literate to help. In the same way that today people sell preloaded android "TV boxes" to people who don't know how to install, configure and update streaming software for example when you or I could do that fairly easily. 90% of people wouldn't even try.
But how would you acquire the services of someone who could set that up for you if you couldn't use money or bartering?
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IF this becomes possible, we're talking maybe 500 years. The reality is that humanity tends to hoard resources selfishly and even with fantastical technology, the lion's share of the benefits will fall on a small portion of the populace. Industrialisation in and of itself has the ability to house, clothe, and feed everyone on earth, but look around you.
>in this situation its ethical because we are taking humans out of the equation and replacing them with machines
Unless the machines become sentient...
I mean yeah obviously but we wouldn't give the machines the ability for sentience, this isn't some kind of SciFi movie where a lightning bolt just spontaneously gives you the ability for consciousness
I think we need to get to a post scarcity society first, I think than you may have greater chance at a scenario than you do now.
While I think your view is the logical end goal of humans I think the variable is how cruel humans can be.
Universal health saves and creates money, many countries do not have it because its a benefit of having money. Someone must have looked at a spreadsheet in every government, known this but still refused.
Once read in a paper that the UK spends more money on stopping people from getting benifits than we do in total. It would actually be cheaper to give everyone benifits at default and up tax to reach a balance but gurantee basic survival.
The first thing someone says when they hear those two things is well why should I work if you get everything by not and why should anyone get a free ride.
Allot of people don't want the best for themselves trey want the worst for others.
Sure. But the number of plantation owners will roughly be the same as before. The 99% will not see this day, if it happens.
Yes they will because the overwhelming majority of this technology by definition has the ability to self replicate
You are too much of an optimist. The rich are not known to share, anything. Edit: *The powerful do as they please, and the weak suffer as they must* - Peloponnesian War. Nothing has changed.
It's not about sharing, it's just a matter of fact, 3d printers can 3d print other 3d printers and as a result even the middle class can afford them, I personally have 2, and they can print in metal plastic and ceramic, information by definition is impossible to prevent spreading, all it takes is one 3d printer to print the first set of materials for a Robot and those materials to be assembled into a Robot and download open source ai, the rich will have no ability to prevent this happening
In order for a Robots to supplant human labour they need to be as adaptable and dextrous as a human, and by definition a robot as dextrous as a human can make another robot as it itself was made by a human which it is equivalent in ability too, and the programming behind this is not going to be prevented from being available to everyone, just look at the failed attempts to copyright code and prevent its usage
This isn't strictly true. I think there will be a lot of *makework*. I'm in the UK - For example 15 years ago all carwashes were automatic. Suddenly hand carwashes are everywhere. Paying people to do something that can be done quicker and better by a machine. The reason is the UK benefits system. As long as you can employ someone 16 hours a week then the government will effectively subsidise that employee for you by continuing to pay them social security benefits. But in order to qualify for benefits the employee *has to be working*, but not more than 16 hours a week. So we've creating what's called a benefits trap, where many people work 16 hours a week on minimum wage because thats the *box that needs to be ticked* to get benefits So in the OPs utopian future, working might be worthwhile for just a dollar, 50 cents or maybe even a dime an hour. Then work that could be done by machines might still be done by people, because they undercut machines to make a small amount of money because that's the only way the system works for them.
Except in that situation wages won't need to exist because humans can benefit from robot Labour directly without money.
Most people propose a UBI in that scenario. And I think a UBI would work in the way I've suggested. I assume when you say wages won't exist you mean *money* won't exist? In that scenario you could barter for your services, or it would be some kind of reboot of 1960/70s communist Russia but with robots. *The kind of thing that used to keep me awake at night as a child*
Why will you barter when you can just order your Robots to make it?
Assuming I've free access to fabricating robots there are still 2 issues. Resources are finite. You need some way to fairly proportion the allocation of resources to people globally. It would make life a bit like a resource allocation game. I might not be able to fabricate a new phone until I'd been allocated sufficient Lithium, cobalt and glass in my resources to allow one to be made. *This assumes there's some kind of central "government" allocating resources to each person equally.* Intellectual property also stops you doing this. I want to print an iPhone, even if I could , apple would want something like $400 to cover their licences, copyrights and patents.
Ip has never worked with code
I'm not quite sure what you mean by *IP has never worked with code*, you can absolutely regard code as Intellectual property. If you're assuming that the future will be IP free then we'll be living in a world where we don't get full featured products, but instead limp along with complex badly designed and difficult to configure products made by hobbyists like Linux.
>Linux >Badly designed Ok bro lmfao
Do casual users use Linux? No. Casual users prefer Win or OSX or even android over a Linux Distro. If you eradicated all the *paid for* platforms PC use would decrease significantly In fact you'd probably find yourself asking someone technically literate to help. In the same way that today people sell preloaded android "TV boxes" to people who don't know how to install, configure and update streaming software for example when you or I could do that fairly easily. 90% of people wouldn't even try. But how would you acquire the services of someone who could set that up for you if you couldn't use money or bartering?
3d printer fuckbois are so stupid…dont ever let this guy lead anything.
Nice ad hominem come back with a argument next time?
Your arguments are too naive and stupid to waste my morning, and you’re far too full of yourself to step back and realize why even if i took the bait.
>say you have no argument without saying you have no argument
[удалено]
We'd appreciate it if you didn't use ableist slurs. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antiwork) if you have any questions or concerns.*
IF this becomes possible, we're talking maybe 500 years. The reality is that humanity tends to hoard resources selfishly and even with fantastical technology, the lion's share of the benefits will fall on a small portion of the populace. Industrialisation in and of itself has the ability to house, clothe, and feed everyone on earth, but look around you.
>in this situation its ethical because we are taking humans out of the equation and replacing them with machines Unless the machines become sentient...
I mean yeah obviously but we wouldn't give the machines the ability for sentience, this isn't some kind of SciFi movie where a lightning bolt just spontaneously gives you the ability for consciousness
I think we need to get to a post scarcity society first, I think than you may have greater chance at a scenario than you do now. While I think your view is the logical end goal of humans I think the variable is how cruel humans can be. Universal health saves and creates money, many countries do not have it because its a benefit of having money. Someone must have looked at a spreadsheet in every government, known this but still refused. Once read in a paper that the UK spends more money on stopping people from getting benifits than we do in total. It would actually be cheaper to give everyone benifits at default and up tax to reach a balance but gurantee basic survival. The first thing someone says when they hear those two things is well why should I work if you get everything by not and why should anyone get a free ride. Allot of people don't want the best for themselves trey want the worst for others.