I think you've stumbled on exactly why some people are pushing so hard to sell the metaverse: unlimited space for unlimited consumption. I hope they fail.
I've written a novel in which I had to face that question. I could only go on my own sense and experience and figured that people, given the opportunity, don't need money to 'do things' that interest them. In my book, AIs provide (augment) food, housing and education. People then have everything they need to 'live' in a safe world, yielding time. Most people choose to be actively involved in some endeavour, such as growing food, exploring, and participating in projects. Many also choose to learn - knowledge and skills they are interested in. This then sparks additional projects/ideas.
For me, I can't imagine not doing anything. As for an uninhabited island (even one with umbrellas, bar and cocktails), I have a lake 10 minutes away from where I live that has a seat at the end of a small peninsula. Across from the seat is an island that boasts pelicans, cormorants, sea eagles, ducks, gulls, and ibis. Fish and rays are in the sandy water - bream in the creek, mullet everywhere, garfish and tailor. We are an hour from Sydney! Who needs a private island, luxury cruises or any other consumption-based trapping when you have the best things all around for free?
My problem with answers like this is that, to me, it seems to ignore basic human tendencies. I find it hard to believe that most (or even a minority of) people, if they can have anything they want, would skip out on "consumption-based trappings". I think it's much more likely that they abuse this power as much as possible. Why have a nice lake house if I can have a private island?
I said something similar above, but this kind of answer seemingly only works if you define utopia as something like "a place where humans are fully and totally content". This isn't the AI utopia I had in mind in the original question. I was envisioning a world where humans are exactly as they are now and always been, just now with an AI at our service who can do all of our work.
If people somehow let go of all materialistic impulses and selfish desires, then I agree with you. But if they remain as they are now...
You must be 100% committed to the notion of "consumption-based-trappings" as worthwhile. If AIs do the work in this Utopia, there is no traction for money. Money is an artificial construct that we all believe in; it helps the wheels of the economy turn more easily than if we were to trade cabbages for an Uber ride. If we don't have to work to get money to buy things, perhaps we won't have AIs produce rubbish and put it on the market. If AIs do the work, many people will be free to do whatever they want. Perhaps they simply need to get enough people together, steal a big boat, travel to a private island and take it over for themselves. You'd have to have a real desire to have the island, though. Perhaps it's on the bucket list?
I'm not sure if I'm coherent with this. I guess Utopia kind of covers off all the bases for needs, wants and desires. Regardless, I still think people would get into worthwhile activities if the AIs did the work.
I have no doubt that people would get into worthwhile activities if AI did the work. But I also have no doubt that a large portion of people would indulge in excesses. Think the new UBI study confirms that suspicion. Just $1,000 a month made 2% of people stop working. Imagine what the percentage would be if it was an unlimited amount per month.
If they stopped working for just $1000 a month and their total income decreased, presumably they consumed less than when they were working, so could you explain your reasoning?
Keith's argument is that in a world where AI does all the work, money won't be a problem because people will ditch their materialistic desires and pursue more worthwhile passions. I find that argument unpersuasive because I don't think it fits in with established human nature, mainly that we are selfish creatures who always desire more. Some people may pursue their passions, but many will also use their newfound abundance to obtain more and more, hence the private island example.
The UBI example shows that with just a very small amount of money, people stop working. Not pursue their passions. Just flat out stop working. I do not think it is a stretch to then think that with unlimited money, a large percentage of people will do the same. If that is true, then it is also likely that people would prefer to do their chilling on a private island rather than their trailer. And that a percentage of those people will think, why would I settle for a private island when I can have a whole world? And a percentage of those people will say why have a world when I can have a whole universe?
Basically, my argument is that there will always be scarcity because human wants are unlimited. Money is how we rein in these impulses right now. And I don't see how we organize society without it.
It's a good question. I lean toward no. Saw a tweet the other day which said something along the lines of "Bill Ackman is living proof that no matter how rich you get the ultimate dopamine rush is going viral on Twitter". Think that even if money becomes obsolete, people will still create because of the potential for clout.
Might have to make it happen 🫡. When I saw Ackman's tweet about how Twitter was one of his favorite vacation activities, I knew the quote was true lmao.
You can get a dopamine rush by having AI do things for you? Maybe my future favorite vacation activity will be tasking AI to gain clout for me on twitter.
That works when AI is 10% better than the best human at something, but not when AI is a million times better, or a million times better than that.
I guess if you're willing to wait long enough for your dopamine there's always a chance for a human to win against a vastly superior AI, but the intervening million years could really start to drag.
I think in a post-scarcity world the AI would decide the resource allocation. Basic needs would be provided for free for anything. Besides that the AI would assess how much you need or deserve things. Maybe you get a „free vacation“ for your contributions to society?
I think markets will form around something. If we automate every single task the we don't want to do, that money that's being generated from those tasks, goes somewhere. Let's say it gets locked into a smart contract that globally distributes money.
In theory, eventually AI will be able to do every single task we currently have (if you believe in a human-task bound world) and this means that basic necessities will be dirt cheap. However, it doesn't mean they won't cost something.
I'm thinking it will take so many people out of poverty because of the cheap cost of all goods, but humans are going to value certain work from other humans. I still want human writing, stand-up comedy, to engage on activities like bike-rides, nursing care, and things such as this.
Humans will have the option to fully explore and become themselves and they'll also have the option to continue fulfilling their materialist consumerism drives. If there's a need for a market, the AI's will fulfil it. If the need is from a human by a human it will be fufilled
I think the world you're describing just looks a lot like ours. If people are still getting valued/paid for certain work, that means there is still money. If there is still money, then that means that money still has value. For money to still have value would mean that 1) money isn't unlimited and 2) people still need money to pay for stuff. If both of those assumptions are true, then you need money to live, just like you do now. So, you're still going to have to go to work.
I also don't think you can say that this is fine because people will be able to get paid for their passions. Very few can be a professional writer or comedian, and you only need so many nurses. So, I think you'll have a lot of the same type of jobs you have now. Maybe instead of working a boring desk job, you're working a boring space navigation job, but you get the drift.
When you say: "If both of those assumptions are true, then you need money to live, just like you do now. So, you're still going to have to go to work."
Yes, but if nearly all of the supply chain to supply necessities are automated or in some way performed by AI, the cost of living will be close to $0. In this world, you would also imagine ideally that a portion of the profit (or revenue) would be delegated to a smart contract, and all wallets connected to that contract get a monthly distribution of money which is enough to fulfill the basic cost of living. So, working will be optional, I think. If you don't work, you can have your basic necessities fulfilled and live peacefully and however you may want, but those who want more can choose to work in creative work or work that other human still value in this world we're imagining.
a. Scarcity exists, as long as humans live in real world. Entities living purely in VR are not humans.
b. we are imperfect and have the three basic psychological needs described in the Self Determination Theory — autonomy, competence and relatedness — that motivate us to work on getting rid of our imperfections.
now answers to your question:
1. The money will be distributed equally to all as in UBI, or paid for verifiably performed work hours, where the "work" is almost any freely-chosen activity one might want to perform. In both cases, the money will be generated by the system "on demand" and its amount will not exceed the upper limit of 24 units per day per person.
2. The "work" will generate goods and services, which can be sold by their makers for market prices. The purchase money will be paid not to the seller, but to the system, which will destroy them. The seller instead receives a non-material reward ("Merits"), in the amount numerically equal to the money destroyed. The Merits are publicly visible, non-transferable and everybody can see what they were earned for. Merit seeking will replace wealth seeking, because signaling one's exceptionality is virtually impossible by material means (all earn the same).
(random) objection 1: your assumption #1 goes against the premise in my question
reply: scarcities will be eliminated over time, gradually. The end point is when individual atman morphs into brahman (using the concepts from Hinduism), so there is nothing left to solve and therefore nothing to work on.
(random) objection 2: but AI can do everything and better than anybody, so what is the point of existence?
Reply: This does not matter. Even today people are learning to play guitars regardless of artists like Eric Clapton, or Jimmy Hendrix. As long as we are imperfect in some domain, we will want to improve and NEO will be there to support us.
-> "The money will be distributed equally to all as in UBI, or paid for verifiably performed work hours, where the "work" is almost any freely-chosen activity one might want to perform. In both cases, the money will be generated by the system "on demand" and its amount will not exceed the upper limit of 24 units per day per person."
-> "Merit seeking will replace wealth seeking, because signaling one's exceptionality is virtually impossible by material means (all earn the same)."
I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret this.
ok, I focused on the 2nd part of your comment - the artificial enforcement of equality. We can talk first about that part and then we could return to the part about caps on earnings — if you care about discussing this at all.
Unironically one of the best answers. VR could be the future, but don't know if I'd consider a world where we all have to plug into our headsets a utopia.
I think the more immediate and realistic question is how we will shift from the current model of wages for work when a handful of people own the means of production (AI) and no longer need the majority of workers? There will have to be a move toward universal income if we want to avoid total societal collapse, but that's not going to magically happen on its own.
This is irrelevant to my original question of what happens to money in an AI utopia. But, my opinion is now that as long as energy is a limiting factor, there will always be work for humans to do. There's no point having AI do everything when you can focus its energy on the most valuable stuff.
AI UBI is more relevant to my original question. But then the question becomes if people are still working on top of the UBI. I don't see how people aren't. As per the logic in my article, if the UBI is unlimited, then it's not a UBI at all, but the abolition of money. If the UBI is limited but human wants are unlimited, then people are going to work, and you're no longer in an AI utopia.
Possibly towards a social system that includes and promotes uniqueness
Where individuation is valued as the highest priority and appreciated. That beingness is recognized as the most direct/influential/contributing factor to humanity and rightly compensated
I would like to see what kind of environment a gift based economy would create. I think it would be more conducive for enhancing human potential.
Suppose we would need to come together as species first and agree that it is that which we want, but I'm betting on whatever is happening is leading towards that.
I think you've stumbled on exactly why some people are pushing so hard to sell the metaverse: unlimited space for unlimited consumption. I hope they fail.
It appears so, and I hope they do as well. I'll be writing something on this later this week.
I lived in Philly for 7 years and I would love to see an island pop up next to Chickie's and Pete's.
I was hoping for one next to Angelos myself.
I've written a novel in which I had to face that question. I could only go on my own sense and experience and figured that people, given the opportunity, don't need money to 'do things' that interest them. In my book, AIs provide (augment) food, housing and education. People then have everything they need to 'live' in a safe world, yielding time. Most people choose to be actively involved in some endeavour, such as growing food, exploring, and participating in projects. Many also choose to learn - knowledge and skills they are interested in. This then sparks additional projects/ideas.
For me, I can't imagine not doing anything. As for an uninhabited island (even one with umbrellas, bar and cocktails), I have a lake 10 minutes away from where I live that has a seat at the end of a small peninsula. Across from the seat is an island that boasts pelicans, cormorants, sea eagles, ducks, gulls, and ibis. Fish and rays are in the sandy water - bream in the creek, mullet everywhere, garfish and tailor. We are an hour from Sydney! Who needs a private island, luxury cruises or any other consumption-based trapping when you have the best things all around for free?
Thanks for the interesting comment.
My problem with answers like this is that, to me, it seems to ignore basic human tendencies. I find it hard to believe that most (or even a minority of) people, if they can have anything they want, would skip out on "consumption-based trappings". I think it's much more likely that they abuse this power as much as possible. Why have a nice lake house if I can have a private island?
I said something similar above, but this kind of answer seemingly only works if you define utopia as something like "a place where humans are fully and totally content". This isn't the AI utopia I had in mind in the original question. I was envisioning a world where humans are exactly as they are now and always been, just now with an AI at our service who can do all of our work.
If people somehow let go of all materialistic impulses and selfish desires, then I agree with you. But if they remain as they are now...
You must be 100% committed to the notion of "consumption-based-trappings" as worthwhile. If AIs do the work in this Utopia, there is no traction for money. Money is an artificial construct that we all believe in; it helps the wheels of the economy turn more easily than if we were to trade cabbages for an Uber ride. If we don't have to work to get money to buy things, perhaps we won't have AIs produce rubbish and put it on the market. If AIs do the work, many people will be free to do whatever they want. Perhaps they simply need to get enough people together, steal a big boat, travel to a private island and take it over for themselves. You'd have to have a real desire to have the island, though. Perhaps it's on the bucket list?
I'm not sure if I'm coherent with this. I guess Utopia kind of covers off all the bases for needs, wants and desires. Regardless, I still think people would get into worthwhile activities if the AIs did the work.
I have no doubt that people would get into worthwhile activities if AI did the work. But I also have no doubt that a large portion of people would indulge in excesses. Think the new UBI study confirms that suspicion. Just $1,000 a month made 2% of people stop working. Imagine what the percentage would be if it was an unlimited amount per month.
If they stopped working for just $1000 a month and their total income decreased, presumably they consumed less than when they were working, so could you explain your reasoning?
Keith's argument is that in a world where AI does all the work, money won't be a problem because people will ditch their materialistic desires and pursue more worthwhile passions. I find that argument unpersuasive because I don't think it fits in with established human nature, mainly that we are selfish creatures who always desire more. Some people may pursue their passions, but many will also use their newfound abundance to obtain more and more, hence the private island example.
The UBI example shows that with just a very small amount of money, people stop working. Not pursue their passions. Just flat out stop working. I do not think it is a stretch to then think that with unlimited money, a large percentage of people will do the same. If that is true, then it is also likely that people would prefer to do their chilling on a private island rather than their trailer. And that a percentage of those people will think, why would I settle for a private island when I can have a whole world? And a percentage of those people will say why have a world when I can have a whole universe?
Basically, my argument is that there will always be scarcity because human wants are unlimited. Money is how we rein in these impulses right now. And I don't see how we organize society without it.
If I understand you right, your argument is against unlimited money unless the stuff we buy with money is also unlimited.
Relatedly, if money becomes obsolete, does culture get stuck because of AI? This triggered that thought: https://uncrate.com/elevenlabs-reader-iconic-voices-collection/
It's a good question. I lean toward no. Saw a tweet the other day which said something along the lines of "Bill Ackman is living proof that no matter how rich you get the ultimate dopamine rush is going viral on Twitter". Think that even if money becomes obsolete, people will still create because of the potential for clout.
That’s a killer quote and worth a write up.
Might have to make it happen 🫡. When I saw Ackman's tweet about how Twitter was one of his favorite vacation activities, I knew the quote was true lmao.
The dopamine industrial complex remains undefeated. https://www.whitenoise.email/p/dare-dopamine-abuse-resistance-education
What happens when AI is better at creating clout than any human?
Then the dopamine rush of going viral will be even stronger.
You can get a dopamine rush by having AI do things for you? Maybe my future favorite vacation activity will be tasking AI to gain clout for me on twitter.
Was thinking more along the lines of it'll feel even better when you go viral because it'll be harder to do so with AI also competing.
That works when AI is 10% better than the best human at something, but not when AI is a million times better, or a million times better than that.
I guess if you're willing to wait long enough for your dopamine there's always a chance for a human to win against a vastly superior AI, but the intervening million years could really start to drag.
In this world, what would happen if I want a bigger house or a new car, have spent all my UBI, and am not creatively talented?
I think in a post-scarcity world the AI would decide the resource allocation. Basic needs would be provided for free for anything. Besides that the AI would assess how much you need or deserve things. Maybe you get a „free vacation“ for your contributions to society?
I think markets will form around something. If we automate every single task the we don't want to do, that money that's being generated from those tasks, goes somewhere. Let's say it gets locked into a smart contract that globally distributes money.
In theory, eventually AI will be able to do every single task we currently have (if you believe in a human-task bound world) and this means that basic necessities will be dirt cheap. However, it doesn't mean they won't cost something.
I'm thinking it will take so many people out of poverty because of the cheap cost of all goods, but humans are going to value certain work from other humans. I still want human writing, stand-up comedy, to engage on activities like bike-rides, nursing care, and things such as this.
Humans will have the option to fully explore and become themselves and they'll also have the option to continue fulfilling their materialist consumerism drives. If there's a need for a market, the AI's will fulfil it. If the need is from a human by a human it will be fufilled
I think the world you're describing just looks a lot like ours. If people are still getting valued/paid for certain work, that means there is still money. If there is still money, then that means that money still has value. For money to still have value would mean that 1) money isn't unlimited and 2) people still need money to pay for stuff. If both of those assumptions are true, then you need money to live, just like you do now. So, you're still going to have to go to work.
I also don't think you can say that this is fine because people will be able to get paid for their passions. Very few can be a professional writer or comedian, and you only need so many nurses. So, I think you'll have a lot of the same type of jobs you have now. Maybe instead of working a boring desk job, you're working a boring space navigation job, but you get the drift.
When you say: "If both of those assumptions are true, then you need money to live, just like you do now. So, you're still going to have to go to work."
Yes, but if nearly all of the supply chain to supply necessities are automated or in some way performed by AI, the cost of living will be close to $0. In this world, you would also imagine ideally that a portion of the profit (or revenue) would be delegated to a smart contract, and all wallets connected to that contract get a monthly distribution of money which is enough to fulfill the basic cost of living. So, working will be optional, I think. If you don't work, you can have your basic necessities fulfilled and live peacefully and however you may want, but those who want more can choose to work in creative work or work that other human still value in this world we're imagining.
assumptions:
a. Scarcity exists, as long as humans live in real world. Entities living purely in VR are not humans.
b. we are imperfect and have the three basic psychological needs described in the Self Determination Theory — autonomy, competence and relatedness — that motivate us to work on getting rid of our imperfections.
now answers to your question:
1. The money will be distributed equally to all as in UBI, or paid for verifiably performed work hours, where the "work" is almost any freely-chosen activity one might want to perform. In both cases, the money will be generated by the system "on demand" and its amount will not exceed the upper limit of 24 units per day per person.
2. The "work" will generate goods and services, which can be sold by their makers for market prices. The purchase money will be paid not to the seller, but to the system, which will destroy them. The seller instead receives a non-material reward ("Merits"), in the amount numerically equal to the money destroyed. The Merits are publicly visible, non-transferable and everybody can see what they were earned for. Merit seeking will replace wealth seeking, because signaling one's exceptionality is virtually impossible by material means (all earn the same).
This system is called NEO (https://neofund.sk/about-neo).
(random) objection 1: your assumption #1 goes against the premise in my question
reply: scarcities will be eliminated over time, gradually. The end point is when individual atman morphs into brahman (using the concepts from Hinduism), so there is nothing left to solve and therefore nothing to work on.
(random) objection 2: but AI can do everything and better than anybody, so what is the point of existence?
Reply: This does not matter. Even today people are learning to play guitars regardless of artists like Eric Clapton, or Jimmy Hendrix. As long as we are imperfect in some domain, we will want to improve and NEO will be there to support us.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding it but this sounds like some weird dystopian black mirror communism lol.
Interesting. I would like to know why you think so.
I'm opposed to any system that caps how much people can earn and artificially forces "equality."
me too :-) If you think NEO does this, you haven't paid enough attention.
-> "The money will be distributed equally to all as in UBI, or paid for verifiably performed work hours, where the "work" is almost any freely-chosen activity one might want to perform. In both cases, the money will be generated by the system "on demand" and its amount will not exceed the upper limit of 24 units per day per person."
-> "Merit seeking will replace wealth seeking, because signaling one's exceptionality is virtually impossible by material means (all earn the same)."
I don't know how else I'm supposed to interpret this.
ok, I focused on the 2nd part of your comment - the artificial enforcement of equality. We can talk first about that part and then we could return to the part about caps on earnings — if you care about discussing this at all.
VR islands
Unironically one of the best answers. VR could be the future, but don't know if I'd consider a world where we all have to plug into our headsets a utopia.
At least you get what you want, and want what you get. Maybe utopia is something different from that.
Money could be required to participate or do things in the desperately demanded rare spaces that are not controlled or built by AI…
And how will one acquire said money?
Organ donation? <jk>
True. We can always become batteries for the machines a la Matrix.
I think the more immediate and realistic question is how we will shift from the current model of wages for work when a handful of people own the means of production (AI) and no longer need the majority of workers? There will have to be a move toward universal income if we want to avoid total societal collapse, but that's not going to magically happen on its own.
This is irrelevant to my original question of what happens to money in an AI utopia. But, my opinion is now that as long as energy is a limiting factor, there will always be work for humans to do. There's no point having AI do everything when you can focus its energy on the most valuable stuff.
AI UBI is more relevant to my original question. But then the question becomes if people are still working on top of the UBI. I don't see how people aren't. As per the logic in my article, if the UBI is unlimited, then it's not a UBI at all, but the abolition of money. If the UBI is limited but human wants are unlimited, then people are going to work, and you're no longer in an AI utopia.
Possibly towards a social system that includes and promotes uniqueness
Where individuation is valued as the highest priority and appreciated. That beingness is recognized as the most direct/influential/contributing factor to humanity and rightly compensated
Maybe the monetization of other forms of capital
https://www.7thgenerationdesign.com/creating-resilient-wealth/
I would like to see what kind of environment a gift based economy would create. I think it would be more conducive for enhancing human potential.
Suppose we would need to come together as species first and agree that it is that which we want, but I'm betting on whatever is happening is leading towards that.
Can you expand more on this? So when I want to buy a private island, I go to the private island store and pay with my uniqueness?
Renaissance 2.0