upvote
While somewhat controversial, a different perspective: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_affluent_society

Modern concepts of "work" and how we relate to work are quite new and it's just an assumption that we're "on the right path."

reply
Seems like an exceptionally silly premise that boils down to: affluence as a concept is relative.

Well of course it is.

reply
You can focus on the word, but the substance is actually what I was more interested in.

Most people living today take it for granted that modern "work" is the way it is and the way it should be. Few people have the context of understanding that modern work, where you directly trade labor for money and money for the goods and services you need to live, and where your identity and social standing is largely based on your profession, is something only a minority of human beings have experienced.

In my experience, most people seem to treat human development as a one-way spear of progress. The dawn of agriculture, the industrial revolution, etc. are all just stops on a linear path that is the right path.

But maybe it's just a dead end. "Primitive" hunter-gatherer societies survived for way longer than our modern-day society has existed, and things aren't looking so promising for us right now.

reply
I suspect the author would respond with some form of "displaced people without capital will take on roles in the relational economy, or as human liability for the robots." I agree the material leverage of such jobs seems radically diminished.
reply
> And if only the people who own AI will be able to produce things, then why would they give us any power or leverage in the economy?

Nailed it! It’s a too powerful resource to be privately held.

reply
I think you did not read the post, or else missed its point entirely. VGR speaks directly to the induced demand of greater access to intelligence, namely, that people may redouble their efforts given that now so many more things are within reach with the aid of AI.
reply
Surely it will also free people up to apply their intelligence (or stupidity) towards other things.

It's concerning because there is already way too much 'intelligence' in this society and most of it is used to propagate falsehoods, irrationality and to manipulate others in counter-productive ways. I hope AI educates people and doesn't merely steer them down deeper into their echo-chambers. That said, I also really hope that AI doesn't just bring everyone into alignment and agreement about ideas which aren't true. There are significant threats with both extremes.

reply
Well, regarding manual labour. Putting aisde the "is working with AI drying out your brain" discussion... Quite frankly, even fast touch-typists like me will never outpace an LLM write a few obvious functions... Isn't that also more or less the same thing as being freed of manual labour. How much of the thinking/design process your outsource to your LLM is a totally different discussion. See vibe-coding vs "pair" programming. But all that aside, I very much feel like LLMs are pretty much saving me a lot of manual typing.
reply
You could out-type other prompters though. Words Per Minute might end up back on my resume yet!
reply
>But what do people do to produce things when intellectual labour is automated?

They do what AI can't do, entrepreneurialism, because AI doesn't have property rights. Like back to the 1800s when most Americans were self-employed, not working for large corporations, because corporate cog-in-the-machine work can be done better by AI. With AI it's far easier to run your own business than at any time in history.

reply
Are you really arguing the singular benefit of being human that AI can't take away is a specific concept of law? And then say that running your business with AI is easier than ever? So if we are reduced to running our own business, and AI can do that pretty good, what do we do?
reply
If he is that does seem like a reasonable claim. There is precedent in concepts like citizenship, for example. Property rights. Inheritance. A lot of things give people advantages purely because that is how the legal superstructure works without reference to any inherent imbalance in economic or social power.
reply
> back to the 1800s when most Americans were self-employed

They were mainly wage employees and factory workers by the end of that century due to industrialization. And "AI" is the industrialization of intellectual work.

reply
> far easier to run your own business than at any time in history.

But let me play the devil's advocate and argue the point: who will the business sell to, if most people are not in a position with wealth to spare to buy from your business?

reply
... What do you believe 1800 America was like? Because it was govt backed credit sales, land grants and pre emption rights that gave the land to people. The "self employment" was subsistence agriculture on the granted land in the frontier. The land was granted by a mechanism very similar to the volkisch lebensraum.

Clearly a relevant and replicable analogy to AI making entrepreneurship easier /s

Your version of 1800s North America is a myth.

reply
150IQ comment
reply