The Singularity

[Zeusthecat]

Okay, so let me get this straight. Rich people make robots that can perform all of the duties that they currently need to pay actual people for. They cut their entire payroll leaving everybody unemployed.

 

Isn't that when people say "Fuck those assholes, let's just take the remaining 99% of us and just continue to do our thing our way while those rich robot owning assholes live in their isolated robotic kingdoms."?

 

I'm sure you guys are joking (hopefully). But it is incredibly absurd to think that 99% of the population would suddenly cease to function just because the top 1% cut them off. That's some trickle down economics bullshit (kind of) and really paints the picture that 99% of us really are so stupid that we couldn't continue to function without the gracious 1% continuing to humor us.

[Gaizokubanou]

Okay, so let me get this straight. Rich people make robots that can perform all of the duties that they currently need to pay actual people for. They cut their entire payroll leaving everybody unemployed.

 

Isn't that when people say "Fuck those assholes, let's just take the remaining 99% of us and just continue to do our thing our way while those rich robot owning assholes live in their isolated robotic kingdoms."?

 

I'm sure you guys are joking (hopefully). But it is incredibly absurd to think that 99% of the population would suddenly cease to function just because the top 1% cut them off. That's some trickle down economics bullshit (kind of) and really paints the picture that 99% of us really are so stupid that we couldn't continue to function without the gracious 1% continuing to humor us.

 

Not exactly... the hypothetical is that 1% (shorthand for rich assholes) not only get the robots, but that the robots they own outperforms the 99% in every single way, including designing better robots.  So that given time, 99% only lags behind further and further.

 

Still, I agree that the hypothetical is ridiculous as both you and Ninety-Three have pointed out.  But for that specific discussion, the premise is that hypothetical does happen because some of us wanted to point out that not only is 'singularity' implausible to happen but even if it does happen, it most likely spells doom for great majority of the people.

[clyde]

Okay, so let me get this straight. Rich people make robots that can perform all of the duties that they currently need to pay actual people for. They cut their entire payroll leaving everybody unemployed.

 

Isn't that when people say "Fuck those assholes, let's just take the remaining 99% of us and just continue to do our thing our way while those rich robot owning assholes live in their isolated robotic kingdoms."?

 

I'm sure you guys are joking (hopefully). But it is incredibly absurd to think that 99% of the population would suddenly cease to function just because the top 1% cut them off. That's some trickle down economics bullshit (kind of) and really paints the picture that 99% of us really are so stupid that we couldn't continue to function without the gracious 1% continuing to humor us.

 

In this scenario, all of the property and means of production would be owned by the rich. So there would be no where to live and no land to grow your own food or whatever. It would be owned by landlords. In order to produce many necessary things you need raw resources which assumably the rich would control all of due to their advantage of capital.

[Zeusthecat]

I think the other problem with that problem is that the richest 1% are also not the smartest 1%. And luckily, you don't have to be a billionaire to build a robot. Just look at Anakin Skywalker. He was a slave and was able to build C-3PO by just looking up some Wikipedia articles and soldering a bunch of junk together.

 

What I'm getting at is that I think it is unlikely that we will end up back in a place where only the top 1% have the knowledge and capacity to build super robots. They might think they do but then I guarantee some underdog hero scientist in the 99% will discover some fatal flaw in their robots and will reprogram them to instantly murder the 1%. Then that hero scientist will lead us into a new golden age before falling to the dark side and then just murdering the rest of us.

[Zeusthecat]

In this scenario, all of the property and means of production would be owned by the rich. So there would be no where to live and no land to grow your own food or whatever. It would be owned by landlords. In order to produce many necessary things you need raw resources which assumably the rich would control all of due to their advantage of capital.

 

Is this assuming this is so far in the future that our world has become become one giant city? You know, like Coruscant?

[clyde]

I think the other problem with that problem is that the richest 1% are also not the smartest 1%. And luckily, you don't have to be a billionaire to build a robot. Just look at Anakin Skywalker. He was a slave and was able to build C-3PO by just looking up some Wikipedia articles and soldering a bunch of junk together.

 

Well the idea is that the rich would control the smartest robot.

 

What I'm getting at is that I think it is unlikely that we will end up back in a place where only the top 1% have the knowledge and capacity to build super robots. They might think they do but then I guarantee some underdog hero scientist in the 99% will discover some fatal flaw in their robots and will reprogram them to instantly murder the 1%. Then that hero scientist will lead us into a new golden age before falling to the dark side and then just murdering the rest of us.

 

That may work the first time, but then the technology of control would be developed by whoever accumulates the most capital the next time, so it would get harder (maybe).

[clyde]

Is this assuming this is so far in the future that our world has become become one giant city? You know, like Coruscant?

 

I was thinking Croissant. But no, it doesn't have to be a city in order to be owned and for those property-rights to be enforced by dominant power.

[Zeusthecat]

Well the idea is that the rich would control the smartest robot.

 

Wouldn't the smartest robot be created by the smartest person? Let's say there's a 99% chance the smartest person belongs to the 99%. Then, they control the smartest robot and the rich bow to them. That's hero scientist scenario 2.

[Gaizokubanou]

What I'm getting at is that I think it is unlikely that we will end up back in a place where only the top 1% have the knowledge and capacity to build super robots. They might think they do but then I guarantee some underdog hero scientist in the 99% will discover some fatal flaw in their robots and will reprogram them to instantly murder the 1%. Then that hero scientist will lead us into a new golden age before falling to the dark side and then just murdering the rest of us.

 

I agree that hypothetical is ridiculous and this is one of many reasons but just to clarify, it isn't that 1% build the super robots on their own... I assume super robots would come to be like any other inventions, but then would be placed under the rich's control, just like how most modern goods are somehow assumed to be the top 1% elite's possession even if most of the labor process is handled by the 99%.  Still highly unlikely that rest of the world will sit back and watch it happen but it is somewhat more plausible.

[Zeusthecat]

I agree that hypothetical is ridiculous and this is one of many reasons but just to clarify, it isn't that 1% build the super robots on their own... I assume super robots would come to be like any other inventions, but then would be placed under the rich's control, just like how most modern goods are somehow assumed to be the top 1% elite's possession even if most of the labor process is handled by the 99%.  Still highly unlikely that rest of the world will sit back and watch it happen but it is somewhat more plausible.

 

This is unfortunately true. And this is evil scientist scenario 1 and the most likely scenario to play out. That scientist may create the world's most powerful super robot, but then Microsoft will likely offer them $2 billion (a clever way to add that scientist to their ranks) and then that scientist will go buy a mansion in Beverly Hills so they can retire to a life of peace and luxury.

[Cordeos]

As much as I dislike how much wealth and power the 1% has, I have a hard time believing that they are so evil they would kill or enslave 99% of humanity at the drop of a hat.

[clyde]

As much as I dislike how much wealth and power the 1% has, I have a hard time believing that they are so evil they would kill or enslave 99% of humanity at the drop of a hat.

 

They would certainly come up with rationalizations for it. They'd make up a race or gender or something and then explain how we cause all the world's problems. I don't expect compassion from those in power.

[Cordeos]

This seems relevant to our discussion http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/21/408234543/will-your-job-be-done-by-a-machine

[Zeusthecat]

They would certainly come up with rationalizations for it. They'd make up a race or gender or something and then explain how we cause all the world's problems. I don't expect compassion from those in power.

 

I hope they are making these decisions from their secret underground volcano lair.

 

I agree with Cordeos though. Science fiction may have wired us to lean towards these doomsday scenarios but the reality is that that shit will never happen. Rich people don't just hate poor people, they also hate other rich people. In some cases, they exclusively hate other rich people. See Real Housewives.

[clyde]

I don't see it as hate. I see it as allocation of resources.

[Merus]

Also, another thought. Let's say you guys are right and 99% of us get totally fucked over. Um, can't we all just go form our own non-robotic economy?

 

When manufacturing jobs collapsed as automation became easier, most people did not move to developing countries to chase jobs.

[Zeusthecat]

When manufacturing jobs collapsed as automation became easier, most people did not move to developing countries to chase jobs.

 

Of course they didn't. Because there were other jobs. Also, they weren't 99% of the population.

[Merus]

My point here is that it's not going to start being 99% of the population - it's going to be, like, 20%. 20% of people are permanently unemployed. The 80% of people who aren't won't see the fabric of society ripping apart, necessarily, because they're doing well and so are a lot of their peers. And the 20% won't have the money to move to another country, or form their own.

[Gormongous]

I agree with Cordeos though. Science fiction may have wired us to lean towards these doomsday scenarios but the reality is that that shit will never happen. Rich people don't just hate poor people, they also hate other rich people. In some cases, they exclusively hate other rich people. See Real Housewives.

 

I agree with you here. When I imagine a near-singularity society, I can think of no reason that the rich would not turn on each other rather than keep exploiting the poor for an increasingly small payout. If labor is no longer a valuable resource, there's no need to control people further down on the socioeconomic ladder through oppression and exploitation anymore, except for funsies. They've got robots taking care of everything, so it's time to focus on other constraining factors to their power, whether that be land, technology, or mineral resources. Those are overwhelmingly in the hands of the rich, so why would they tamp down their greed in order to keep the implicit compact of the one percent?

[clyde]

I agree with you here. When I imagine a near-singularity society, I can think of no reason that the rich would not turn on each other rather than keep exploiting the poor for an increasingly small payout. If labor is no longer a valuable resource, there's no need to control people further down on the socioeconomic ladder through oppression and exploitation anymore, except for funsies. They've got robots taking care of everything, so it's time to focus on other constraining factors to their power, whether that be land, technology, or mineral resources. Those are overwhelmingly in the hands of the rich, so why would they tamp down their greed in order to keep the implicit compact of the one percent?

Why bother making sure that they have the means to feed themselves (besides for funsies)? I don't see the potential dehumanization of the poor necessarily being intentional. But why would a company care about inadvertently poisoning the water supply the poor are using when trying to mine the last bit of gold? That type of decision being made all the time without any concern of getting hit back would slowly starve the poor out or worse.

I think Merus's point is worth considering too, as wealth (property) becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer these things could happen to more and more people. It's not necessarily a 1 to 100 ratio. It could be 1 to 10,000 for instance.

To be honest, I kinda think the world is already this way and just getting more extreme.

 

-----------------------------------------

 

Here's a short documentary on how land just accumulates into the hands of those with the most capital.

 

[Zeusthecat]

My point here is that it's not going to start being 99% of the population - it's going to be, like, 20%. 20% of people are permanently unemployed. The 80% of people who aren't won't see the fabric of society ripping apart, necessarily, because they're doing well and so are a lot of their peers. And the 20% won't have the money to move to another country, or form their own.

 

Dude, I don't think so. Our country was freaking the fuck out when we hit around 10% unemployment a few years ago. 20% unemployment would be catastrophic and everybody would feel it.

[Gormongous]

Why bother making sure that they have the means to feed themselves (besides for funsies)? I don't see the potential dehumanization of the poor necessarily being intentional. But why would a company care about inadvertently poisoning the water supply the poor are using when trying to mine the last bit of gold? That type of decision being made all the time without any concern of getting hit back would slowly starve the poor out or worse.

I think Merus's point is worth considering too, as wealth (property) becomes more and more concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer these things could happen to more and more people. It's not necessarily a 1 to 100 ratio. It could be 1 to 10,000 for instance.

To be honest, I kinda think the world is already this way and just getting more extreme.

 

I don't disagree with any of your points, but I think it's alarmist to say that the poor will suffer more from the neglect of the rich than from the greed and antipathy of the rich, no matter the economics of scale.

[Twig]

just saw ex machina

we're all dooooooooooooooooooooomed

[osmosisch]

I think it's alarmist to say that the poor will suffer more from the neglect of the rich than from the greed and antipathy of the rich, no matter the economics of scale.

I don't know, I think there's not necessarily a dichotomy there. Like, all those things can be true at once (and already are to some extent).

[Zeusthecat]

Whoa, those are some eloquent words I said there. You sure that was me?