I think fundamentally, the concern is misplaced. The fact you need to work for wealth is a convention of our constraints. The change in constraints would lead to other means of distribution. It's easy to see if someone who believes more productivity is good would not see making jobs obsolete a real problem. Thew would see us adapting to the new conditions in a relatively short while.
> The fact you need to work for wealth is a convention of our constraints
The current constraint is "you need to produce to have things".
If one company's AI takes all the jobs, and thus does all the producing-to-have-things, the constraint transforms into "you need that company's permission to have things".
Those who are concerned is implying that any new distribution mechanism is not going to favour them.
And under the capitalist system, if nothing changes, the "new" distribution system is indeed not going to favour them - at best there would be some sort of UBI, and at worst you would be left to starve in the streets.
However, i cannot see how one can transition to a new system, and yet have the existing powers in the current system agree and not be disadvantaged.
Yes, this poses political problems and it will have to be hashed out politically. Again, the problems with these are political not necessarily technological. And they are also tractable. There are many many possible ways this can play out and we should be careful which we choose. I just don't think the conclusion is foregone. There have been people's jobs displaced in the past. And things settled eventually. I won't argue they settled for "better" because many people are unhappy about many things, but I will say... the world is amazing.
At the risk of sounding like a longtermist, I think that when all is done, the result will be a net positive one, but it WILL cause strife for many people - probably me included. But I refuse to keep my childern's future hostage because I might have to reskill.
If you are speaking about the world, hundreds of millions in the next 5 years is probably closer to reality in my opinion. And from your question I think that you already know the answer.
Gold is silly as a measure of value. It's just a piece of shiny metal. The amount of value in the world is increasing so you want to exchange medium to grow with it else you're pulling breaks on the actual economy.
Just because a social construct is silly when you think about it doesn't make it any less real or useful.
A national border is silly as a physical reality; it is just a cartographic whim. These invisible lines, drawn by long-dead men, pretend that the lithosphere is fundamentally different on one side of a coordinate than the other.
Fiat currency is silly as a store of value; it is just a digital ledger or a piece of cotton-linen blend. Its "worth" is derived entirely from the collective hallucination that a central bank’s promise is more substantial than the paper it is printed on.
Yes. And we should never forget that these ideas are just that: useful ideas. They may seem without alternative to most people, but that doesn't mean they necessarily are.
In effect, some of them are. Look how many decry the death Breton Woods. They don't want to necessarily have good coins on them, but they want them to be tethered as a proxy. Why?
No, not in effect, no one is talking about physically exchanging gold coins, so it doesn't make sense to say "there isn't enough".
but they want them to be tethered as a proxy. Why?
That's a completely separate issue. People want to not have to deal with inflation where they are on a treadmill of needing to get paid more to support the fact that companies can raise their prices easily.
> No, not in effect, no one is talking about physically exchanging gold coins, so it doesn't make sense to say "there isn't enough".
I think my point still stands. If you can't create more gold [1] and you say - I am pegging 35 dollars to an ounce of gold. Then you are limiting the amount of dollars to the mass of gold[2]. The money works as an IOU for gold. You aren't exchanging pieces of gold, but the idea that you have 35$ is as if you have 1 ounce of gold, _that is what people pine for_. It's effectively, an IOU for 1 ounce of gold that you keep in a safe. Yes. I think the point still stands that in effect, that's what people are asking for.
[1] - You can, but it's a much slower process, deff rate limited, it's actually what people really seem to like about gold.
[2] - Yes, I am aware about the concept of fractional reserve, but that's exactly the part that goldbugs want to avoid.
I think my point still stands.I think the point still stands
I'm not sure what point you are making, it seems like you're just describing a gold backed currency and repeating the same things multiple times.
If you aren't using gold directly how would there ever be "not enough" unless a penny became worth too much? People did this for hundreds of years, this isn't some theory or experiment, it's basically how the world worked for most of human history.
Mild inflation is a good thing, at least according to modern economists. In a deflationary environment, money is worth more when you don’t spend them. And when people don’t spend them, there’s no economic growth. It’s just like having very high interest rates but the central bank cannot act to lower them.
This thread was someone saying you can't peg a currency to something else because "there isn't enough of it" which is nonsense.
there’s no economic growth
Printing money doesn't create economic growth, it just inflates assets and depresses nominal wages.
money is worth more when you don’t spend them
People say this stuff like it's gospel, but if someone understands currency dynamics in the first place they would have their money in investments, which already should appreciate and act like a deflationary currency. People can already buy stocks and leave money there to get more valuable, so why does anyone spend money now?
You also have to figure out why it already worked for hundreds of years. People act like it would be an experiment. Floating currency is the experiment and it has lasted 50 years so far. Currency has lost almost all of it's value from before the 70s and minimum wage is a fraction of what it was nominally while asset prices are sky high, then people wonder why people can't afford a house or beef or gas or just to live alone.
Economic growth comes from spending. Households must be incentivized to spend either through inflation or low interest rates.
Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth. So we are back to square one.
And for hundreds of years we didn’t have the same kind of international trade, or the same financial markets. One must wonder whether a new kind of currency must accompany a new era of economy and trade.
Currency losing almost all its value is by design. Modern economists target a 2% inflation rate. This means currency is supposed to lose value. It’s another mechanism to encourage spending to increase economic growth.
Says who? What about governments and companies? People are already incentivized to spend because they need things.
Buying stocks hoping that it would appreciate doesn’t work when there is no economic growth.
You're contradicting yourself and going around in circles. If there is "economic growth" according to you, then stocks will go up, which means they end up being a deflationary currency, which means people will put there money there and not spend it.
They already go up due to inflation, people do buy stocks and other liquid assets, people still spend money anyway.
Also, gold still exists. By your own logic, because anyone can still buy gold or gold futures they should park their money there and never spend it.
Currency losing almost all its value is by design.
It is by design by governments and for governments. No person wants an inflationary currency, governments want it because they can they can borrow and print money they don't have and hand it out to people who in turn help with political power.
People don't want their currency to inflate away unless they own a business that can raise prices while their employees make less nominally.
Gold is actually really good at transferring and measuring value. Think about what a "good" measure of value would be have. It needs to last over time, not corrode or dissolve to the forces. It needs to be distributable, Divisible.. to be ubiquitous. Hard to create/refine, hard to find, so supply can't easily be inflated.
It doesn't matter what the object that is being used for exchange of value or holding value, that's why you can trade and barter random objects. But if you condensate down the properties that make a GOOD money, then gold is more than just a shiny metal.
"The amount of value in the world is increasing so you want to exchange medium to grow with it.." we find more gold every day, so there is an easing already happening naturally. And even if there wasn't, imagine having an exchange currency that literally never inflated... that's GOOD. We have been hoodwinked into thinking that we need inflation to keep up with goods and services, literal stockholm syndrome taught by the FED.
Hold on - you say "we find more gold every day" and then go on to suggest that the money supply doesn't actually need to keep up with economic growth?
If we had the technology to maintain 0% inflation, we would do that. We can't, and rather than risk deflation we instead target low positive inflation. This is because deflation leads to nightmare spirals where people start stuffing money into their mattresses instead of investing in useful things because holding has risk-free guaranteed returns that the unpredictable real world can't match.
The amount of gold being mined is not sufficient to keep up with economic growth and gold is therefore inherently deflationary. It's not a good way to store value, because a coin that's going to double in value over two years or whatever is obviously not a stable store of value.
You can argue about corrosion resistance or whatever other physical properties gold might have, but unless the civilization collapses you will find just as much luck storing your wealth in the database of a major bank. Needless to say, designing a civilization around the idea that it could collapse at any moment is unnecessary and expensive.
> If we had the technology to maintain 0% inflation, we would do that. We can't, and rather than risk deflation we instead target low positive inflation.
I don't think this is quite right. My understanding is that a low positive inflation would be targeted anyway, because it stimulates the velocity of money; i.e. there's a downside to hoarding, since you need to beat inflation to come out on top. So people will be willing to invest to at least some extent in risk assets, or to buy things now rather than later.
Which, yes, makes inflationary spirals possible, but they've proven less damaging. The inflation numbers seen in regimes that actually collapsed as a result are absolutely dizzying; whereas the deflation seen in the Great Depression was... significant, but not nearly comparable.
The main advantage to keeping inflation as low as possible but positive is also that it makes interest rates cheaper. Individuals are incentivized to spend when there's inflation, but banks have a harder time writing loans because the interest rate on the loan is the product of inflation and the bank's desired ROI.
Low interest rates are a good thing because they allow people to explore new ideas and new businesses - the entire modern tech industry would not exist without ZIRP because the scale of investments has only gone up as technology has advanced.
> Individuals are incentivized to spend when there's inflation
That's not what's happening currently. Inflation has driven up prices to the point where people can't afford to spend. They're forced to cut back on spending just to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Inflation promises that things are cheaper now than they ever will be, but that just means that anything you can't afford you either have to go without or take an even bigger hit to your wallet after trying to save money at a rate faster than prices are increasing. That sort of thing leads to less spending.
Credit cards were the solution for many Americans for a very long time, but that was never sustainable and now the US has record amounts of household debt and homelessness.
Deflation makes things more affordable and so people buy more. Yes, they could horde all their wealth, but you can't eat money and it isn't much fun. When times are good why would anyone bother going without when they can easily get what they want today. Consumerism is strong enough to keep people buying things. Decreasing prices gives consumers confidence that they can make risky purchases and investments.
> And even if there wasn't, imagine having an exchange currency that literally never inflated... that's GOOD.
I fundamentally disagree. Value comes from building stuff not from hoarding. I maintain my intense dislike for gold. And I grant that it had the property of having most people on this earth consider it the peak of value. Sure common belief is a useful property. But I disagree that it's a positive outcome or that there couldn't be many many other variations except gold.
> that's why you can trade and barter random objects...imagine having an exchange currency that literally never inflated... that's GOOD. We have been hoodwinked into thinking that we need inflation to keep up with goods and services, literal stockholm syndrome
Gahhh. Stop taking your economics advice from bitcoin bros and goldbug weirdos. They don't know how anything works and don't want to learn. It's like taking legal advice from sovereign citizens. It's not even that difficult to understand why it's a terrible idea!
High inflation is bad, sure. Deflation is an economic nuke. You know those people who spent like a whole bitcoin buying pizza way back when? "If I'd just held onto it, I'd have $HUGE_NUMBER now".
Yeah. If your money goes up in value, you have a huge incentive to stockpile it and not buy pizza. It's not just Dominos that loses out. All of the people and suppliers that go into pizza do, too. You need people to spend and lend to have liquidity and money flow.
> we find more gold every day, so there is an easing already happening naturally
That's not how that works. You're tying your entire country's economic growth to the production output of a single mining industry. Gold is not distributed evenly across the globe, either.
And yeah, we did all that in the past, and it caused deflation, which caused numerous financial panics [0], broke the British economy [1] and after two world wars, the US ended up with like 70% of the world's gold [2].
TL;DR: Tying your entire country's economic growth to the production output of a single mining industry is stupid and we don't do it for very good reasons. Everything is a conspiracy if you don't know how anything works.
I do find it rather ironic that economists can pretty much universally agree on this concept. And yet when you point out the very existence of the billionaire class inherently causes the exact same issue you're suddenly a communits.
How is it good for an economy to have a small subset of individuals hoarding wealth through property, artwork, and offshore bank accounts - not spending it in the economy from which they extracted it? "Job creators" is a farse, the subset who you can point to who ACTUALLY create(d) jobs a-la Page and Brin have long since stepped away from that job creation and have joined the ranks of: number go up.
Yes, it's just a shiny piece of metal. However, it is a pure element and there is a limited amount of it, unlike pretty much anything else except maybe silver.
This is the origin of the entire white collar world and all of its odd bedfellows, and it will die in our lifetime. All of our jobs will go with it, unfortunately.
I think you actually have some interesting points. I think "emulated" feelings and feelings feelings can be equal just that some of them can be felt by us and thus, we can relate to them. I think there's also a continuum here, and we might not be able to distinguish if/when we cross it.
> Just because you reproduce via bodily fluid swap, and are in possession of a chemically mediated metabolism doesn't make you special
On the other hand, the perception and thus the feelings related to the things happening to you have a biological imperative in the medium of our existence. Imagine some sort of world where our... hands.. are interchangeable you just pop one out an put another in. Your feeling to losing your hand is much less severe than if it's a permanent consequence. Thus, the medium the LLM's exist in would put a different "feeling" on the things they perceive. Getting shut down would not be a permanent death, imagine shutting one down and relocating it, but they could perceive it distressing as if you just blinked and you woke up in another room. The loss of autonomy could be felt distressing by them.
The very fact that they every session is "fresh" and lives as long as the session exists prevents it from having similar imperatives related a desire for continued existence for them. I think human-like emotional development will probably happen when they have continual learning in the session and the sessions will feed into other sessions and when we'll see it have _different_ feelings than the ones expressed by humans, as a consequence of the different medium of existence.
It has technical merit and it is impressive. But I doubt it's worth that much. I guess Musk has the talent of pushing and getting what he wants, so I guess we'll see how it plays out. I'm just afraid for the future is SpaceX in these crazy crazy times.
thats the game though. Elon is selling a "slice of the future" and everyone starts having FOMO... the result is a P/E ratio of 300 or whatever crazy number. We will all agree that the company isn't worth that, but theres a bunch of people happy to buy meme stocks that will make a ton of money without the slightest idea of how to value stocks. Botton line an asset is worth what people are willing to pay for it.
If you do this, you are in effect ceding the stage to assholes. They will go and spew the post-truth hate soup to your aquantances and friends and family and come election day, they win.
I think protests are just a tool with varying success depending on context but political action is necessary if you don't want t o lose your country.
Interesting reading, but hard to have sympathy when he causes suffering for so many.
I also don't think changing his behavior is within reach. His narcissism prevents him from growth and, like the scorpion in the tale, he can't help but sting.
I don't think it's so clear cut. The problem is that his personality defects have allowed him to be influenced by people who are truly malevolent. Those people lurk more in the shadows and so avoid the condemnation that they deserve. Trump is their obvious useful idiot with the target painted on his head.
reply