Replacement Theory

avatar

As you have likely heard me talk about several times before, the economy is a scam. It is set up to fail, going through engineered boom and bust cycles, where people's lives are impacted based on what the financial markets are doing, even if it has no bearing on general supply and demand. Jobs are lost because of the financial situation, but at a practical level, nothing much has generally changed in what humans need.

image.png

However, I think that a lot of people have applied this same boom and bust cycle of the economy, combined with lessons from past changes in industry, to what will happen with the impacts of artificial intelligence on society. Many think that like the industrial revolution, people will move into new job types, like the shift from physical to knowledge work over the last hundred and fifty years. And of course, those that lose their jobs will eventually be absorbed into the new workforce.

"Past performance is no guarantee of future results."

I think that this is a limited understanding of the difference of what has happened and what is happening now and what could happen in the future. Moving from physical to knowledge work was possible, because humans were able to adapt to knowledge work positions. However, once in the current state of knowledge as a skill, we have nowhere to evolve to. In the past, the general skill-based jobs that were lost first were those in the less-skilled areas, those places that were repetitive and could be standardized and automated. As a result, there has been a massive amount of optimization that has taken place.

Now though, any job that has a lot of standardized rules, can essentially be performed by a narrow artificial intelligence with an if that, then this process. For example, Finland has very formalized tax laws, which means there is essentially a book of law that covers every aspect of tax expectations. It won't be long until an AI indexes that book and an individual or a company can essentially just feed in the transaction history and the AI will do all the calculations and submissions, in a split second. No accounts needed. Similarly, a lot of legal conditions like contract law will be automated, comparing conditions, factoring in governmental law, and red-flagging anything that is out of place, or that could have multiple meanings. Lawyers aren't required.

This might sound like good news, because what is essentially happening is that a lot of the middleman services that process or translate activity across contexts, like business practices into tax obligations, will disappear. But, pretty much every modern job has some level of repetition, some level of admin, some level of codified practice that could be automated. The argument is that it frees up the time of the knowledge worker to spend on other activities, but the reality is, that if a person can reduce the time spent on repetitive work by an hour a day, a team of eight, becomes a team of seven. Business practices aren't in the habit of keeping people employed, just because those people need a job in order to feed their family.

This reduction from eight to seven might not sound like much, but it is almost fifteen percent and some roles will be more heavily impacted, or disappear entirely. This means that significant portions of the working population will find themselves unemployed, unable to maintain their current lifestyles or cover their debt obligations, and add more burden on already struggling social services.

It is untenable.

Business and government aren't designed to improve wellbeing, except through the lens of economic activity. A government can do all it needs to increase something like gross domestic product and build an extremely wealthy economic situation, but have the majority of people unable to survive without support. This is because the economy and wellbeing aren't tied together, yet we are told over and over that if we can make more wealth in the country, people will be better off. This is not true, because a company could be almost 100% automated and generate massive amounts of wealth, yet not benefit the people at all. And, no business is in the business of wealth sharing because they could increase the wellbeing of humans.

We spend a lot of time talking economics and politics, yet we don't seem to spend much time considering why these systems exist and what kind of impact they should be making on the entire ecosystem. From the narrow micro view, a single business entity has the goal of maximizing shareholder wealth, but at the macro view, what does that mean for society? A government might be voted in by the people, but when you ask the average person what the role of government is, they don't really have much to answer.

Try it.

Ask yourself. There is an election coming in the US soon and people are talking about all kinds of "important" aspects and perspectives of it, without knowing what the fundamental point is. They might have their personal opinion, but this is like being the stakeholder of a tiny company trying to maximize wealth. What are the implications at scale and how does it affect the entire ecosystem? What does it mean in ten, twenty or fifty years from now if the continually improve AI (at a rate no human can match) ends up doing everything for us?

What many don't realize is that nature itself is a rule-based, codified system. We don't consider this because there is a huge amount of complexity, but the most complex problem becomes simple to solve repeatedly once a viable solution is found. Nature is complex, because we just don't have all the insight we would need into every part of it. But it is actually just very, very complicated.

This distinction might not matter to many, but it is important to make and realize that what seemed complicated before to the point that an AI would never be able to do it, was in fact complicated and now AIs are churning out the solutions in fractions of seconds. Complexity, was complication. This also means that we as humans, who seem so complex, are actually just a set of very complicated conditions. Yet, it is also pretty clear that we are also simple in the sense that our needs are pretty base, with physical requirements, sexual requirements, and emotional requirements that need to be considered in order to have what we would consider a quality life, a high level of wellbeing.

What is strange is that we keep making systems that ignore these needs and instead favor creating systems and indicators of success that do not tie themselves to even our minimum requirements, let alone to build the conditions for us to thrive as humans and then by extension, as society. If we were to look at our processes and results based on the idea that we are tasked with improving wellbeing in our own lives and at a general level, we would say that our systems are broken, and we are failing to meet the desired results.

If we were an appliance - we'd be replaced.

Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]

Posted Using InLeo Alpha



0
0
0.000
19 comments
avatar

I think a lot of this doesn't matter as much if we can get to a point where the pursuit of wealth or more specifically money isn't the top priority. As in Star Trek, an near utopia where the pursuit of knowledge is valued over income would be awesome. I know that is never going to be the case.. I'm actually a bit happy that I will likely be able to retire before much of this impacts me. For the future generations though...

0
0
0.000
avatar

As in Star Trek, an near utopia where the pursuit of knowledge is valued over income would be awesome.

As people have pointed out before - Star Trek was a communist system :)

I'm actually a bit happy that I will likely be able to retire before much of this impacts me. For the future generations though...

I don't think I will get there in time, unless crypto comes home. For my daughter, I worry a lot :/

0
0
0.000
avatar

As people have pointed out before - Star Trek was a communist system :)

Maybe that isn't a bad thing... They seemed to be pretty happy and everyone got taken care of.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I can say for our part in the current economic system;

When elephants fight ants die.

0
0
0.000
avatar

A handful of elephants and 8 billion ants.

0
0
0.000
avatar

The economy is not a fraud, but a complex structure that reflects the changing realities of the world. Economic cycles, although sometimes manipulated, are not inherently ‘designed’ to fail, but respond to multiple factors such as policies, innovations and human behaviour. Economic crises do not necessarily involve deliberate manipulation, but the dynamic interaction of economic and social factors. Comparing this evolution with the impact of artificial intelligence on society oversimplifies the complexity of both phenomena, and dodges the true reality (the search for a guinea pig).

0
0
0.000
avatar

The economy is not a fraud, but a complex structure that reflects the changing realities of the world.

"An economy" is this - but the economy as we are led to believe it operates is not this - it is heavily manipulated, and engineered to fail in order to benefit a few over the many.

Economic crises do not necessarily involve deliberate manipulation, but the dynamic interaction of economic and social factors.

When the only goal of a business is monetary profit, it is a deliberate manipulation of behavior.

0
0
0.000
avatar

When the only goal of a business is monetary profit, it is a deliberate manipulation of behavior.

That is another matter. Neither you nor I will invest in a business without making some kind of profit. In 2000 years of history, trade is the same, what has changed is the speed at which we handle information, and our overall appreciation of it.

0
0
0.000
avatar

AI is just a tool, and this must not be forgotten.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Exactly. As is an Atomic weapon, or Sarin gas.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think that AI in the future will not leave people in trouble. All unemployed people who want to work will be employed by the AI ​​as usefully as possible :) And for those who do not want to work for corporations, a small plot of land and sunlight (for basic needs) will be enough.

0
0
0.000
avatar

I think you live with an idea that this is the way humans act, but it is not the reality of our behavior :)

0
0
0.000
avatar

The US elections now reminds me pf the uproar we had in my country, speaking of wish who is getting the upper hand i bet donald might just come back

0
0
0.000
avatar

Our systems, government especially, are broken because their stated purposes, to improve well-being of the populace in the case of government, are not being pursued. all entities now exist only to continue to exist, and no attention is paid to the actual needs of any non-stakeholder people who support them. Anarchy would indeed be better, for we littles, than what we have now in any government.

0
0
0.000
avatar

all entities now exist only to continue to exist, and no attention is paid to the actual needs of any non-stakeholder people who support them.

And, they are entities that don't die, and never have to pay an inheritance tax. Yet, they pay lower taxes than humans.

0
0
0.000
avatar

That is complicated, but not unfathonable.
Magic is any technology sufficiently advanced as to appear to have no logical explanation, or understandable explanation.

The current state of our compnies, to maximix=ze shareholder wealth is complex, but not unfanthonable.
We mere;y need the profit motive to improve people's way of life and quality of life.
We could reverse engineer it, like we reverse engineer outcomes.
Srt at the desired outcome, a company focused on maximizing employee enjoyment, fulfillment and salries.
Then work backwards, and when we encounter factors incompatible with the goal, eliminate or minimize them.
You have me thinking, that this is doable, if we have the will and motivation.
The question is how do we make it profitable or the profit objective?
perhaps rethinking stock ownership and envisioning a system where the owners are also the workers...
Hmmm...time to start creating the prompts, clear goals to ask GPT How to do this...

0
0
0.000
avatar

Do you find that some people you converse with about this tend to firmly believe that there is no other possibility because they personally can't imagine it and get defensive/aggressive/don't want to talk about it anymore if you poke holes in that?

0
0
0.000
avatar

Yes I do. A lot of people just don't want to think about it, or just don't have the ability to comprehend what is so far out of their own belief system.

0
0
0.000