Well, I think the main worry is that there won’t be any more jobs for humans.
There are plenty of people who want to have more stuff. I don’t think that the constraint for building more stuff or providing more services is that we don’t have enough raw materials.
I’m not sure I’m following the analogy. If robots replace humans, we will have an increase in things to buy due to increased efficiency, but a lot more people will become poorer due to a lack of empolyment. If no other factor is involved, what you’ll see is at least an increase in the disequality of distribution of richness between those who have been replaced and those who owns the replacement, proportional to the level of sophistication of the said AI.
People get employed when their work allows an employer to create more value, that a customer can buy, than their wage costs.
Robots need to be designed, built, trained and repaired.
When it comes to wealth inequality that’s partly true. Automatization has the potential to create a lot of inequality because skill differences lead to stronger outcome differences.
The robotic revolution and possibly the next AI revolution means that the source of labor can be shifted from people to robot. Within the usual production model, output = f(capital) x g(labor), labor is to be meant exclusively as human labor, but in the next future, possibly labor will mean robot labor, which can be acquired and owned, thus becoming part of the means of production accessible to capital. In a sense, if AI will take a hold in the industry, labor will be a function of capital, and this means that the equation will be transformed as output = h(capital). Depending on the h, of course, you will have more or less convenience (humans require training and repairing too).
Before AGI there are many tasks that human can do but that robots/AI can’t. It’s possible to build a lot of robots if robots are useful.
That’s the kind of work that’s likely a constraint on producing more stuff. I don’t think the constraint will be resources. Number of robots is also unlikely the constraint as you can easily build more robots.
There are plenty of people who want to have more stuff. I don’t think that the constraint for building more stuff or providing more services is that we don’t have enough raw materials.
I’m not sure I’m following the analogy. If robots replace humans, we will have an increase in things to buy due to increased efficiency, but a lot more people will become poorer due to a lack of empolyment. If no other factor is involved, what you’ll see is at least an increase in the disequality of distribution of richness between those who have been replaced and those who owns the replacement, proportional to the level of sophistication of the said AI.
People get employed when their work allows an employer to create more value, that a customer can buy, than their wage costs.
Robots need to be designed, built, trained and repaired.
When it comes to wealth inequality that’s partly true. Automatization has the potential to create a lot of inequality because skill differences lead to stronger outcome differences.
The robotic revolution and possibly the next AI revolution means that the source of labor can be shifted from people to robot.
Within the usual production model, output = f(capital) x g(labor), labor is to be meant exclusively as human labor, but in the next future, possibly labor will mean robot labor, which can be acquired and owned, thus becoming part of the means of production accessible to capital. In a sense, if AI will take a hold in the industry, labor will be a function of capital, and this means that the equation will be transformed as output = h(capital). Depending on the h, of course, you will have more or less convenience (humans require training and repairing too).
Before AGI there are many tasks that human can do but that robots/AI can’t. It’s possible to build a lot of robots if robots are useful.
That’s the kind of work that’s likely a constraint on producing more stuff. I don’t think the constraint will be resources. Number of robots is also unlikely the constraint as you can easily build more robots.