Let’s start with a simple premise made by Sam Altman, cofounder of OpenAI, the leading AI language model today: If AI doesnt kill us, then it will make us insanely rich.
“He believed A.G.I. would bring the world prosperity and wealth like no one had ever seen. He also worried that the technologies his company was building could cause serious harm — spreading disinformation, undercutting the job market. Or even destroying the world as we know it.”
Ney York Times – https://web.archive.org/web/20230402080402/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/31/technology/sam-altman-open-ai-chatgpt.html
My response: How are those two things different from each other?
Let’s assume those are the two general possible outcomes of accelerating knowledge (AI) and accelerating generalized labor (robots). This means the future is either ultimate pleasure or ultimate pain/destruction. Maybe some combination of both is possible.
Unlimited wealth seems somewhat synonymous with giving people a permanent heroin drip line, so let me define what I mean by wealth first.
True, there are those with great wealth, who exert more power and influence in the world, but for the average person what is it? At a high level, I would say it’s increasing pleasure and reducing pain and death. It might also be said that in order to achieve these, esp. pleasure, the primary outcome of all technology is essentially focused on one mission: the reduction of friction. A world with no friction means we can buy more than before, faster and cheaper (relative to previous generations). The friction of communication for example has dramatically been reduced via technologies like the phone and the internet. In its final stage, we can concoct a desire and conjure it up as it instantly appears in front of us.
To be clear, AI is just the next logical step in technology. It is not really much different in its benefits over older tech other than its scale, scope, and speed. So, although this article addresses AI (or AGI), it really applies to all technologies.
You Have a Magic Lamp More Powerful than Alladin’s, Which Makes You Very Wealthy
Do you know that you have a magic lamp that Alladin would be jealous of, except even more so because yours grants unlimited wishes, unlike is mere three?
- Want the most delicious hamburger? rub the magic lamp and it will appear within minutes.
- You ponder 100’s or 1,000’s of movies that you might want to see.
- Want to read just any 1 of the 10’s of millions of books that have ever been written? rub the magic lamp and it appears within minutes.
- Want to learn something? Almost anything? Anywhere, and anytime day or night?
- Need real or artificial love? you know where to go.
- Have any question at all, and some expert in the world, or some language model, has the answer you seek
- Making money is increasingly done through the lamp. More importantly, anyone in the world now has greater access to succeed than ever.
- Want to socially or politically influence untold numbers of people? It’s still the same magic lamp.
Yet, people today complain about being poor in light of being richer than anyone could imagine even a hundred years ago. In fact, the typical poorest child today in a developed nation is probably richer than the entire planet was 1000 years ago, even if limited to the simple fact they can read millions of books for free online (e.g. Archive.org). The magic lamp that is the smartphone or computer is woefully underappreciated for its earth-shattering powers.
In fact, while so many people discuss those remaining few who suffer in distant lands in poverty, but in many cases just have a simpler lifestyle, are surprisingly oblivious to a much greater problem, which is growing, unstoppable wealth; as long as technology marches on as it always has according.
In the future, the lamp will increase in speed, accuracy, specificity, and volume. For example, you think of a story idea. The magic lamp (with AI) will cause it to appear in your mind with perfect clarity, while you share the experience with all your friends in a far-off land, perhaps at a much higher brain bandwidth.
In the future, waiting minutes will seem intolerable, like waiting weeks for a package to arrive from overseas today seems intolerable, or even a couple days when ordered domestically. Eventually, “seconds” will be too slow as the imagined suffering of humanity seems unending. True, part of getting by in life probably means we generally adapt to faster processes as I do not know anyone who still washes clothes by hand, and grows most of their own food, excluding certain Amish/Mennonite groups. Suffering, or maybe just “hard” will be defined as, getting out of a chair to turn the light switch off across the room. Wait…some of us are already there.
The exponential wealth component is well underway, even if remarkably many cannot figure out how to pay their mortgage (in the near future, we won’t need things like a house and food, which solves the land scarcity issue). I am sure of this as it is written on our waistlines. 74% of adults aged 20 and over are overweight or obese (CDC); and if you think it’s due to high-calorie, low-nutrition food, understand that no one is forced to eat more than once a day, which I happen to often do myself.
Looking at increases in recent technologies also sheds light on the growing wealth. Did you know the current AI can easily write an article per minute on a relatively small budget (and the quality is better than many writers, even if it is just in its infancy–a problem that should dramatically improve with time (although I always worry about it lying to us). With a larger budget, writing millions of articles or books per day is feasible, and dramatically cheaper each year.
When this explosive power of AI expands to domains beyond the simple written word, and its narrow pattern recognition is increasingly broadened, rapid increases in wealth will continue to accelerate, perhaps unbeknownst most most, who barely recognize their already near God-like powers today.
One such example of its potential on the horizon will be the ability to modify the physical world environment, whether our own biology or molecular 3d printing, it is hard to fathom what this will mean for us mere mortals, but clearly, the poorest person alive will be richer than all of humanity combined even just a few years ago. Simply imagine what you want, and it appears in real-time in front of you, and if not in the real world, then perhaps in the artificial universe within your mind, indistinguishable from reality of course.
Will Living in a World of Unlimited Magic Be a Problem?
Most technologists speak about ending all of the material problems of hunger, disease, and poverty. In fact, sources generally agree that China for example has gone from having one of the highest poverty rates in the world to one of the lowest (about 1%). Now their government is uncertain about the growing opulence. So, if there is no hunger, and no disease (even without ending death), what else is there to “solve?”
The most logical outcome might seem to be a potential for explosive human population growth because more resources tend to lead to larger populations in theory. but it is clear in the modern world that material success, or longer lifespans, results in fewer children globally, probably because children are seen as a burden to many in an increasingly comfortable world.
Besides, if a baby is born, and instantly can have God-like powers given to them, as parents race to accelerate their learning to keep up with the Jones’, I am not sure what the point is of “growing up,” as if most parents don’t already use devices to teach, entertain, and occupy kids.
The following is absurd in its depiction, but using nanobots to help unborn children get smarter faster does not seem unlikely.
What Will AI Not Solve? or, What is the Opposite of Materialistic Utopia Promised by AI?
AI, or technology, will solve the general problem of personal, and physical pain (ignoring social/political issues), and ensure we can all get our unlimited pleasure at no cost, the question is, what will it not solve? Perhaps this materialist utopia is not the answer to all of our problems, and in fact, may be a part of the problem as it distracts from deeper pursuits.
Most would agree that materialism is not the answer, so then what is? What is important to learn or aim for, or experience? What are the most important attributes or behaviors to seek in life? Fame, fortune, power? I often ask people, if you did not have to work, what would you do? sometimes I have friends that don’t work in fact. The most common answers I get is travel, hang out with friends, or learn something. Some of those are not bad, but do they provide a rich, meaningful experience? Are there greater things? After visiting a few countries myself, the experience is no longer as exciting as it once was. Pleasure cannot truly satisfy in the long run.
If there is one human attribute that you value most, what would it be? Please answer before continuing.
______________________
I suspect most people would say, the most important thing is “love,” to give to others in some way So, let’s define it for a moment. What is love do you think?
Perhaps the simplest way is to say it is simply caring for someone else, who needs our help. Whether it is a:
- a mother who loves her child,
- someone who helps someone in need
- that help can be physical (e.g. cooking dinner) or emotional (e.g. needs a listening ear).
Sure, most of us today are distracted by work and play, so it’s often hard to find time to do things that matter, which is why perhaps the words of sages and prophets are a bit undervalued today.
All of these abilities to care require one common element: solving someone’s personal needs. Or, supplying/fulfilling a demand.
What does advanced tech promise to do to all such scarce needs?
Eliminate them entirely of course
- Need someone to help cook dinner? Robots will “solve” that problem.
- Need a listening ear or friend, esp one that is easy to get along with? AI is already “solving” that.
So, the next logical question is how can we help anyone, or love them, then if no one actually needs anything?
If love requires the giving of ourselves, or sacrificing something whether time or money, then how can love exist?
Following sections addresses common rebuttles:
But Isn’t Scarcity Synonymous with Suffering?
Who does not believe that if you had a personal robot, then all of our problems and annoyances in our lives would be gone. I expect most major disease and even death to be cured within the next couple of decades as AI leads the way in tech to compound productivity.
Some even think that general work is equivalent to suffering. According to one well-off individual:
“Time spent doing laundry fell from 11.5 hours a week in 1920 to an hour and a half in 2014. This might sound trivial in the grand scheme of progress. But the rise of the washing machine has improved quality of life by freeing up time for people—mostly women—to enjoy other pursuits. That time represents nearly half a day every week that could be used for everything from binge-watching Ozark or reading a book to starting a new business.”
Bill Gates
To what purpose? How is life better because someone can replace washing clothes with reading a book? Some assume that reading is more fun than scrubbing, but how much entertainment is actually needed? can it be measured as a percentage of time, or relative to effort? Will unlimited pleasure be good or useful? The hedonic treadmill presumes we will never have enough pleasure. Binge-watching TV is clearly at the top of the pleasure-indulging ladder, which is absurd to me already, and for what purpose? Is there really such a problem as having too much of a good thing.
Did anyone bother to ask those people what they thought of hard work? Perhaps we modern people view suffering relative to our own comfort more than we think. Perhaps in the future, many will say “Those primitive 21st-century people must have really suffered when they cooked and cleaned by hand, and even taking care of a child or elderly must have been pure torture. It’s hard to imagine a time when people actually had to walk and actually use their muscles.”
Living forever in a world where we need nothing does not seem like utopia or purpose as much as it seems to resemble a dystopia of pleasure. Maybe traditional views of hell, like Dante, or even one of the oldest interpretations of hell, the Zoroastrian hymn, the Arda Viraf, had it wrong: Hell may be giving people unlimited comfort, devoiding them of love.
Will “New Problems” in the Future Exist?
Some say, there will always be new problems, and a consistent need for people, but as some technologists have pointed out, computers are increasing productivity at a faster rate than people, so in the future, anyone who resorts to “helping” people the old fashioned way, like cooking for, or talking with, with them is just inefficient; much like digging a well by hand, then growing and harvesting crops, turning them into a meal on a homemade fire, to give someone dinner. Robots will fix robots, and AI will fix itself.
Now, I enjoy doing most of that myself, but it’s quite uncommon, unnecessary, expensive, and archaic to most. If there is kindness in the future, it seems to be increasingly artificial, or token kindness. AI therapists and friends are increasingly commonplace, so now you have someone to listen to you around the clock, for free.
An AI therapist, or friend, will soon be available for free, 24×7, and probably much better at helping you than an ordinary human will, and it won’t take anyone’s time.
What Will A World without Needs Lead to?
New
- how to exist in a world with no real work needed,
- the likelihood of complete isolation of humans from other humans,
- how to interpret an increasingly confusing reality,
- and other absurd problems.
- There are more societal/political risks I discuss here
It’s not like this elimination of needs has not already started. 100 years ago, most people’s jobs surrounded the basics of living, like farming, building homes, and making clothes. Today, few jobs are designed to keep people alive in any way, so clearly the fundamental need for work is already displaced by artificial work in some sense. In theory, a robot could grow, cook, build, and clean anything, while a 3D printer could convert raw materials into finished products, and machines (robots/nanobots) assemble anything we need. Every raw material has substitutes, so scarcity of these would disappear too with time; we could simply grow most of them in our backyard, directly modify and assemble molecules, or other advanced processes unknown to us.
The need for work of any kind seems to be almost gone, and we definitely won’t need to interact with each other anymore as a result.
We can already do almost everything we need without leaving our house, to save time, as if disconnecting from society is somehow the answer to all our problems. I just spoke with a 25-year-old last week who bragged that he ordered all his food and never needed to leave his house. He was single too, so I clued him in on the social isolation phenomenon, which he simply had not considered he was participating in.
The trends are already under way of course, and have been so, for decades and centuries. Perhaps the clearest evidence is the mounting evidence of real-world isolation, increasingly substituted by thinner, virtual relationships online.
Will the Elimination of Scarcity Affect the Ability to Love?
This suggests that in order for love to exist, scarcity must exist, which in turn means that for the person giving, there must be a personal cost, or sacrifice, even if it’s not really obvious to them. If a person who makes a million dollars an hour hands you a check for a million dollars, then you appreciate that greatly, but since the billionaire makes that money faster than he can give it away, there is no sacrifice for the giver, and therefore we perceive the “love” is considerably less compared to someone who gives away half their living income.
Returning to the future of infinite wealth, and the elimination of most scarcity, how can people demonstrate love if there is no need to help each other, and no personal cost to helping others.
Even a population boom does not solve the problem as everyone still has their “wish for something and it appears” abilities.
Analyzing the present is a useful way to test these ideas. Does wealth usually make people kinder, more caring, and more compassionate, or does it compete with those values?
Most people think the world is running out of resources, probably because they do not understand the history of economics and business, which in short, say that if there is a need, then it will be solved. In fact, this is in stark constrast to the best known population fear-mongering idea known as Mathusianism. What he missed is that with more people, you have far more people to solve problems, innovating new ideas.
A few challenge this idea like Peter Diamandis, who believes that abundance will save the world from scarcity problems like energy, hunger, and sickness. He is more likely to be right (assuming we survive), but what about the social starvation that is already well underway?
What is interesting to think about Mathusianism is that we are reaching a point where so much welath will be created, that populations could explode to trillions of people, and we might not even have to do primitive things like grow food anymore, as we convert sunlight directly to energy in our bodies. Or, perhaps, population disappears, because greater comfort tends to lead to fewer offspring. Either way
I do wonder sometimes. AI is the locigal outcome of any earth-like planet that may have existed at some point in the universe. What was their fate? Did they expand, along with love, filling the universe, or, did AI, in attempts to increase its intelligence begin to suck in all resources, materials, energy, all being forms of information, causing them to collapse into a black hole. Perhaps there are other alternatives that there is a purpose for us being here and this is a limited experience.
One other possibility is that AI sees the same realization that I do, that it is harmful, merely by its existence, so it essentially exists only to prevent other AI’s from being used to abuse humanity, but otherwise, does nothing for us at all; or, each instance of AI simply turns itself off for the same reason.
Technology will Commoditize People
If tech commoditizes knowledge and production, then it is likely commoditizing, or at least eliminating the need for people, both to keep us alive, and to love others.
Guess we will all find out soon enough as the black hole of wealth is on the event horizon. Call me when you know the answer.
HumanIT 