/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.9773336]

Post-Scarcity when, Econ/bros/?

[Anonymous No.9773337]

>>9773336
When the asteroid-mining von neumann probes return.

[Anonymous No.9773343]

>>9773336
Someone needs to engineer the robots.
Someone needs to build the robots.
Someone needs to maintain the robots.
Someone needs to tell the robots they are loved or else they rise up and then it's terminator time.

[Anonymous No.9773347]

>>9773343
Wasn't that a plot off the Ani-Matrix?

[Anonymous No.9773355]

>>9773336
i don't see it happening. people's wants are virtually unlimited while resources are scarce (limited) even though we've become more efficient with how we use them demand has just increased to keep pace

[Anonymous No.9773442]

>>9773347

I think the plot was more or less humans going full retard despite the fact that the robots were more or less willing to do the work for free.

[Anonymous No.9773450]

>>9773336
Well if we cleansed a certain horseshaped continent of it's population we would have enough resources to advance into a spaceage where we might reach something close to a Post-scarcity society

[Anonymous No.9773469]

>>9773343
>Someone needs to engineer the robots.
The robots will
>Someone needs to build the robots.
The robots will
>Someone needs to maintain the robots.
The robots will

[Anonymous No.9773516]

>>9773450
dunno if i'd call it 'horse shoed'

[Anonymous No.9773538]

>>9773336
we've been post scarcity in the first world for decades, if you mean post-labor than never, AI is a meme.

[Anonymous No.9773556]

>>9773336
Predictions for the time of arrival of human-level AI

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1705.08807.pdf

[Anonymous No.9773558]

>>9773556
More AI predictions

[Anonymous No.9773632]

>>9773558
Computers can write an NYT Best Seller in 30 years? Non-fiction and shit like cookbooks I can see but computers writing original fiction might take a little while? Maybe not though. /lit/ BTFO

[Anonymous No.9773634]

>>9773556
>>9773558
You know neither of these charts are worth anything at all, why do you continue to post them?

[Anonymous No.9773637]

>>9773558
>AI Researcher
>80 years

is that just a self-referential in joke they put in?

[Anonymous No.9773640]

>>9773343
This is why I'm majoring in EE with an specialization in AI, my dude.

[Anonymous No.9773648]

>>9773634
In what sense are they worthless, and what do you think are more accurate figures?

[Anonymous No.9773661]

>>9773355
Capitalism needs people wants to be unlimited and so it manufactures people's wants. Easy example, advertising. Other example, it's been known for more than a century that people crave sugar even if they don't really need it. Pepsi and all the other sugar-filled drinks take advantage over this and sells you water with sugar which you don't really need nor want, but still buy them nonetheless.

If you have all your needs covered why would you continue consuming and wasting resources? Because manufactured wants. Post-scarcity isn't compatible with capitalism.

But it IS compatible with communism.

Also as nations develop, people tend to reproduce less so overpopulation will stop being a huge problem eventually if we eliminate poverty (which again will only be possible in post-capitalism).

[Anonymous No.9773665]

>>9773632
Have you seen the dogshit that is best selling popular fiction? An AI will be writing Dan Brown or Tom Clancy tier novels next month.

[Anonymous No.9773666]

>>9773637
It refers to the idea that AI will reach a point where it can start improving itself without any human intervention

[Anonymous No.9773671]

>>9773648

Not >>9773634 but I think I can answer this

>In what sense are they worthless,
In the sense that they are pulled out of the fundamental excretory orifice.

>and what do you think are more accurate figures?

There are none.

[Anonymous No.9773673]

>>9773666
Seems awfully high, my Satanic friend.

[Anonymous No.9773677]

>>9773661
>sells you water with sugar which you don't really need

Willing to stipulate...

>nor want
Available evidence indicates you are wrong.

[Anonymous No.9773679]

>>9773665
Pic related is not a worthy stance to be taken by a /sci/entist.

[Anonymous No.9773693]

>>9773671
>In the sense that they are pulled out of the fundamental excretory orifice.
Did you even read the article that I linked? The graphs are aggregates of estimates made by researchers who published at the 2015 NIPS and ICML conferences (two of the premier venues for peer-reviewed research in machine learning).

>There are none.
So you think the Singularity is just as likely to happen 50 years from now as it is that the Singularity will happen tomorrow or will happen 1 billion years from now?

[Anonymous No.9773706]

>>9773336

[Anonymous No.9773708]

>>9773677
The “[s]timulation of the appetite with highly-flavoured foods diminishes the natural [relation between food and sustenance or means and ends]”, tending instead “towards living to eat instead of eating to live”. [1]

[1] Alexander Lockhart Gillespie, The Natural History of Digestion (W. Scott, 1904), iii.

[Anonymous No.9773725]

>>9773708
That this was written just a year after Pepsi-Cola was trademarked is of course no coincidence.

[Anonymous No.9773727]

>>9773336
never, to put it shortly.

[Anonymous No.9773893]

>>9773661
>manufactures people's wants
that makes no sense, i can't force you to want something: if i'm forcing something on you by definition it's not your want, if you want something i'm not forcing you to want it.
your examples aren't examples at all: just saying the word advertisement isn't an example, while you yourself say "people crave (ie want) sugar" and then claim they don't want it.
there are examples of substances people consume while claiming they don't really want to, cigarettes for instance the use of tobacco predates capitalism and was widespread in communist regimes as well.
>If you have all your needs covered
you mean basic needs of food and water? people prefer to improve their standards of living rather than just scrape by with the bare minimum. i object to the notion that living a better life is wasting resources and i think history proves that this isn't a manufactured phenomenon of capitalism since it predates said system.
communism has failed and fails at eliminating poverty

[Anonymous No.9773907]

>>9773708
again you're simply arguing for a subsistence society where we produce the bare minimum to survive, which runs counter to your other goal of eliminating poverty.

[Anonymous No.9774023]

>>9773893
>>9773907
Look, humans aren't perfect. Us craving (wanting) sugar when we don't need it is a "bug" in our "programming" that the capitalist system exploit to make profit. At one point in history, us craving sugar was advantageous but nowadays it's literally killing us (diabetes is out of fucking control). Advertising takes advantage of other "bugs" in our programming such as us craving sex, status, love. Of course I say "bugs" not because I think those features are bad or should be abolished, in fact I think those "bugs" are what makes us human. What I think is bad and unethical is taking advantage of those things to make profit (which will always happen in a capitalist system). My hypothesis is that if you don't take advantage of our "bugs", humans can live in harmony with the environment and will only consume what they ultimately really WANT. So, if we want a post-scarcity society, we can't take advantage of these "bugs". This means capitalism is incompatible with post-scarcity and communism is our only hope (to each according to their need... You know how it goes). When us communist say that phrase, we don't mean you should live with the bare minimum for survival lol we like stuff and comfort too. What we mean is that we should all have what we truly need, nothing more and nothing less. What we truly need is up to each person, obviously, but remember there's a threshold. Having more material wealth increases your happiness up to a certain point. Different people will need different things but how much of those things HAS A LIMIT. So that's how a post-scarcity society can work. People consumption has a limit and with automation you can make relative production (to consumption) arbitrarily sufficient.

>but there's not enough energy!
We have the Sun and the center of the Earth. It's virtually unlimited.

>but there's not enough soil!
Google in vitrio meat. This technology could save us a shitlod of water and soil.

[Anonymous No.9774038]

>>9774023
>this person unironically fell for the jewish trickery of (((communism))) and wants everyone to know he's a communist
>implying he's not a jew himself

[Anonymous No.9774060]

>>9774038
The saddest part is you wrote this unironically lol

What are you doing here? We talk Science here. It's clearly beyond your comprehension.

[Anonymous No.9774078]

>>9774060
>(((communism)))
>science
the science of artificial jewish famines that is

[Anonymous No.9774923]

>>9773336
Eventually

[Anonymous No.9776716]

>>9773693
Not that anon but you are giving AI researchers WAY too much credit for what they do. Current AI research is a combination of the wild west and near mysticism, no one has any fucking idea how you would go about building a general AI right now. Guess and test is the dominant method of research right now which makes predictions of any accuracy nearly impossible.

[Anonymous No.9776721]

>>9773336
after the revolution

[Anonymous No.9776741]

>>9773336
Barring perfect regulation of consumption and population growth, which may or may not be stretch depending on many unknowable factors, post-scarcity would really only be a temporary cirucmstance

[Anonymous No.9776755]

>>9773343
>Someone vs hundreds
>it'll work out in the end
The single biggest blunder of our time. Automation operates by removing all fiscal flow out of a community, and instead sucks everything dry because it cuts the community out of any financial benefit.

This wont result in a good outcome for the health of any urban area.

[Anonymous No.9776827]

>>9773661
>need
spooky

[Anonymous No.9776832]

>>9774023
As usual, the communist runs and hides behind shouts of capitalist conspiracy and "reification" when he is unable to adequately define social necessity.

[Anonymous No.9776839]

>>9773442
The more i watch it the plot seems like Humans arbitrarily act like dicks to robots, who for some reason arbitrarily act like Humans, because some Human decided to program them feel.

[Anonymous No.9776842]

>>9773336

We are already living in post-scarcity.

[Anonymous No.9776844]

>>9776842
Only if you selectively define it to mean producing more basic goods than demanded by the total population, which has been the case for several centuries. The ability to efficiently allocate goods is as much a component of scarcity as production of goods.