They hope the surveillance state and killer bots roll out by then.

But even if they're compensated, wouldn't ai already have replaced 99.9999% of problem-solving/creative jobs, therefore sapping society of any incentive for self-improvent? Like a society where there isn't work is so sterile. Even most of schooling wouldn't be necessary. How is that even a society? That's a bleak future where everyone is just a consumer and has no reason to make things because ai has replaced human creativity, which is what gives life meaning in the first place. And i mean creativity in the widest way possible. The source that makes us amazing problem solvers, whether technical or artistic. If there isn't a demand for that what is even the point of living. That's a weird Dune-like future if u ask me. I want AI to help us get to an Alcubierre Drive that can warp space without the need for theoretical negative mass or non-existent exotic matter. I don't want it to replace creative labor. And i want the humans that make it to that future to be able to appreciate it. But I'm afraid no one would even have the capacity to understand at that point if the need for human skills is annihilated. Work is where we meet people. It's what makes life so dynamic. It's why being at home is so lovely, because it's in direct contrast to being at work. It's where we gossip and chat and meet other human minds and where we meet people we like and dislike and gives us stories to tell. It's where we solve problems. It's why the city centers are so lively and vibrant because of all those lovely workers. It's why free-time is so delicious. The value of free-time drops almost immediately if it is infinite. It's spiritually rewarding to refine skills and get better at creative tasks. I say, let's not get rid of that. Let's work with AI, not let it do everything for us.

​@@sor7en07 To answer your comment: Creative jobs are least likely to be automated away, be they scientific, artistic or otherwise. A truck driver's job is not creative, and a person whose job has been automated away would have the opportunity to educate themselves further in order to land another job that can't yet be automated. Ongoing education could even be made compulsory for out-of-job persons who are receiving a compensation. Work is where we meet people, but school is also where we meet people, so being out of a job is no hindrance for socialising. On another note, if the Alcubierre Drive became a reality, then probably many people would be needed to expand into the universe, so automation can help allocate human labour to that endeavour. As for automation bringing about a "Dune-like future", I don't know what that means. As I recall, the desert planet was inspired by Arabic countries. My position regarding AI is, it should be used for maximising the economic output (goods and services) produced by the total man-hours spent, because that's what will maximise aggregate wealth and prosperity. So the ideal society would be one where humans are mostly involved in improving the way things are working, and where they keep out of day-to-day operations as much as possible. Of course it is conceivable that many people would become useless in such a society (one could argue many already are !), but they would receive compensation in the meantime, and perhaps the human population would then naturally contract with time. Of course, if you wish to preserve the status quo, then naturally you would want to limit the role of AI to that of a mere tool that helps humans do their work. This way you don't need to think about changing the way society is organised, at the cost of preventing fast progress. Sometimes keeping people working is actually a hindrance for maximising the economic output. For example, a factory that has even one role where humans are involved (loading the outgoing trucks with merchandise, say) would be significantly less efficient compared to a factory that is fully automated.

​@@kivanchips7416 When I wrote those lines there was no such thing as generative AI, but even then, you are wrong when you say I was wrong :) So it is true that generative AI has automated away a significant part of what artistic professions used to consist of. But I still think that the most creative part of human labour is very difficult to automate away, maybe even impossible. Example: You can prompt Midjourney etc to "paint a bull fight in the style of Picasso", but it wouldn't be much use if you told it to "create a new artistic style for paintings", or if you did, the results would most probably be mediocre. So, for the moment at least, generative AI is nothing more than a new tool, albeit very advanced, that artists can use. BUT I WILL SAY THIS: There is such a thing as Darwin's law of natural selection, even in human societies, as much as many may wish it away. It is possible that the artistic professions will be impacted more than the science/engineering professions. Progress will not profit everyone in equal measure, that much is certain, but societal protection measures such as the automation tax I was talking about will hopefully soften the blow for many. To me utopia looks like this: 1. Nobody is obliged to work, everyone receives a basic income, all day-to-day work is automated (granted, the world population would probably have to be much smaller than it is right now, and it is unclear how this reduction would happen). 2. People would only work at improving the way things work, and those who contribute to societal progress the most would benefit from the biggest financial returns. Thanks for reviving this conversation btw, this is a great topic to think about.

mentally ill tyrants