Post-AI Abundance

[d5000]

What I mean there is, "by his logic," if work is optional, because people already have all they want and don't need to work, then they won't work because there is no incentive to work.

I have understood Musk's speech in another way. "Work is optional" would not mean that all work was optional. It would mean that the AI productivity boost would lead to enough wealth to ensure a basic lifestyle for everybody (note the word "basic" in UBI). In this world, there would be still "money" and also incentives to get something better than the "basic level".

In reality this would be only a gradual change from today's "welfare state".

And Bitcoin would still have a reason to exist.

I wonder though if this vision may be bearish for Bitcoin, as people also "save" for uncertain times. If the times coming are times of abundance where you at least will not be anymore worrying that you couldn't pay even the most basic rent/food/healthcare, then the concept of saving perhaps would become less popular.

On the other hand, in a world of abundance, there could be still an incentive to reach a higher status than your neighbor, by getting some exclusive goods. For example, only a minuscule part of the world population can afford a home in the city centre of NYC or at the beach in Cannes, and that will never change. And for those aiming at this, money -- and Bitcoin -- would still make sense.

Also such an abundance world could lead to more risk tolerance if you never have to fear to lose "everything". Maybe even "speculative" goods like Bitcoin would be the ones most benefitting from such an outlook.

Let's see - I don't see it really close.

PS:

Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet

I think this theory for sure has some merit and in general I would agree from a first glance with its basic premises (as long as the average education level doesn't decline), but I wonder if there isn't a ceiling for the "superabundance" concept, i.e. if there can be a saturation of inventions, a bit similar to the concept of marginal utility. Does he explore that idea in the book? If yes then it might be interesting for me.

[legiteum]

I have understood Musk's speech in another way. "Work is optional" would not mean that all work was optional. It would mean that the AI productivity boost would lead to enough wealth to ensure a basic lifestyle for everybody (note the word "basic" in UBI). In this world, there would be still "money" and also incentives to get something better than the "basic level".

In reality this would be only a gradual change from today's "welfare state".

I don't think Musk was trying to say this (I think what he actually said was utter gibberish), but I agree with that future prediction, presuming everything else goes in that direction (see below).

Also such an abundance world could lead to more risk tolerance if you never have to fear to lose "everything". Maybe even "speculative" goods like Bitcoin would be the ones most benefitting from such an outlook.

I agree with this. In the US, Obamacare made it so people could quit their jobs and not worry about losing their health care when they moved to a new job. That made it so people could switch jobs much more, which allowed them to take more risks.

A stronger safety net (not UBI, but a more advanced and comfortable "free tier") would increase that factor even more. People would know that they could go absolutely broke, and still be "okay"--not desirable, but not terrible either. Hence you will have a lot more people "going for broke", which will probably produce a lot more innovation in our society (but a lot more gambling, too).

I think this theory for sure has some merit and in general I would agree from a first glance with its basic premises (as long as the average education level doesn't decline), but I wonder if there isn't a ceiling for the "superabundance" concept, i.e. if there can be a saturation of inventions, a bit similar to the concept of marginal utility. Does he explore that idea in the book? If yes then it might be interesting for me.

Humans strive for things that are rare. Whatever is "superabundant" is by definition not rare. Hence if there are robots spitting out Ferraris by the thousands and anybody can have one for free, then people won't like them anymore (they will covet the old, "hand built" cars that were objectively inferior by every metric however).

AI slop, as it's being called, can apply to everything, including things that keep you alive such as a robot-built house or robot-built food. And it will be "okay", but it will never be "great". People will still want "hand built" (using that idea very abstractly) things and they will pay for them if they have the means, which they will if they are lucky and/or work hard and/or are uniquely talented.

In other words, the basic structure of society won't change (rich people, poor people, etc.).

And obviously there will still be money. And yes, speculative things like Bitcoin will have a lot more buyers in that universe as well.

You can already see this in metrics today. Crypto buyers weigh very heavily to younger males--people with less to lose, and no family to worry about if they go broke. That effect will get more pronounced if, say, you can have a viable family life without having an income--then everybody can be crypto bros .

[marrcelo]

How to have abundance in the world with countries with dictatorship, religion wanting to be dominant in the world thinking another rival religion has to be extinct from the planet, atomic bomb in some countries' backyard, eyeing the natural wealth of countries to become the new world imperialism or continue with the same one. The war is going to have an end, abundance in one country and war in the neighboring country. Now the universal income, well the robots don't consume, don't feed themselves, so how are the big producers going to make their money with the income for the population to consume, imagine the power of the government being your boss. The imaginary world of business and technology genius Musk is more like a conspiracy theory.