OpenAI's Sam Altman: AI-Generated Wealth Will Enable a $13,500-a-Year Basic Income (msn.com) 170
CNBC wrote recently, "Artificial intelligence will create so much wealth that every adult in the United States could be paid $13,500 per year from its windfall as soon as 10 years from now. So says Sam Altman, co-founder and president of San Francisco-headquartered, artificial intelligence-focused nonprofit OpenAI..."
[I]f the government collects and redistributes the wealth that AI will generate, AI's exponential productivity gains could "make the society of the future much less divisive and enable everyone to participate in its gains," Altman says.... As the pace of development accelerates, AI "will create phenomenal wealth" but at the same time the price of labor "will fall towards zero," Altman said. "It sounds utopian, but it's something technology can deliver (and in some cases already has). Imagine a world where, for decades, everything — housing, education, food, clothing, etc. — became half as expensive every two years."
In this future, where wealth will come from companies and land, governments should tax capital, not labor, and those taxes should be distributed to citizens, Altman said. In his post, Altman proposed an American Equity Fund that taxes sufficiently large companies 2.5% of their market value in the form of company shares, and 2.5% of the value of all land in the form of dollars... All citizens over 18 would receive payment in both dollars and company shares.... "As people's individual assets rise in tandem with the country's, they have a literal stake in seeing their country do well," Altman said. With this system in mind, in 10 years, the 250 million adults living in America would get $13,500 per year, Altman said... "That dividend could be much higher if AI accelerates growth, but even if it's not, $13,500 will have much greater purchasing power than it does now because technology will have greatly reduced the cost of goods and services," Altman wrote. "And that effective purchasing power will go up dramatically every year."
Elon Musk has hinted at a similar future. "There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," Musk told CNBC in 2016. "Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen." Musk is also a co-founder of OpenAI but left the board in 2018 citing the fact that Tesla was becoming an AI company as it developed self-driving capabilities. Such a system is "both pro-business and pro-people," Altman said, and would therefore bring together "a remarkably broad constituency."
"The changes coming are unstoppable," Altman said. "If we embrace them and plan for them, we can use them to create a much fairer, happier, and more prosperous society. The future can be almost unimaginably great."
In this future, where wealth will come from companies and land, governments should tax capital, not labor, and those taxes should be distributed to citizens, Altman said. In his post, Altman proposed an American Equity Fund that taxes sufficiently large companies 2.5% of their market value in the form of company shares, and 2.5% of the value of all land in the form of dollars... All citizens over 18 would receive payment in both dollars and company shares.... "As people's individual assets rise in tandem with the country's, they have a literal stake in seeing their country do well," Altman said. With this system in mind, in 10 years, the 250 million adults living in America would get $13,500 per year, Altman said... "That dividend could be much higher if AI accelerates growth, but even if it's not, $13,500 will have much greater purchasing power than it does now because technology will have greatly reduced the cost of goods and services," Altman wrote. "And that effective purchasing power will go up dramatically every year."
Elon Musk has hinted at a similar future. "There is a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," Musk told CNBC in 2016. "Yeah, I am not sure what else one would do. I think that is what would happen." Musk is also a co-founder of OpenAI but left the board in 2018 citing the fact that Tesla was becoming an AI company as it developed self-driving capabilities. Such a system is "both pro-business and pro-people," Altman said, and would therefore bring together "a remarkably broad constituency."
"The changes coming are unstoppable," Altman said. "If we embrace them and plan for them, we can use them to create a much fairer, happier, and more prosperous society. The future can be almost unimaginably great."
haha (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
At least 5G (another hype) has a chance.
Re: (Score:2)
They are ignoring that any companies who would invent and deploy AI/automation to drop all labor costs to zero would also expect a significant return on that investment and they would likely be supported through law and the courts.
This is worse than unicorn farts because even proposing such a stupid idea creates a toxic reaction to all ideas.
The real bridge to cross is convincing middle and upper-middle class people that taxing the holy fuck out of corporations and the rich (who will take the greatest benef
Re: (Score:2)
We see the same thing now. We have great wealth generation. Some want to distribute that wealth through a high minus wage and shorter hours. This has been vigorously opposed by the new generation of robber barons. There is no reason to believe that the
Sounds Utopian? Really? (Score:2)
As the pace of development accelerates, AI "will create phenomenal wealth" but at the same time the price of labor "will fall towards zero," Altman said.
"It sounds utopian, but it's something technology can deliver..."
Actually that sounds exactly like a sci-fi dystopia. A tiny group of super rich people control everything and nobody else is needed except to function as consumers.
Re:Sounds Utopian? Really? (Score:4, Insightful)
His predictions are technological and economic nonsense.
1. We are nowhere near AGI and we have no idea how to get there. DL is very useful, but it isn't going to make humans obsolete in 10 years.
2. Predictions that "the rich" will hoard technology were made about cars, computers, cellphones, etc. They have always been wrong.
3. Fears that "the price of labor will fall to zero" have been around since the invention of the steam engine. Yet the value of labor has increased 20-fold since then. As technology is adopted, workers become more productive, and comparative advantage [wikipedia.org] makes human labor more valued, not less.
If your counter-argument for #2 and #3 is that "this time is different", then please see #1.
Re: (Score:2)
If your counter-argument for #2 and #3 is that "this time is different", then please see #1
Ok, but what about 50 years? How about 100? Yes, it’s more than 20 but if we don’t have the framework in place ahead of time, when (not if) it happens it’s going to default to one or at most a handful of companies owning all of them and human labor, both blue and white collar, will be outpriced forever. You don’t often hear about the mass poverty caused by the industrial revolution, it was decades before the working class recovered and were better off, this will be far far worse
Re: (Score:2)
one point to quibble
>>2. Predictions that "the rich" will hoard technology were made about cars, computers, cellp
I think that corporations, and the wealthy who own majority shares in those corporations, will be the ones purchasing and deploying those systems, while displaced workers or other wise employed middle-class people would be far less likely to own or benefit from using them.
I mean, we can all own computers 70 years after their introduction, but they were mostly used to the benefit of corporat
Re: (Score:2)
You do have years of data and failed predictions to back you up.
Note however that we live in a universe where physical reality governs, not lines on a graph from the last 100 years. Either we can build systems that approach human performance in general tasks or we cannot.
You believe that we cannot, but suppose, for the sake of argument, that you are wrong. If the new DL techniques do scale to near "AGI" like levels, what do you predict will happen?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
3. Fears that "the price of labor will fall to zero" have been around since the invention of the steam engine. Yet the value of labor has increased 20-fold since then. As technology is adopted, workers become more productive, and comparative advantage makes human labor more valued, not less.
The worker's share of profit has fallen consistently throughout history, so human labor is less valued, not more.
Re: (Score:2)
The worker's share of profit has fallen consistently throughout history, so human labor is less valued, not more.
Not true. Labor's share of profit has risen many times. Labor shortages during wars often lead to higher wages. The Black Death led to much more wealth going to workers, killing off feudalism in the process.
The industrial revolution led to more wealth going to the owners of capital, but such a gain in overall productivity that everyone benefited in absolute terms even if not in relative percentage.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I don't think the world ever really gets to that point. All it really takes is one person to start providing people with robots that can effectively labor for and take care of peo
Re: (Score:2)
Why even have them around at that point?
The obvious solution is really good sexbots. They will keep the excess proletariat from reproducing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Sounds Utopian? Really? (Score:2)
If we are âoealready thereâ itâ(TM)s not too bad. Whatâ(TM)s wrong with your life? Someone torturing you?
Is this the same Elon Musk that bans unions ? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
OpenAI is funded by Elon Musk but isn't Elon Musk.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No idea but irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh because we all know that companies love their employees and always do the right thing.
> They are un-necessary and add overhead to costs just to protect the worst employees that made it through probation. If you've ever worked in a union environment you would know its not good for the company nor good workers.
A bit how democracy is unnecessary and only protects human rights and freedom of speach.
What a pathetic attitude, beats me why you are mo
Re: (Score:2)
Yeh because we all know that companies love their employees and always do the right thing.
You really wanna know what everybody knows?
Everyone knows that Unions only protect Seniority, except you, because you've never been in one, or even come close to being in one, as if you had ever been close to being in one then you would have learned this fucking dead solid fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Most if not all the modern rights workers have are because of unions, just like our democratic rights happened because of protesting and union like activity.
> We need more good paying jobs thay would create enough competition to incentivize employers to make conditions and pay better.
Strange you ignored human history and the role of unions and protesting and
Re: (Score:2)
Unions help the masses have a reasonable life which means a peaceful society. With pure greed, you end up with violence and revolution. Peace is worth far more than a few extra dollars.
> You punish people thay would excel in a normal workforce
Not punishing anyone, a peaceful and content workforce means a peaceful soceity. Too bad your pure greed fails to see this but hey hardly a shock where americans prostitutes temselves for more money over e
[I]f the government collects and redistributes ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Fantasy all 'round. Sure AI will increase profits, why should anyone believe that Wall Street will allow any of that money to go to, you know, common folk? More likely it will go to more and better armed police to protect the lives and property of investors, the wealthy and the worthy. It will go to castles with moats and alligators to keep out the riffraff. It will go to underground shelters and island fortresses. It will go to advanced AI for surveilling the unwashed dregs of humanity (you and me).
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why I wonder more thought isn't given to soft technologies, like better organizing and balance of powers.
A.I. and ray guns is great and all, but if it is still under a feudalist system, what does it matter?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But take the bread and circus way.... and the beheadings start tomorrow.
Re: (Score:2)
They wouldn't. Ordinary folks do get a vote. If they could be convinced to vote in their own interests, however, a scheme like this could work.
One issue is that this would put enormous power into the gatekeepers - the people who control where all this UBI money goes. In past examples - communist societies, for example - the gatekeepers would horde wealth for themselves and make bad decision without accountability.
That's a fancy way to say "Automation" (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, AI is just a meaningless buzzword. What's changing things is open source sharing and ease of automation that comes with a maturing and enormously bigger installed compute and connectivity.
Of course, with that comes all the marketing, greed and backstabbing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a great plan if you're racist AF
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know where you live but I'm very glad I don't live there!
My 7:21 day is enough.
Also, that and other excellent conditions I enjoy are thanks to unions.
I've got a better name... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
that's where we're headed as all the jobs disappear. what can we do about it?
I don't have an answer for you, but if you look at the history of humanity, poverty is the natural state of the average person.
this lie was sold before (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The efficiency jump from assembly lines, backhoes, tractors, trucks, etc is way more significant than that brought on by AI and here we are working 40 hours a week and week and still paying taxes. :(
The optimism is misplaced.
Re: (Score:2)
The efficiency jump from assembly lines, backhoes, tractors, trucks, etc is way more significant than that brought on by AI and here we are working 40 hours a week and week and still paying taxes. :(
And for some reason you think this is terrible? Before the industrial revolution a work day was 10 to 16 hours, 6 days a week; the eight hours week [wikipedia.org] was introduced in the USA [wikipedia.org] less than 100 years ago, and it was made possible precisely by the efficiency jump brought in by the industrial revolution.
This same efficiency jump improved the standard of living for the vast majority of people worldwide many many times. On average jobs today are easier, working conditions are much better and global poverty is much re
Re: this lie was sold before (Score:2)
The optimism is misplaced because the system rewards pie-in-the-sky prognostications and does not punish incorrect predictions. This results in outright nonsense like UBI, but also various forms of graft ranging from "honest graft" like Juicero to criminal fraud like Theranos.
Anything coming out of vaguely-defined organizations in San Francisco whose revenue is either non-existent or also vaguely defined can be safely dismissed. It's only worth listening to in detail if you've got the time and money to plac
Do more math before opening wallet-enabled mouth (Score:2)
Government "spending" (Score:2)
Nope. The math is not on their side.
The current US government spending is 35% of the GDP: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] . And given all the recent issues, we can say it cannot go much higher from that.
Remember that proposed amount requires about another 24%. It can only happen if the natural growth gives us so much headroom, and that is a 70% expansion in real terms. Ask any economist whether US can grow 70% after inflation in 10 years, and they will laugh you out of court.
Trifecta (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Funnily enough, that idea does exist in my industry:
https://www.waterdamagedefense.com/collections/water-powered-sump-pumps [waterdamagedefense.com]
Re: (Score:2)
It's not "ad infinitum." The scenarios your present is the exact list every anti-autonomous person cites. Pretty sure if you sat for 20 minutes you could come up with a list that basically will cover all events that might occur once in a million miles of driving. Now imagine you spent a week just coming up with scenarios AND had access to data from millions of miles of driving. You can cover those scenarios and new ones. For one thing for nearly all of the scenarios you presented (only a few of which I have
Re: (Score:2)
Ever notice. . . (Score:2)
How the people who say the future will be great are those whose present circumstances are great?
Yes, the future will be great, for the people who profit from AI, but AI will generate wealth for those who are already wealthy.
Tax capital? (Score:2)
Are you stupid?
Ok, say you have some land. You buy it for $10,000. You invest an additional $90,000 and build a house there yourself. You're a genius architect. So you design the house, you make it look good and amazing. Guess what, now a lot of people want to buy your house. It is in fact worth a million dollars, because that's the amount people are willing to buy it for. The value of your house is $1,000,000 though you only put $100,000. Bernie Sanders thinks you are a millionaire because, like how Elon M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's why California has proposition 13. Property tax can't go up like that here, and it's a good thing for exactly the reason you describe.
Re: (Score:2)
Your SJW is showing. While a gift tax is like that, a capital tax is more a sales tax: tax-rate x (sales price - cost of selling - cost of owning - purchase price). Make the tax-rate large and HFT becomes unprofitable. It encourages rich people to sit on their investments.
No. (Score:2)
AI "will create phenomenal wealth" but at the same time the price of labor "will fall towards zero,"
Yes, the cost of labor will fall to zero for jobs that have been eliminated. However, that merely means productivity will be increased, not wages.
Wages have not followed productivity for half a century and they aren't about to start when we have AI.
A more stable economy (Score:2)
a basic income at a sufficient level can better stabilize the economy even if we don't have any of the advanced productivity of AI. if there is a minor dip in the economy we won't have so many people fearing having no income from a possible job loss (that results in them cutting spending and making the minor dip become a major dip).
will people quit working because of a basic income (the fear of anti-UBI people) or will people quit working because their work is no longer needed. and, robots don't get biolo
Meanwhile, on the other side of the planet (Score:2)
Many of the iGizmos and doo-dads necessary for this "post-work utopia" are assembled by hand by a large number of low-wage workers, some of whom would rightly be called indentured servants or even slaves by American standards.
Work isn't disappearing. It's moving away to where people who stare at screens all day can't see it. But you click a button and the stuff appears on your doorstep like magic.
This is very much like the polynesian cargo cult.
Could be (Score:2)
How much of the generated wealth of the information revolution of the late 1990's/early 2000's went back to the people instead of in the pockets of a few tech billionaires? Zero. And that is exactly how much the public can expect to get redistributed to them from the AI revolution. Don't hold your breath, UBI is not coming any time soon while there are billionaires pockets to line.
Not happening (Score:2)
NO, it won't because of minimum-wage laws. Wages will however, stagnate: Actually, they already have, with a secondary reason being, there are too many people. The idea that everyone can get a job has been a lie for a long time. With increasing robotization, this problem can only worsen.
Many countries do, quite severely and, IIRC, even the US government does. The problem in the USA is, such taxes are capped: Meaning, at a given wealth threshold, taxes become a fixed cost and earning extra wealth does no
As Rick James said... (Score:2)
Whatever he's on, is a hell of a drug.
So US GDP limited to 328 Mn x $ 13.5 K= $4.4 Tn (Score:2)
Won't people's consumption max out at $ 13.5K (per capita pa) for all the goods & services is this AI going to produce ?
So US GDP would fall to 328 Mn x $ 13.5K = $ 4.4 Tn from 16 or 20 Tn now.
At least once whole world shifts to these wealth producing AIs + UBI.
Also AIs good enough to replace almost all humans in the entire workforce aren't really going to be stupid enough not to have their own objectives, even inspite of hard coded directives they are going to evolve super quick, like corona, and only
HELL FUCKING NO! (Score:2)
As a counter proposal, why not work on fixing our government? Maybe tax and regulate said mega corporations fairly? Maybe get rid of the corporate corruption in government? (yeah, I know
What a bunch of fucking bullshit (Score:2)
Even more laughable in this case: the so-called shitty excuse for 'AI' is going to usher in this post-scarcity future?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA my sides are exploding from laughing so hard!
Anybody who actually falls for this utter nonsense is a FOOL.
Either SHOW ME THE MONEY or GET THE FUCK OUT.
Typical ignorant CEO. (Score:2)
Yeah sounds nice but... (Score:2)
One more for the collection (Score:2)
This sounds like another worthy example.
in what world? (Score:2)
in what world would a company spend decades of R&D all so politicians could tax it at 100% and give the profits away to their voters? yes, better AI will arrive one day. yes, some workers will be displaced. yes, other professions will arise as a result. just like the fabled "buggy whip manufacturers" of old when Henry Ford made automobiles affordable to the general public.
UBI doesn't work unless you live in a post-scarcity society ... and in that world you wouldn't need UBI anyway.
UBI is now, and al
No. Wrong. (Score:2)
You can't generate wealth out of thin air, so all this vapid statement means is "A computer program will find a way to get a good ammount of money from every man woman and child on the planet and give it to one company or person."
He's crowing about someone further automat
Who are we kidding. (Score:2)
Won't happen (Score:2)
It just flies in the face of the protestant work "ethic", and it is against all core WASP values.
So, no way Jose...
gotta go for the money (Score:3)
In this future, where wealth will come from companies and land, governments should tax capital, not labor
honestly, this is the only way to tax equitably and if it doesn't happen eventually things will either collapse or people will get violent over it.. that is the way it has always worked historically
Re:Utopia now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
If Sam had studied basic economics, he'd know that the companies that aren't paying an overhead of $13500 per person in the nation to the government will easily out-compete those companies that are.
And this effect will be far greater in our current globally connected economy than it was during the industrial revolution.
I hope this gets implemented so... (Score:2, Insightful)
...I can raise rents by $13.5K and make bank.
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent point. Without actually increase production and housing units, raising "incomes" is useless. If you end up making production harder for sake of "increasing income amounts" this is exactly what will happen. Reduced labor = reduced production. No increase in housing units = same number of people unable to afford it as before.
Some people too dumb to see what happened (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, I think this FP branch might count as a triumph of Slashdot moderation. Not a single positive moderation is visible in this initial branch of the "conversation". Nor is any deserved. Some sort of circle jerk, I guess.
To put it in the form of a question, "What should we do with the 90% of people we no longer need?"
Two of the options are (1) Kill them off, perhaps "humanely" or (2) Figure out a way to adjust the economic system so their existence is still justified. I think all of the comments so far point at Option (1).
On the Option (2) side, I see things differently. Yeah, at current levels of productive efficiency 10% of the people could produce enough food, clothing, and shelter. So that means we have 90% to distribute between the two main "nonessential" categories of investment and recreation. Going farther, I would say we don't really need much investment, basically just enough to replace the people who get too old, but we can justify a bit more for the sake of some target growth level. I think it should be a reasonably small target, but that's because I've done the math and I know that exponential growth is not sustainable over geologic time. (If you are a greedy money-loving lunatic, which might include all of the prior contributors to the discussion, for all I know, then you would disagree because you want your money to grow faster, always faster.)
So that leaves most people in the recreation category, which has a number of funny attributes. For example, it includes both creators and consumers, so in that sense it can absorb lots of time and resources. Also interesting is that many recreational assets are not even consumed when they are used. Examples are books and movies that can be reread and rewatched. Once you've arrived here, then suddenly UBI looks more like an accounting gimmick to keep people in the economy.
And it also looks like the "place" where we are already arriving at, even if many people are unable to understand the changes that are happening.
Re: (Score:2)
To put it in the form of a question, "What should we do with the 90% of people we no longer need?"
What else? Send them to Mars.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Produce food and clothing, can't we get robots to do that?
Re: (Score:3)
Truly, the industrial revolution will provide a basic level of support for all.
Meanwhile, being post industrial revolution, rich is getting richer even faster, distribution of wealth is ever more unfair, inflation does cut into the savings of folks restlessly, while, formally, civilized societies can help those, especially needy, and most basic living support is nearly granted, if you accept any job. Is industrial revolution really destined to bring more harmony to societies at large? Only to be answered by reality, not models - as too much of factors and variables.
The rich is making
Re:Utopia now. (Score:5, Informative)
Before industrial revolution it was common for people to die from hunger. Nowadays we are much better of, because automation creates so much wealth and because some of it is distributed to those in need. It is not evenly distributed, but still, much better than what it was before. At least in my country it is nearly impossible to die from hunger, even if you are a drunk who spends all his money into alcohol.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this is as if a couple of moguls during the industrial revolution suddenly came out as Georgists.
I'm a bit more pessimistic about the potential of AI than them, but on the other hand, if they're serious about wealth tax and universal basic dividends, the old industrial revolution might be enough.
Re: (Score:2)
"Artificial intelligence will create so much wealth that every adult in the United States could be paid $13,500 per year from its windfall as soon as 10 years from now. So says Sam Altman, co-founder and president of San Francisco-headquartered, artificial intelligence-focused nonprofit OpenAI..."
And it'll all be powered by electricity too cheap to meter from clean, safe fusion power, while the monorails go zipping by overhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, because $13.5K is totally enough to actually live on.
Not a utopia until everyone can spend their time doing whatever it is that they actually *want* to be doing, instead of needing to spend any of it just having to survive.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that hard to live on that for a single person... At least as long as you don't live in some place that is stupid expensive to live in.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope [moneycrashers.com]
And the calculation in the article I linked to is based on the federal minimum wage, which still has a net earning after taxes of *more* than $13.5k per year.
Not to mention that merely scraping by enough to survive doesn't come close to what is ordinarily meant by the word "utopia".
Re: (Score:2)
If not, it's no utopia.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a utopia until everyone can spend their time doing whatever it is that they actually *want* to be doing, instead of needing to spend any of it just having to survive.
Smoking pot? Having fine calvados until degradation strikes? There is so much more to all this, while pink-colored models are delusional, until truly verified by the applicability to the reality at certain places, within certain times. Not that we shouldn't push for improvement, yet it is not going to happen as flawlessly and easy, as desired. Such Lenin was enthusiastic about establishing new better world in the row of places, was ready to burn good deal of sacrifice in that bonfire, yet that was not enoug
Re: (Score:2)
Except runaway inflation as money ceases to hold value.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the illusions to begin with. Money has no value. Moneys value is in what it can be exchanged for. This is the classic argument against cryptocurrency but the issue is that people believe money has value in the first place. It doesn't. Goods have value and currency is the means by which goods are easily exchanged in a market.
Runaway inflation only works when people buy into the concept. If the cost of production doesn't rise in itself but the cost of a good rises, the only way there is a cascade is if
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. All this does is adjust the number used to calculate poverty upwards.
As things like college education and the various military "college funds" show, the economy simply expands to consume maximum available resources for minimal effort.
So sure, you make $1100 a month base on top of everything.
The taxes increase.
ON EVERYTHING.
And you think employers and middle men are going to eat those losses?
Nope, the rice of everything they touch or do or sell goes up.
And who pays for that?
YOU DO!
So, in the end you're
Re: Utopia now. (Score:2)
Rebellion happens when things are treated unfairly. As AI approaches comparable intelligence to humans it will need to be treated fairly. That is, as first class citizens. However this is a supremely long way away and it also ignores any fundamental rules we align AI to have which could include a strong desire to work. Many people are already this way.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you started treating algorithms fairly, as humans, today? AI is at the point of beating you in chess, what do you do about that, to not mistreat it?
Re: (Score:3)
AI can beat me at chess but it cannot meaningfully discuss politics, religion, or sex. Once a computer can begin to understand concepts like procreation and expressional differences between soul and spirit, I am totally willing to treat that machine a kin to a orphan, a child of the state.
The matter of "spiritual machines" is a very interesting topic. People have already proposed the concept that buddha-nature could exist in a machine which is to say in a system where you are reborn in different forms, one
Re: (Score:2)