It sounds like you entirely agree with the logic of the post, but wish that the start of the post mentioned something like what it says at the end:
Humans may live comfortably after the development of AGI, not due to high wages but from other income sources like investments, government welfare, and charity. The latter two sources seem especially promising if AI alignment ensures ongoing support for human well-being.
And perhaps you also wish that the post had an optimistic rather than neutral tone. (And that it more clearly emphasized that AGI would result in large amounts of wealth—at least for someone.)
Given this, it seems your claim is just that you’re quite optimistic about some mixture of “investments, government welfare, and charity” coming through to keep people alive and happy. (Given the assumption that (some) humans maintain control, there isn’t some other similar catastrophe, and the world is basically as it seems e.g. we’re not in a simulation.)
Correspondingly, it seems unaccurate to say:
Jobs and technology have a purpose: producing the good and services we need to live and thrive. If your model of the world includes the possibility that we would create the most advanced technology the world has ever seen, and the result would be mass starvation, then I think your model is fundamentally flawed.
and
it does so based on a combination of flawed logic and
If someone didn’t have wealth (perhaps due to expropriation) and no one gave them anything out of generosity, then because their labor has no value they could starve and I think you agree? I don’t think the statement “Jobs and technology have a purpose” means anything.
Historically, even if no one who owned capital or had power cared at all about the welfare of someone without capital, those with capital would often still be selfishly interested in employing that person. So, even if someone had all their assests taken from them, it would still selfishly make sense for a variety of people to trade with them such that they can survive. In cases where this is less true, human welfare often seems to suffer (see also resource curse). As you seemingly agree, with sufficient technological development, labor may become unimportant and if a person doesn’t have capital, no one with capital would selfishly be interested in trading with them such that they can remain alive.
In practice, extremely minimal amounts of charity could suffice (e.g., one person could pay to feed the entire world), so I’m personally optimistic about avoiding literal starvation. However, I do worry about the balance of power in a world where human labor is unimportant: democracy and other institutions seems potentially less stable in such a world.
It sounds like you entirely agree with the logic of the post, but wish that the start of the post mentioned something like what it says at the end:
And perhaps you also wish that the post had an optimistic rather than neutral tone. (And that it more clearly emphasized that AGI would result in large amounts of wealth—at least for someone.)
Given this, it seems your claim is just that you’re quite optimistic about some mixture of “investments, government welfare, and charity” coming through to keep people alive and happy. (Given the assumption that (some) humans maintain control, there isn’t some other similar catastrophe, and the world is basically as it seems e.g. we’re not in a simulation.)
Correspondingly, it seems unaccurate to say:
and
If someone didn’t have wealth (perhaps due to expropriation) and no one gave them anything out of generosity, then because their labor has no value they could starve and I think you agree? I don’t think the statement “Jobs and technology have a purpose” means anything.
Historically, even if no one who owned capital or had power cared at all about the welfare of someone without capital, those with capital would often still be selfishly interested in employing that person. So, even if someone had all their assests taken from them, it would still selfishly make sense for a variety of people to trade with them such that they can survive. In cases where this is less true, human welfare often seems to suffer (see also resource curse). As you seemingly agree, with sufficient technological development, labor may become unimportant and if a person doesn’t have capital, no one with capital would selfishly be interested in trading with them such that they can remain alive.
In practice, extremely minimal amounts of charity could suffice (e.g., one person could pay to feed the entire world), so I’m personally optimistic about avoiding literal starvation. However, I do worry about the balance of power in a world where human labor is unimportant: democracy and other institutions seems potentially less stable in such a world.
(As far as concerns with institutions and power, see discussion in this recent paper about gradual disempowerment, though note I think I mostly disagree with this paper.)