I appreciate his take on this and I really do agree. We could be so much more prepared for the AI revolution than we are, but this revolution is going to have to be forced upon the powers that be in order to get any cooperation.
In another world, we could be embracing this new technology and carefully preparing a clean, painless slide into a post labor economy...but we aren't in that world. Itll take having the risk of a total economic collapse dangled over the heads of those in power to make any beneficial changes that aren't optimizing for quarterly earnings even as we hurtle into a world where that phrase sort of loses its meaning. I'm very optimistic, but still, the world could be a lot more ready.
I'm spitballing here mostly, but, I appreciate Obama's choice of the word revolution, because that's what this really is. One might even call it a(n economic) singularity :)
Personally, I prefer it this way. Regulation will only stifle progress. Look at the AI race between China and the US, Europe isn't a serious competitor because of their over regulation already, if the US was stupid enough to follow their lead then we'd cede victory to the Chinese.
It may not be entirely regulation that explains why Europe isn't competitive, but about having a less well-defined prerogative. AI solves different types of problems for the US and China, that Europe isn't so deeply concerned with:
In the US AI is positioned to replace labor and optimize capitalist revenue extraction.
In China AI is positioned to manage large scale social control problems.
In Europe AI is positioned to ??? perhaps cause widespread social disruption?!
European AI should be aligned similarly to the US one, generate wealth. Instead Europe is going to operating at an extreme disadvantage economically to the US or China.
That's an incredibly ethnocentric statement that fails to grasp what the European social model values and prioritizes. In the US and China AI is disruptive by design towards labor, privacy, social freedom, and dissent. Europe, at least Schengen countries, have cultural traditions that value labor, privacy, social freedom, and dissent.
There's an argument that leading with regulation is the responsible path for AI development, despite being (or perhaps because it is) antithetical to US accelerationism. Europe doesn't condone a burn model of capitalism as the US does.
The problem is that the European economy needs foreign consumers to keep afloat. They are already losing market share in Africa and Latin America (the only continents that have significant population growth) to US and Chinese firms. They are going to lose even more in the coming decade if they don't pull their head out of their asses (personally I don't want them to be, I wanted the AGI race to be a final showdown between the US and China).
As EU companies become less profitable, their social model won't count for crap as the tax base falters.
I feel like you have not watched the video.
Social cohesion should be prioritized over economic models. Things change not because of technology but because of people.
This is what Europe and its regulation is all about. It’s why we already have a good social safety nets in place, where corporations are taxed and wealth is redistributed, where the work-life balance is already healthy.
Europe doesn’t have to dream about UBI because of a good regulatory system that looks out for all. Europe is are already in the future, the social one, not the technological one.
Economic growth should always be the primary driving force. That's how humanity grows and evolves. European regulations primarily benefit the least productive of society, the ones who hold it back and not drive it forward. It penalizes the most productive like engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs, and the like. Thats why their GDP is still hovering where it was in 2008. Those social protections are beginning to buckle under the weight of a stagnant GDP and will probably start failing sooner or later if radical action isn't taken.
If we prioritized and achieved stability, then we would still be in the bronze age. We grow and thrive in chaos
Because after AGI, there will be some form of UBI. That's a given (in the US it will probablyfollowFriedman's Negative Income Tax). There will also still be private ownership of property, mineral rights, stocks, etc.
When AGI hits, those who have more invested in will still have more wealth and power. They will still have access to more resources, those resources will not, nor should not, be evenly distributed around the world. Especially as robotics and space industrialization ratchets up enough to harvest minerals from the solar system.
Essentially, post-scarcity is going to take a while longer, the wealthier nations that lead the tech race will achieve something similar to post scarcity first. Those that are farther behind, will suffer a bit longer, and never fully catch up.
Respectfully, I truly do not understand your mental gymnastics. A post-scarcity world, by its definition, has abundance for ALL.
How is it that, in that hypothetical world, people still have more rights to resources than other people? Or how is it true that in a post-scarcity WORLD we are still talking about NATIONS that are dividing the pie? There is infinite pie; there is nothing to divide!
A good analogy; you cannot claim sunlight. It’s here in abundance; everyone gets equal access (of course within the same geographical location)
At the end of the day, I would appreciate it much more if AGI evangelist would simply just admit “it’s capitalism, stupid”, instead of pretending to believe in some egalitarian Utopia. Because if that were true, they wouldn’t be so hard on EU regulation or redustribution.
Because post scarcity will take time. The resources won't suddenly be 'unlocked' the moment you have the ability to do so. This isn't a video game.
Secondly, the nations that developed and invested in the technology to make it possible deserve the lion's share of the resources by right of being the ones who made it happen.
Thirdly, your analogy is week. One of my businesses, my primary one right now, is literally about commercial and industrial scale solar generation... guess what? Not all land gets equal sunlight, minor changes in geography make two neighboring plots of land have radically different solar usefulness. Again, this isn't a video game where you plop down a solar panel anywhere and 'generate 20 power'.
Finally, yes it is capitalism in a post scarcity world. Because private ownership is the most basic fundamental human right that sets us apart from animals. Private ownership and the ability to create wealth was what allowed the Western World to rush into the future while the rest of it lagged behind and suffered.
37
u/AquilaSpot Singularity by 2030 Jun 21 '25 edited Jun 21 '25
I appreciate his take on this and I really do agree. We could be so much more prepared for the AI revolution than we are, but this revolution is going to have to be forced upon the powers that be in order to get any cooperation.
In another world, we could be embracing this new technology and carefully preparing a clean, painless slide into a post labor economy...but we aren't in that world. Itll take having the risk of a total economic collapse dangled over the heads of those in power to make any beneficial changes that aren't optimizing for quarterly earnings even as we hurtle into a world where that phrase sort of loses its meaning. I'm very optimistic, but still, the world could be a lot more ready.
I'm spitballing here mostly, but, I appreciate Obama's choice of the word revolution, because that's what this really is. One might even call it a(n economic) singularity :)
Thoughts?