Automatic for the people 2018-07-08T14:23:08.787Z · score: 19 (9 votes)


Comment by technicalities on Epistea Summer Experiment · 2019-05-15T07:28:03.256Z · score: 5 (3 votes) · LW · GW

Will this clash with the Human-Aligned AI event?

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-11T20:48:10.131Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

1 and 2. These are what I mean by capital distribution:

Prop up the liberal mixed economy: with a programme of mass employee stock ownership (mostly your 1); or by carving each full-time job into several part-time ones, plus heavy wage subsidies (your 2) (...); or get the government to buy every 18 year old a serious stock portfolio (your 2)

Basic income is also political in your sense (2), since it's a large government-driven change from the status quo (and, unless we wait for >> 50 years of growth before we implement it, it will likely involve tax hikes *).

One reason to favour building up private stocks (over UBI, a flow) is that this protects people (a bit) from later nativist or populist governments cutting off parts of the population. It still goes through politicians, but only once rather than annually. Not sure what protects against revolutionary appropriation (3) though.

(ESOPs are a relatively apolitical nudge, but I don't know how much of the problem they'd solve.)

\* World growth this year was 3.1%. Compounding that fifty times gets us $370tn GWP. It's hard to tell what the 'average world tax rate' is at present, but approximate it with public expenditure, around 25% of GWP. If we could only use 25% of $370tn, we'd be roughly where the above long extreme calculation put us: nowhere near enough.

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T21:31:56.254Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

That's a fair inference; 'foolish' was an unhelpful thing to say.

(My actual reason for disdaining Macs is finding recently that my desired laptop - nothing crazy, i7, 32GB RAM, 1TB SSD - was unavailable for any price. And that a price-matched one had about 25% those specs. Is that ideological?)

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T18:49:48.646Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Sorry if I was unclear; I'm not endorsing that logical extreme of the UBI, and I'm also unnerved by many of the policies I describe. ("total control of production by any entity is a terrible unnecessary risk"). The point of the calculation is to show that automation (or a similarly giant productivity gain) is necessary for a good future. Or are you saying it's so implausible that it's not worth thinking about?

I think the best argument against basic income is that it transfers vastly more economic power to politicians. That's what makes me take capital distribution seriously: put it right into people's hands, away from mob-shaped politicians and denial.

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T18:31:24.743Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Demographics: not sure!

1) Naively, population growth should delay automation by decreasing wages. Frey and Osborne don't account for this, let alone more realistic second-order effects (e.g. 'more people, more demand, thus feedback...'). But they don't commit to a real timeframe anyway.

2) Banally: "if economic growth matches or exceeds population growth, at least the downside will be bounded". But we're not going to get sensible macro' predictions for a century away, so that ends that thought.

Even conditional on Frey and Osborne's dramatic scenario, I doubt there will be a crisis (in the sense of sudden violent unrest), since automation progress isn't that fast (e.g. takes a given public company years, not days) and can often be stalled by regulation. Things like job sharing (n part-time workers instead of one full-time worker) could be stepped-up very gradually too. (Or whatever the minimal change to the system that just averts an explosion is.)

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T18:01:29.733Z · score: 9 (2 votes) · LW · GW

Yes, the piece is conditional; the "47% of jobs in the next few decades" estimate, which spurred me to write this, is more or less naive top-down extrapolation.

But many of the same considerations apply if long-term labour trends continue:

Anyway other powerful forces (e.g. global outsourcing, the decay of unions) besides robots have led to the 40-year decline in labour’s share of global income. But those will produce similar dystopian problems if the trend continues, and there’s enough of a risk of the above scenario for us to put a lot of thought and effort into protecting people, either way.
Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T17:33:08.483Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

Fixed, thank you.

Comment by technicalities on Automatic for the people · 2018-07-09T17:29:17.369Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

"80%" seems accurate about the UK's media; see this (2007) study which puts original reporting at only 19% of all stories:

In short, fewer than one in five press articles (19%) appear to be based mainly on information that does not come from pre-packaged sources. Indeed, 60% of press stories rely wholly or mainly on pre-packaged information, and only 12% are entirely independent of such material

I've linked that and qualified the claim as about "[UK] journalism" anyway; thanks.

The slow uptake of auto-journalism is evidence that it isn't really ready, sure. How Efficient do you take old media to be?

Comment by technicalities on Meetup : Glasgow (Scotland) Meetup · 2014-11-15T23:06:34.234Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW


Just saw this, but will sadly miss it. Would be very interested in future meetups.