How will people get payed when robots and computers replace all of the service jobs, and white collar jobs?

Sounds like the best form of slavery I've ever heard of. You think we're not slaves now?

We seize the means of production comrade, just as niels bohr and albert einstein envisioned for the natural progression of science.

Dubs of truth

what the fuck
is it a sign?

OK, the people who own the means of production fire all the workers, but they can still crank out all the cars and clothing and videogames everybody wants.

Henry Ford (not known as a lover of the common people) recognized that he couldn't sell cars to people who had no money. So he paid decent wages, for the time. It wasn't altruism.

If people are starving, either
A) They'll be given sufficient food and entertainment to keep them quiescent (Bread and Circuses), or
B) They'll revolt. The either seize the factories and kill the 1% or are themselves exterminated by the robot police. Which still leaves the wealthy without any customers.

Throughout history, too much social inequality leads to collapse. And why should the 1% object to everyone else living reasonably comfortable lives? If you have 10 billion dollars, would 20 billion get you a nicer home or better food? (Yes, I know. Some people are never satisfied. But that's a mental disorder.)

You've clearly never experienced large wealth, it corrupts the mind and turns people batshit crazy and they lust for more 95% of the time.

there will never be unemployment problems in the first world because it's in businesses interest to have full employment (= high spending)

if there is nothing important for people to do, they will be payed to do unimportant things

How is giving people money to get them to spend money supposed to help a business? If I give you fifty dollars so you'll buy my product for fifty dollars then I've made zero dollars.

There will always be jobs. But they might be retarded or trivial jobs that are hard to automate or require a human face only.

Artificial faces indistinguishable from human faces can be made.
And I'm not aware of any task a human can do that is physically incapable of being reproduced artificially.
I never understood why people always try to come up with exceptions that people would still be needed for. If there were anything we could do that could never be artificially reproduced then that's basically saying we're made out of magic.

Legal concerns.
It will be hard for many reasons for robots to operate in jobs that require legal accountability. In this very thread we have fearmongering about AI by people who don't work in the field and have no idea of how it works beyond some spooky magic boogeyman.

Legal concerns aren't much of a deterrent in the long run. There have been major legal concerns about file sharing and that hasn't stopped shit. And self-driving cars scare lots of people but that hasn't slowed down all the car companies rolling that out now. The desire to actualize powerful and possible new ideas is pretty reliably greater than the desire to restrict new ideas, at least given enough time.

To my awareness none of those self driving cars have actually hit the market. In part due to the fact that they fuck up all the time since training AIs is hard.

Can you imagine people accepting Ais as lawyers or doctors?

>Can you imagine people accepting Ais as lawyers or doctors?
Very easily, yes.
nytimes.com/2017/05/01/us/politics/sent-to-prison-by-a-software-programs-secret-algorithms.html
Also RE: Self-driving cars they've been on the road for years now, you'll see them more often pretty soon given Waymo's launching their driverless rides service this year and Uber bought a massive fleet of self-driving Volvos.

Think of them as advisors or assistants and not the doctor or lawyer in charge.

Until they are in charge.
Because again, there is nothing inherent about human behavior that can't be artificially reproduced.

You are just dreaming. Kick yourself in the ass.

Please tell me exactly what specific part of the human brain is made out of magic?

>putting the cart before the horse
You worry too much.

I'm not worried about it. I just don't like when people feel the need to always try to come up with some arbitrary limit for what can be artificially built.

advanced statistic gathering tool!= lawyer

I'd like to ask you this:
Have you ever worked in the AI field? Picked up a textbook about implementation, done a masters?

I didn't say it was a lawyer, I said I could very easily imagine it and showed you how they're already not that far away from that sort of arrangement since machine learning (proprietary even so nobody knows what's even informing the conclusions it produces) is already being cited by judges as the reason for their own ruling.
Also just because something is an algorithm doesn't mean it doesn't count as AI. Any AI built will necessarily be reducible to an explicaable algorithm of some sort.

>arbitrary limit for what can be artificially built.
You think by the time we have AI advanced enough to replace the human in any and all aspects the problems we will be be facing are employment and economic?
That's a far horizon, and society and civilization will change and adapt to new technology like the tool using primates we are.

I've worked as a software developer for home and business security and home automation applications for a little under a decade now and have written machine learning programs (as in wirting the actual methods myself, not just using one of those prefab frameworks), though I don't think you need to bring up personal details as an argument if you already have a valid point to make. It's a lazy ad hom smear tactic, and coincidentally relevant to the discussion here since just as the actor making posts in argument is irrelevant to the validity of the argument, the substrate of an actor being biological or artificial is also irrelevant to whether task can be done, unless you have a very specific good reason you can explain for why you believe some aspect of human behavior somehow transcends ordinary physical cause and effect reality.

>Which still leaves the wealthy without any customers.
why would they care

Because most people who write fanfiction in their heads where AIs in the next century will do everything imaginable when it takes several thousand hours of footage to train a car to crash into another car don't have any experience in the field, and rather than engaging in discourse with them about why it isn't it's better to direct them to resources that will teach them about how not only they are wrong, but teach them something useful.

The statement that all aspects of human behavior can be emulated is true, and also meaningless. We can hypothetically also transmute atoms of lead into gold, crash a sun of lava and ice, send earth flying into the Andromeda galaxy, etc. What matters is what is practical and feasible for our society to do and implement. In that regard the notion that AI will replace all human jobs in a lifetime is ridiculous.

The super wealthy will continue to amass power and the lower and middle classes will be enslaved while the super wealthy gain functional immortality.

Hope you like sucking dick because only about 100 people will be employed and that's all they'll be employed for while the rest are treated as garbage waiting to starve and die to allow the super wealthy to absorb 100% of everything and live in robotic houses until they succumb to boredom.

That's what we're headed for and don't pretend we're not

Because otherwise they become looters and your wealth gets redistributed far more equitably than one might want.

The issue with AI, and Advance AI is were replacing the horse, not putting the cart I front of it
We're essentially shooting the horse for having a broken foot, and using a much faster, stronger horse

>UBI
or you could just not built the computers and robots and do retrofuturism

they may feel alone?
and without people to use their power on, what is power good for?

>without people to use their power on, what is power good for?

What labor pool are these 100 people pulled from if literally everyone else is living in abject poverty foraging for food?
If you only employ 100 people, and skilled labor doesn't exist anymore you're going to be paying a lot for their training and education, and that means feeding and clothing them during all the time and money spent training them (which is non productive) and then once they are skilled they become the the scarcest resource.
Who trains these people? The AI? How the fuck does an AI teach a job that AI can't do? Is it an apprentice system? One guy trains one replacement from birth? What if he gets struck by lightning? Is everything just fucked forever then and civilization collapses? But that's okay, right? Because civilization already collapsed outside of the 100 employed people, right? Because we ignored billions of years of biological imperative to live in AI nightmare land where autonomous factories, distribution systems, research and design and marketing are all done by computers for literally fucking no one?

They're not going to forage for food, they're going to starve. AI will give us a world where 200 people tops survive. The top 100 super wealthy and their 100 dick sucking slaves.

This.
I couldn't care less who are the wealthy as long as I have enough weed, speed and math textbooks for life.

New innovators will probably jam you into service bots, thus extending your soul to the real world from the matrix, where if your robot body gets crushed your real body remains safe.

youtube.com/watch?v=aFuA50H9uek

And whats to stop the other 99% from just going back to a time when things weren't an autistic retard's AI doomsday fanfiction.
Oh robot factories are only good for the super rich... good thing we still have regular factories laying around.
200 people aren't going to need a lot of agricultural land... so you know, just keep farming the remaining 99% of arable land.
And if the RickGuy AI buck is the only thing the ultra rich recognize, then just use money backed by gold or silver.

those boston dinamics videos are scary as fuck.

This is only a fraction of what they are actually doing beyond this.

Here's how it will play out.

I own the land. If you take food my robots will shoot you for theft. If you want that food you'll have to pay for it but you can't because there are no more jobs. So starve. The only people who will survive the purge are the 100 dick suckers.

These are the people you're voting into office. This is the world you're creating
youtube.com/watch?v=lVIBHq1vkNg

the rich get the majority of the wealth and will give us the scraps

Such a society, where everything is produced by robots and AI can't exist or can't even come to existence since it's just pointless and dumb. Corporations pay for people's UBI so they can spend it on their products. That's just equivalent to giving the products for free. Why do you think corporations would allow a situation where they're forced to give stuff away for free and are unable to make any profit?

>what happens when supply increases but demand stays the same
enjoy your cratering wages

they'll just produce other things such as more AI, space ships, nano bots, immortablity drugs, etc for themselves

the whole point of consumerism is to take away the wages from the spenders, basically as a circle of money to bring it back to the rich folk

Sure it can.
Here is two examples.

youtube.com/watch?v=k3QN8HxMkIw

Just don't ask me how long they lasted.

youtube.com/watch?v=zhOYWE6z_98

Kekekekekeke

Your distopic scenario ignores the spontaneous appearance of economic activity. The super wealthy may very well live in a different world, but the masses will develop their own markets, trading among themselves with whatever they can find/make/do. This is happening right now in refugees camps around Africa and the middle East where there's not even currency. Trading is innate to man and in the world after AI the slums will still see their slum markets rising.

if the slums are not erased by matrix-like drones.

Fantasy-world scenarios don't translate into real-world scenarios, brainlet.

When you hear the liberal bourgeoisie talk of us moving to a "service-based industry," what they really mean is that everyone besides engineers and tradesmen will be stuck doing shitty clerk work which would be expensive to automate. That is the future of full automation.

They do if they are carefully planned out.

"Man will never fly."

Famous last words.

Money itself isn't worth anything. It's a marker that represents energy. It's only worth something when it circulates in a system. Doubly so with any kind of fractional reserve banking where there's not enough cash to cover all the "money" floating around out there. If it only ever sits in one place it loses value. Consumerism is the idea that money begets money. It's entire design is BASED on inefficiencies, for example my great grandparents used to own the second oldest car in the state of michigan. This ancient model A. And the fucking thing still ran. My current vehicle is a '95 and is held together with hope and prayer. You make shit, sell it above cost to distributors who then sell it to retailers above cost who then sell it to the consumer who buys it at an extreme markup. Every step of the way MORE money is created via economic wizardry. If you still made high quality hand made product you would only ever need one car in your life that you could pass down to your kid, and nobody would make money on building cars. My dad has jeans almost as old as me that still hold together, when I buy a pair of levi's they last a few years before they literally fall apart at the seams.
The system is built on waste and inefficiency. It's the sauce for the goose.

Oh, and I suppose we would still need teachers as well, but the point is is that we're all going to be corporate slaves more so than we already are.

When 99% of humanity is no logner needed for any kind of productivity 99% of humanity will be exterminated. It's funny to read people's arguments for why they're entitled to existence when there's no reasonable consideration for it, humans aren't very special, yourself included.

You, right now.

You do not own ANYTHING. If you touch another man's goods they will murder you off the face of the planet.

Right now people are starving right next to fields, people are dying of thirst right next to water and we are exacerbating the problem. Think I'm lying?

sacramento.cbslocal.com/2014/08/27/porterville-residents-without-water-as-wells-go-dry-during-california-drought/
meanwhile
slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2014/05/_10_percent_of_california_s_water_goes_to_almond_farming.html

care2.com/causes/while-children-starve-up-to-half-of-the-worlds-food-goes-to-waste.html#15200403468721&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=

We are making this world NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOW you dumb fuck. This isn't fantasy land, this isn't some dystopia off 1000 years in the future, it's motherfuckng NOW NOW. Everything that's happening now is happening now.

We are putting the worst people in charge of the world.
scientificamerican.com/article/how-wealth-reduces-compassion/

When militaries refuse to shoot the starving they'll turn to robots.

>you're not entitled to your hard earned money because I'm a brainlet/I have made stupid decisions in life

>When militaries refuse to shoot the starving they'll turn to robots.
You've literally gone full retard at this point user. You're just plunking your skynet doomsday schizo fantasy right in the middle of modern socioeconomic and political climates where your magic star trek technologies do not exist, or as the most meager fucking inception that precipitates the slipperiest of slopes you have fallen down ass first.
In your world of literally 200 people in their ivory towers, why the fuck would they give a shit about what goes on outside of it? There's no reason for a global hegemony if you can't even populate a small rural town.

im not him.
but they are already using drones to kill people in warzones.
Is as easy as i push the post button.

>commefornia
>in anyway representative of the rest of the US or the entire world
lmao

What's going to happen is that as automation steadily renders more and more of the population irrelevant, those who own all of the robots that are replacing those people will simply leave the rest of us to die of starvation, disease, and exposure. Humanity will go through a massive culling that will kill off almost all of us, leaving only the extremely wealthy. Which, btw, includes pretty much none of us. You, me, and all of the other people in this thread are probably fucked.

Everyone will have their own robots to do their work for them?

Except we're watching it happen. We have live front row seats to the end

How many robots do you own?

And these fully autonomous drones maintained by an army of other robots that maintain it, driven by an AI that does the recon and intel as well as the design and construction of the drones, and the robots that maintain the drones, and the robots that maintain the robots that maintain the robots that maintain the drones using parts from an AI factory built by AI and maintained by robots that are maintained by robots that are maintained by robots that get the raw materials from AI controlled mines that are operated by robots and robots that maintain the robots and robots that maintain the robots that maintain the robots that maintain the robots and they have all decided to come up with and implement operation "Kill all Humans" at the behest of the 100 people who are super duper rich in an economy that doesn't exist expect as backed up by a super duper ultra advanced mega AI that has replaced all humanity, except these 200 retards for "reasons" who are then going to kill everyone for no reason what so ever.
Is that is ALSO happening right now too, right? Because that is dipshit's premise.

none. the closest thing we have now are just computers. But OP is talking about a future where pretty much all jobs will be replaced by robots.

only a kind of robot that do the general maintance and mantains itself is needed..

Oh well I guess it's incredibly less retarded now with one less generations of robots involved in your global conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet so a population that is not big enough to maintain a stable gene pool could be the kings of nothing for a while because you're off your meds again.

>We have live front row seats to the end
t. /x/ circa 12/2012

Society will be a technocracy ruled by the people who have the knowledge to program artificial intelligence.

You run into the singularity. Eventually you make something that can design a better version of itself and the human input becomes irrelevant.

it was the other user that said 200. But the number doesn't matters, it could be 200, or 1000 or 99999 . Just the people that owns everything.

They could kill everyone, or put people in jail. Private jails are big bussiness right now.

>Things becoming more efficient means the economy is going to collapse

Haha. I agree it would be great to be subsistence farmers ploughing fields by hand.

Well I wouldn't call myself an expert but I wouldn't count myself out as completely unfamiliar with the topic either since like I mentioned in response to your last request for credentials I have at least written machine learning algorithms in a professional / for profit context. And my response to your philosophy on this is that I think what's actually "meaningless" are vague statements about how obvious it is that programs can't do X because they're just programs.
As a specific example of what I think is a much better way to make a pessimistic AI argument, there's the mathematical proof Marvin Minsky included in his book on perceptrons (also titled "Perceptrons") that established perceptrons (which for anyone who isn't familiar with them were the earlier, as in 1950s earlier, precursor to the artificial neural networks that have seen a resurgence in popularity over recent years) are not capable of emulating any function that isn't linearly separable e.g. the XOR function.
That's the right approach because he wasn't just appealing to the apparent absurdity of programs acting like people and instead he did the work of finding a very specific limitation in a very specific approach to AI so everyone else involved in the field could actually do something to try to address it. And that's ultimately what happened, others did address the problem and a better class of algorithms was conceived of that could emulate any function instead of being limited to linearly separable functions.
I'm just tired of all the "but obviously AI isn't real because it's just a program' shitposts. Produce an argument of substance so others have something real to improve on if you want to be pessimistic about it.

I would assume hard floor. For an example, average rent in Melbourne is basically capped at a certain price right now because raising it any further eliminates too large a portion of the possible renters - despite the fact that land values are still increasing rapidly and creating upward pressure on rent prices.

In that future, the robots will be owned by people. And, if current society and history are any indication, most of those robots will be owned by a tiny number of people. The average person will not own any, and thus won't have robots to do work for them. They would need to work to pay the rent or buy food, only now their labor is worthless, so most people will gradually be evicted from wherever they live and die of exposure, or starvation, or disease.

New jobs will emerge, communism will not happen.

>New jobs
What new jobs could possibly exist that humans would be able to do and AI wouldn't? With AI as it is today you can certainly have jobs humans are able to do that AI isn't, but in a future world where AI even only just matches human intelligence there would no longer be any purpose to having human jobs.

My answer is very simple, solar flare kills the robot. A synergy is required, a symbiosis of sort. I'm pretty sure if actual robotic sapient were to exist, they would arrive a conclusion that: while they are more efficient, they are not without flaw and the most prudent course of action would be a peaceful synergy. If we treat the emergence with respect and dignity, I'm pretty such they retaliate in the same way. In time, we'll discover each other strength and weakness. We have no mirror right now so it's pretty hard to tell what's is what, we're just echoing our ideas on each other. Now with another life form such as this ideas could be more balanced/fool proof, it would be a waste to eradicate each other and tarnish potential.

>I'm pretty sure if actual robotic sapient were to exist, they would arrive a conclusion that: while they are more efficient, they are not without flaw and the most prudent course of action would be a peaceful synergy.
Just because you're not perfect doesn't mean it follows that you should form a cooperative relationship with some other entity.
We're not perfect and that definitely doesn't make us want to form a "peaceful synergy" with cockroaches.

this happened exactly never in human history

There is a differences in that cockroaches aren't sapient. Also, we do have a synergy with cockroaches for artificial meat in some labs for testing. I get your point but it's not the best analogy.

Can we talk to the cockroaches ? No. Can we talk to the machine ? Yes. Language wouldn't be an issues here as far the emergence is concerned.

And again, a proper solar flare KILLS everything that is electronics same as a pandemic can eradicate most of us.
Both means of sapience have terminal filter, together, they might have a shot at preserving each other.

>There is a differences in that cockroaches aren't sapient.
Yeah, and humans aren't [new category that is as far beyond sapience as sapience is beyond cockroach cognition].

>Can we talk to the cockroaches ? No.
We can reproduce the limited form of communication they have which is pheromones:
nbcnews.com/id/6947269/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/sexy-perfume-lures-cockroaches-their-doom/
By analogy superintelligent AI could reproduce the limited form of communication we have. That doesn't mean they would communicate with each other in that limited way.
>a proper solar flare KILLS everything that is electronics
If AI becomes superintelligent to an extent far beyond our own intelligence then I'm pretty sure they'll figure out a solution for that which doesn't depend on the kindness of humans.

Fine, It's a 'superior' hive-mind.

Let's take your analogy to the extreme. Nuclear bombs happens, we die and cockroaches don't give a fuck. Although one is 'superior', it doesn't means it's not dead right ?

In America the unemployed will just starve.

>Although one is 'superior', it doesn't means it's not dead right ?
So where in this analogy is the part involving humans therefore deciding to cooperate with cockroaches to help ensure our protection from nuclear bombs?

Basically I don't see how humans would be any help for any threat to superintelligent AI in a way superintelligent AI couldn't much more effectively accomplish without humans. Like maybe humans could come up with a way to shield the planet from threats to electronic based lifeforms, but then if humans could figure that out I'm pretty sure an entity far more intelligent than humans could also figure that out and figure out even better versions of what humans would figure out to boot.

Many thing can be obtained from observing the natural world. While I'm not going to pretend we're a part of the natural world since in my personal opinion, we're sort of a glitch, the same could be applied by the machine to us.

We copy cat and learn the biological design, the same could be applied to us from the lenses of a machine.

While observing a cockroaches won't give you A DIRECT answer, it WILL give you hints to how to do it yourself to survive an atomic bomb with artificial adaptation.

There is also another reason I think why humans might be still useful. We're sort of like independent computer interacting with each other on a daily basis. While I suspect machine will be more intertwined and connected to each other. They'll probably have the same problem we do but exacerbated. Pandemic on steroid with data corruption and glitches if they are too 'hive-mind'. However, I'm pretty sure they'll realize the potential threat of not segregating information from super flux and useless information *memes*. If they go to a more individual approach, they might need some wisdom from us about how we managed to do it for so long. There is a lot of data to collect.

Td;lr: while machine might be superior, we might still be useful to them.

In conclusion, we're a bit out of this realm since we have no tangible way we can verify it. It's all hypothesis and not even a concrete form of a theory but it was fun talking something like that with you user. Cheers.