zlacker

Why would you need buyers if AI can create anything you desire?

>>confid+(OP)
Bingo.

The whole justification for keeping consumers happy or healthy goes right out the window.

Same for human workers.

All that matters is that your robots and AIs aren't getting smashed by their robots and AIs.

>>confid+(OP)
In an ideal world where gpus are a commodity yes. Btw at least today ai is owned/controlled by the rich and powerful and that's where majority of the research dollars are coming from. Why would they just relinquish ai so generously?

>>flashg+m2
With an ever expanding AI everything should be quickly commoditized, including reduction in energy to run AI and energy itself (ie. viable commercial fusion or otherwise).

>>confid+(OP)
Where are you getting energy and land from for these AI's to consume and turn into goods?

Moreso, by making such a magical powerful AI as you've listed, the number one thing some rich controlling asshole with more AI than you, would be to create an army and take what they want because AI does nothing to solve human greed.

>>branda+W4
That's the thing I am struggling with. I agree things will exponentially improve with AI. What i am not seeing is who will actually capture the value. Or rather how will those other than rich and powerful get to partake in this value capture. Take viable commercial fusion for example. Best case it ends up looking like another PG&E. Worst case it is owned by yet another Musk like gatekeeper. How do you see this being truly democratized and accessible for the masses?

>>flashg+kx
The most rosy outcome would be benevolent state actors control it, and the value capture is simply for everyone as the costs for everything go to zero (food, energy, housing, etc). It would be post-capitalist, post-consumer.

Of course the problem is whether or not it could be controlled, and in that case, the best hope is simply 'it' being benevolent and naturally incentivized to create such a utopia.

>>branda+x01
Why would the cost of housing go to zero?