<div dir="ltr">On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 3:21 PM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div>On 2013-10-22 20:53, Kelly Anderson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:17 PM, Anders Sandberg <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:anders@aleph.se" target="_blank">anders@aleph.se</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<div class="gmail_extra">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">A socialist would of
course try to bring everybody into this state
through joint ownership of the means of production.
Anarchists hope that having a non-money economy will
fix things (which is an interesting claim - I am not
entirely convinced mutualist societies are stable in
the face of AI).</span></blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Anders, I love how in the middle of a flaming political
war, you throw in these little gems of plain old fashioned
brilliance. I would love to hear more about your ideas
about the stability of mutualist societies in the face of
AI. What is it about AI that threatens mutualist
societies, and do you see that we have a mutualist society
today?</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I'm using the term from the anarchist community. As Wikipedia puts
it, "A society where each person might possess a means of
production, either individually or collectively, with trade
representing equivalent amounts of labor in the free market." <br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Ok. Thanks for that.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Now, straight mutualism is based on the labor theory of value, so it
is just plain wrong. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I would have to agree that labor doesn't account for everything, but like an energy based theory of value, can't it be exchanged for non-labor types of stuff? Then again, if I get oil easily in Saudi Arabia and with difficulty in the Gulf of Mexico, the labor theory of value would mean the Saudi oil would have less value than the Gulf oil, so that doesn't quite work, does it?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">Even if one believes the theory, AI wrecks it:
now things can be produced without labor, including labor-saving
devices. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That seems to be wrecked with plain old automation, forget AI.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">But more relevantly, if AI can do stuff, why should I trade
with you? Yes, you might have an AI, and I exchange some stuff I or
my AI do for its products, but I am not really trading with *you*.
If I had your AI I would just use it straight away. The whole trade
idea goes away.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I kind of assume that "my AI" will be based roughly on "me" and therefore would be unique. If I simply had a big computing cloud, that's different than the software that runs on that cloud. Will I be able to rent out copies of "me"?</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">One answer is that in that case we have a post-scarcity economy and
everything is fine. Except the usual problems with allocation: not
everybody can have a beach-front villa in Malibu. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, we all can in virtual reality... I see the real limits being rare earth elements... most likely... until we can go out in space and get all we want... which is still hard.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">But it seems that
AI also threatens to unravel the threads of mutual dependency that
likely hold an anarchist society together. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That's depressing for someone that really wants to believe anarchy could work, but I can see where you're coming from. Do you think AI means the end of money? I would assume not.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">It might not produce
total autarchy (everybody can produce everything they need), yet
make people so independent that the incentives to work together and
hash out disagreements weaken.</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I can see that.<br></div><div><br></div><div> -Kelly</div><div><br></div></div></div></div>