Post-Scarcity Economics

[Luzr]

Of course, one interesting line of thinking is how small the replicator system can get. I am not huge believer in "Diamond age" type of nanotechnology, but I guess somewhere on the scale of 100 tons, replicators might be possible in the near future.

Intro level post scarcity fabbers (see Fab@Home for a leading indicator) do not require the "nanotech and 'god-level' AI" of scifi scenarios.

While I applaus the effort, there is a long way from such fabber to replicator.

Still, even with current technology, replicator might be possible. After all, we are replicating stuff all the time, right?

Looked at it. The Orion's Arm Worldbuilding site is a related set of ideas in encyclopedic form. Iain Banks openly admits that the Culture is pro-socialist wish fulfillment

I guess that such fullfillment would have much broader appeal. Personally, I consider myself quite right-minded, but I would love to live in Culture. Of course, I believe that market economy is the fastest way there

Also, the Culture's "economy" depends on high-level management by the God AI "Minds"; again, worse than useless for thinking on probable realities.

Maybe the message is "create God AI ASAP" Which, I believe, will happen in next 100 years with 90% probability.

[kurt9]

My favorite SF depiction of a post-scarcity society is Jim Hogan's "Voyage from Yesteryear". This is still my all-time favorite novel (of any kind). The "Chironian" society is one that I would really want to live in. I have read Iain Bank's "culture" but I found his novels hard to follow. The only other SF depiction of a society that I like is Peter Hamilton's "Commonwealth". Its not a post-scarcity system (it seems mostly capitalist to me), but I love the immortality and the wormhole-based train lines and just the huge number of places that one can visit. Leave out the part about the hostile aliens and the "Commonwealth" is another SF society I could really be happy in.

I actually do not read much SF. I find the characterization to be poor and much of the scenarios are too fanciful to me.

[djolds1]

Intro level post scarcity fabbers (see Fab@Home for a leading indicator) do not require the "nanotech and 'god-level' AI" of scifi scenarios.

While I applaus the effort, there is a long way from such fabber to replicator.

Still, even with current technology, replicator might be possible. After all, we are replicating stuff all the time, right?

A fabber is sufficient for post-scarcity manufacturing. Mild variants are sufficient for near universal food preparation, fabric work, etc. All without nanotech. Use amorphous metals, fiber reinforcements, etc. and the end products are far stronger than current 3D printed products. Add portable, high intensity power and it gets even more interesting. Throw ore into a plasma jet, vaporize/atomize/ionize the ore, magnetically sort the atoms to separate bins and apply via electron beam or vapor deposition. All without nanotech.

Also, the Culture's "economy" depends on high-level management by the God AI "Minds"; again, worse than useless for thinking on probable realities.

Maybe the message is "create God AI ASAP" Which, I believe, will happen in next 100 years with 90% probability.

I have no desire to see myself or my species become pets or vermin for a "Skynet." Continued human dominance should not be negotiable.

[kurt9]

A fabber is sufficient for post-scarcity manufacturing. Mild variants are sufficient for near universal food preparation, fabric work, etc. All without nanotech. Use amorphous metals, fiber reinforcements, etc. and the end products are far stronger than current 3D printed products. Add portable, high intensity power and it gets even more interesting. Throw ore into a plasma jet, vaporize/atomize/ionize the ore, magnetically sort the atoms to separate bins and apply via electron beam or vapor deposition. All without nanotech.

I have no desire to see myself or my species become pets or vermin for a "Skynet." Continued human dominance should not be negotiable.

Such fabber posibilities are good, since I do not think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible. Also, I think AI is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

Other than possible fusion power, I see the next 30 years as mainly bio-engineering (stem cell regeneration, whole body rejuvenation, synthetic biology) as well as what Next Big Future calls the Mundane singularity.

I think DIY biotechnology will become very big (this is good because I do not expect the conventional medical industry to cure aging, we have to do this ourselves, governments are a pain in the ass with regards to life extension, we must end-run around them just like a football play).

[djolds1]

Such fabber posibilities are good, since I do not think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible. Also, I think AI is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

There's only one AI route I think is plausible - bottom-up "growing" of minds, just like raising a child. Makes mass manufacture of AI difficult to say the least, as well as other top-down cyberpunk/transhumanist dreams like uploading.

Other than possible fusion power, I see the next 30 years as mainly bio-engineering (stem cell regeneration, whole body rejuvenation, synthetic biology) as well as what Next Big Future calls the Mundane singularity.

I think DIY biotechnology will become very big (this is good because I do not expect the conventional medical industry to cure aging, we have to do this ourselves, governments are a pain in the ass with regards to life extension, we must end-run around them just like a football play).

Agreed, tho government will not be happy to have its role as gatekeeper challenged. See here.

[TDPerk]

Jack L. Chalker, I think was the king of believable (from the standpoint of human psychology) dystopias.

Some of his tech was little out there...

[Luzr]

I have no desire to see myself or my species become pets or vermin for a "Skynet." Continued human dominance should not be negotiable.

AI will not negotiate. It will just happen. As for continued human dominance, well, I think that AI is the logical next step... I simply think that a part of our human descendants will have silicon brains... Just a different kind of evolution.

[Luzr]

Such fabber posibilities are good, since I do not think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible. Also, I think AI is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

There's only one AI route I think is plausible - bottom-up "growing" of minds, just like raising a child.

Yes, I guess there is sort of consensus that the real AI must "self-emerge" or "grow".

OTOH, current efforts of "rule based" AIs are not that useless as well - it might make an excellent teacher of real AI.

Makes mass manufacture of AI difficult to say the least

Not really. Only the first one Of course, you better raise that one well behaved....

, as well as other top-down cyberpunk/transhumanist dreams like uploading.

Yeah, I do not think that uploading will ever happen as well. I think that such plans will hit the wall because of quantum mechanics.

[djolds1]

Such fabber posibilities are good, since I do not think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible.

Another way to achieve "virtual" replication for most items:

http://nextbigfuture.com/2007/05/claytr ... steps.html

I have no desire to see myself or my species become pets or vermin for a "Skynet." Continued human dominance should not be negotiable.

AI will not negotiate. It will just happen.

There's only one AI route I think is plausible - bottom-up "growing" of minds, just like raising a child.

Yes, I guess there is sort of consensus that the real AI must "self-emerge" or "grow".

Hawkins cites the need not only for the much-fetishized "emergence," but also for intentionally designed quasi-neural architectures to make AI possible. Thus you would not see "spontaneous emergence" of AI from a given supercomputer or computer network as the scifi prophets proclaim. Further, if your neural analogue does not have a hippocampus/core brain copy, we do not face the prospect of emotion and thus will/ambition in the AI, even if it is "smarter" than us on the IQ scale. Such an AI would be an autistic idiot savant, not a Skynet. No existential risk to humanity. But its creation and growth would be entirely intentional by the human creators.

[IntLibber]

You may want to take a close look at what colonial life was really like in the past. Then consider what it might be like in the future. In the past, due to a lack of coinage, colonist used tobacco as specie. (Three North American colonies did anyway). In the future, if there is no specie of value, we will invent one. Caloric based specie has been suggested, that is, food.

http://www.dinsdoc.com/andrews-1.htm

An interesting if somewhat difficult read.

Water will be the basis commodity of any spacefaring civilization, with it you make air, food, life. Potable water in space is gold.

[alexjrgreen]

Water will be the basis commodity of any spacefaring civilization, with it you make air, food, life. Potable water in space is gold.

Grab a comet...

[Luzr]

Yes, I guess there is sort of consensus that the real AI must "self-emerge" or "grow".

Hawkins cites the need not only for the much-fetishized "emergence," but also for intentionally designed quasi-neural architectures to make AI possible. Thus you would not see "spontaneous emergence" of AI from a given supercomputer or computer network as the scifi prophets proclaim.

My apologies for perhaps using the wrong term, in fact I agree that "spontaneuous emergence" is quite unlikely (but IMO not impossible).

In fact, by "self-emerge" I mean that the AI will not be rule based, or "programmed in", it will be based on some sort of self-programming (just like neural networks are). Think large scale genetic algorithm or that sort of thing. (Of course, at the moment, the real process is unknown - if I knew, I would be implementing it right now...)

Further, if your neural analogue does not have a hippocampus/core brain copy, we do not face the prospect of emotion and thus will/ambition in the AI, even if it is "smarter" than us on the IQ scale.

I would not dare to postulate any claims w.r.t. to this. What do you mean by "copy" anyway?

Such an AI would be an autistic idiot savant, not a Skynet. No existential risk to humanity.

Actually, I agree with no risk, as long as there will not be some catastrophic failure in the process.

But its creation and growth would be entirely intentional by the human creators.

Agree with creation, quite disagree with growth after certain point reached.

BTW, considering Skynet dystopia, that scenario is not impossible - but in that case it is our best interest to create strong AI intentionally first...

[alexjrgreen]

Such fabber posibilities are good, since I do not think that Drexlerian nanotech is possible. Also, I think AI is unlikely in the foreseeable future.

There's only one AI route I think is plausible - bottom-up "growing" of minds, just like raising a child.

Yes, I guess there is sort of consensus that the real AI must "self-emerge" or "grow".

The "prediction of future states" that Hawkins discusses is a property of memristance: Memristor minds: The future of artificial intelligence.

It may be that this ability to predict is what a network scales up to achieve higher levels of intelligence.

[TallDave]

In fact, by "self-emerge" I mean that the AI will not be rule based, or "programmed in", it will be based on some sort of self-programming (just like neural networks are).

We're arguably already there. Most of the work in chip design is done by computers now, and lots of programs self-correct. Direct human intervention is becoming a smaller and smaller piece of everything.

But keep in mind biological neural networks have a billion years of evolutionary programming behind them, and it takes about two decades to program them into functional humans after fabrication. We'll want AI to get there faster.

We have most kinds of AI now -- pathfinding, face recognition, voice recognition, speech synthesis, math, etc. AI does most thinking tasks considerably better than humans, even though they still lack our raw computing power, because they're more specialized -- they can beat us at chess, even though they're only average at Go. The last domino to fall will be Turing, because social modelling is incredibly complex and involves huge amounts of data evaluated by constantly evolving rule sets built over decades.

The implication is AI will eventually actually be far better at social interaction than humans too, which is a little scary, but ultimately they will have whatever goals we program into them, so given how the Internet evolved they'll probably mostly just be really good sex slaves in everyday life while solving physics and engineering problems in the lab with charm and wit (and incidentally doing all the scutwork humans want done graciously).

[IntLibber]

Water will be the basis commodity of any spacefaring civilization, with it you make air, food, life. Potable water in space is gold.

Grab a comet...

You need to do a lot more than that. Comet water will be salty, dirty, with lots of other chemicals in it. You need to distill all that out of there.