I started watching David for his coverage of artificial intelligence but now I watch him for his coverage of FUTURE possible societal, and government organization possibilities.
100% indeed this episode of David's was absolutely awesome and the content went into places that I was completely unprepared for. Intellectual, cerebral and most thought provoking. We need more people like David in public life but unfortunately our political systems are wired up so that the best possible leaders are discouraged from ever serving.
We got the cyberpunk dystopia the '80's promised us, but without the arcologies, flying cars, robot arms, and cool outfits. Well, OK, we do actually have robot arms, and they're pretty cool (for amputees and people born without arms), but not to the point that anyone would want to chop off their real arm to get one.
The cyberpunk aesthetic is cool, I can't deny that. I think there is a place for that kind of look in a city, but it can't be everywhere and the cities can't lose their culture either.
I would love a video on how we can prevent the government from becoming completely authoritarian if we give it more power. I agree with you on the pitfalls of neo-liberalism, though I am not convinced big government is the answer either. In a dystopian cyberpunk, you still have the ability to fight back in some way, a big corpo can be dethroned by another big corpo, but if you have a government with absolute power, in the age of AI, there isn't much you can do about it.
Excellent video. I posted an unscripted video about cyberpunk and our lived moment in history yesterday. Your video is much better. I admire your focus and organization.
What’s most concerning is each dystopian outlook of the future we think of wouldn’t really be like that to a T, it’d prolly be more of a mix between multiple different dystopian scenarios.
CyberPunk is a WARNING! not a roadmap... You manage to distill the cyberpunk essence excellently here, giving me some hope for the future in the dichotomy between ultimate cyberpunk and current reality. While it's bad now, it's not that bad yet. However the environmental crises of anthropogenic climate change is getting very severe, and if the biosphere collapses it's gonna get nasty real quick
🎉😂❤ Excellent commentary regarding the impact of AI and technology on nature, in particular, people. Thanks so much, David, for your thoughtful podcasts, which I think are important for understanding the future playbook for living, loving, and learning. I believe and act on the premise that dysfunction is the manifestation of confusion. Healthy functioning is based on living and loving your strengths and weaknesses. 🎉❤😊
You're so smart man. One of the most intelligent people I've ever come across. It feels like you are lightyears above my intelligence. To be able to use AI to reach levels of intelligence that was closed shut before, that is the biggest advantage I see as an individual. I will get to raise my intelligence exponentially and be able to go from minority, ghetto life and Social Networks to top tier Intelligence societies opening a whole new world of opportunity and experiences. Ofcourse anybody could learn anything through the internet, but through AI the rate at which we can learn and also apply knowledge that is the shift from the age of information to the age of knowledge. 👌 You have a clear crystallized vision it's amazing you're a true role model for many young males.
Why AREN'T economists trying to push better metrics than GDP? This would be a massive lever for the focusing of public dissatisfaction on key aspects of governmental failures that are currently more nebulous
GDP is very difficult to measure but is vastly less difficult to measure than subjective metrics of human happiness. GDP at least provides a measure of something tangible and important, which is the real added value of goods and services transacted in the economy in a given time period. It doesn't matter how prosperous, orderly or free society gets, humans will always find ways to be discontented, restless, and anxious. This is something that we will always have to reckon with, even in Mr Shapiro's AI utopia.
@@laudermarauder I'm actually not convinced by either of these arguments. Yes it's hard to come up with a good metric that isn't impossible to measure, that's why economists need to spend a lot of time coming up with and refining these, it's not like they have much better to do, this is really important. Yes ennui would exist to some extent but the idea that anxiety is "essential to the human condition" is an extremely west-centric idea. Believe it or not in different societies across time and today this isn't the case
Very refreshing watching these videos where your core/political beliefs shine through, because they are extremely far off from my own. I get a healthy dose of "counter opinions, but actually nuancedly expressed".
Government needs to be kept in check and most of all separate money and state. Only then can the politicians do anything useful instead of "redistributing" money (filling their own pockets).
The author William Gibson said it was situation left on fast forward. We used to role play Shadowrun back in the day...it covered a lot of these themes.
This is why I've been saying that this idea that all the books, movies, video games, etc depicting Cyberpunk futures is showing people a future they should avoid isn't working the way "it's supposed to be". Just like how it's difficult to think of alternatives to a harmful system you're stuck in because that's all you ever see around you, this idea of flooding the world with awful futures is only pushing people towards them even more strongly. It's especially difficult when the system set up promotes the continued creation of more relevant content because that's what generates profit and profit is what decides what more people go on to create.
Do you think that Western Europe (Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.) are a bit ahead of the curve with their social nets being a bit stronger? Also, do you think that there would be a big divide in how different countries react to PLE? For instance, the UK/US would struggle more because of their societal structures vs. other European countries where consensus-seeking happened more often in their past?
Those countries have some fundamental different narratives and beliefs. I'm not sure if they are "ahead" in terms of economic doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Notions of what money is and, with that the purpose and method of international banking, has to be moved to a new paradigm. What is 'money', if not an expression of energy and its capacity to influence and create change. The simple step of removing interest bearing debt, or at least restricting it, might be a step in the right direction, just to start.
I'm no gold bug, but it does seem highly coincidental that in 1971 Nixon broke the convertibility of the dollar to gold, and from that point forward compensation essentially flat-lined. Part of that must have been that the average Joe and Jane were now completely subject to fiat currency, making it easiest to not incrementally improve compensation other than to track inflation. Also, it seems like Nixon unwittingly super-enabled globalization, from which a lot of the world's population benefited far more than US citizens. Cold comfort to anyone in the USA hoping their kids would do better than they did, but the flip side is that US compensation was protected from declines that perhaps could have arisen from unrestricted global wage competition.
Thanks for your great video. I have a question: How would you get large corporations to embrace the shift to PLE? Who owns them? Is there still a stockmarket? Does the redistribute wealth require a powershift (if it is even possible within our democracy without a revolution)?
It will need to happen organically. I'm just illuminating what I see as the likely path. If jobs start going down, and if people stop spending, then we'll need PLE. The problem, I think, will not be companies (they want the bottom line) but will be old fashioned people yammering on about "we just need more jobs!"
Of course, there will be sub economies where communities will work with one another like the Amish to promote mental health, and live by rules that they feel are more aligned with their values. There will be people who opt out of an automated society, although they may be a minority, they may be significant.
David, have you Ever watched the movie "In Time" with Justin Timberlake, and if so have you made a video on it? Here is the synopsis of the movie: "In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system." My question to you is in a world where people like Jeff Bezos exist and have hundreds of billions, and could end world hunger around the planet, but we still have people starving to death, what makes you optimistic about the future. WHile I dont think reality will play out like it does in that movie, its a movie, and its using a simplified system to hint at deeper truths. Like the Minority Report and precrime... I dont think we will have three esp children laying in a pool predicting crime (or whatever, been awhile since I watched it) the movie uses that plot device to explore possibilities. (and now with things like AI STARTING to be able to read minds it gets interesting...) ANyways, went off on an accidental tangent. Id love to see you basically do a reaction to the movie In Time, and talk about whatever comes to mind.
Offsetting deflation it seems that we had an experiment during the pandemic where they did send out checks to everybody and kept interest rates super-low and so may I will give us unemployment and also deflation and then that means our monetary and fiscal policies can easily give everybody at Ubi
since when did maintenance of private buildings become the governments responsibility? urban decay is a sign of lack of longterm investment in an area by the private owners of said buildings, which can be caused by lack of faith in government institutions, but there's numerous other causes. This mindset of looking to the government to fix the most mundane of issues is extremely dangerous for the times to come, and you're already begging them to take more power.
One critique I have of your videos, is that you tend to analyse everything from an American point of view, but project that point of view out as if it's a global thing. Like, you're talking about the need to subsidize health care. Bro, the US is the only developed country where it's not already subsidized/publicly funded.
Healthcare in the US is not subsidized for working-age US taxpayers and their children, but is very heavily subsidized for everyone else (chiefly in the form of "Medicare" for those aged 65 and over, and "Medicaid" for the poor). The total amount that the US federal government spends on Medicare and Medicaid as a percentage of GDP exceeds even the total public health expenditure of many advanced countries that provide comprehensive publicly funded healthcare coverage.
Its almost funny. David is putting this out there. Like someone in a position of authority or power. Actually cares what we the people care about! David the people in power. Don't care about you, me, or anyone!!
Problem with such permissive redistribution: some/many people could create huge resource demand by having as many children as they want (and can now afford). (How) Should this be controlled? I suspect any coming social contract renegotiation will require significant concessions of liberty (obligations) in return for such free welfare - especially given these humans are now essentially useless to the industrial system and many now have far less bargaining power than they had the last time their social contracts were renegotiated. People can’t impactfully strike nor make credible threats of revolution. You could counter by saying that the power of the people is in their consumption, and the corporations will always need their consumption. But is this really true? I want to know why militaries/states heavily using AI and drones won’t eventually decide they no longer need humanity (as soldiers or decision-makers), nor the economic subsystem required to provide for their needs. The economy can be focused entirely on the production of military power with no resources wasted on maintaining Earth’s biological ecosystems. Why would such organisations choose to voluntarily waste resources on useless human pets that simply play? Especially after the pets have lost all negotiating power.
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo obviously money is virtual, just like language or culture is virtual, but in what world is supply and demand an *arbitrary* system? do you even know what a market economy is?
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo everything that currently exists does so because it can create power from resources to prevent its annihilation. States ultimately use military power to maintain exclusive control of their territories and other resources. Most democracies emerged from feudalism because subjects at various points organised sufficient power to challenge the existence of their states and either peacefully or by force, restructured their social contracts. Those settlements required a balance of power between state and people. The state needed resources exclusively controlled by the people to maintain its own existence - their labour, their bodies etc. But once people no longer exclusively control resources required by states then they really have no bargaining power to maintain their present privileges which the states grant them. The people exist because states support and maintain them for their use. But once those uses are gone the transaction is no longer attractive. People need to bring something valuable to the table to justify themselves. Valuable production and the restraint from violent destruction was the offering. But if these aren’t on offer anymore, the transaction doesn’t make sense. This isn’t just capitalist, this is more fundamental - it’s an economic exchange. All economic systems depend on the exchange of (valuable) resources from one party to another. Even communism can’t do without resource exchange. What communism requires (in its abstract theoretical form) is resource abundance where the cost of resources is zero, and so too the cost of freely satisfying human economic demand. But I (and I think most) don’t believe such infinite abundance is possible in a finite universe without a uniform distribution of energy and mass. Resources which are local are inherently more valuable than those which are remote. And humans require and currently use a lot of local resources that could be converted to uses more directly valuable to the goals of sovereign powers (states) for maintaining their sovereignty - which in a post-labour economy doesn’t include maintaining humans as they produce nothing useful to states. Humans can’t afford to be valueless to the parties on which they depend for their livelihood and existence. Otherwise as you say the elites (specifically the sovereigns) can essentially just stop feeding their people and forcibly protect all industrial infrastructure required for the production of their military power while they starve. So long as states have rivals, their primary goal (at least according to realist analysis) will be maximising their security by maximising their military power. If they no longer need to share with us, why would they?
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo Crony capitalism is what we have, and crony capitalism is not capitalism. The unholy alliance of corporate and government power they call crony capitalism has another name: Fascism. The separation of government and the donor class is the only way out, small efficient limited government with effective anti-trust capacity. Break up the monster corporations and encourage competition in the marketplace. And don't allow the press to become an arm of either, as is now. We have fascist gangsterism as the rising global power, and a corporate captured press is one reason why.
Prices are indeed relative... to an exchange value in terms of money. Money prices tend to go down (all else equal) when companies strive to produce more efficiently and compete with other for market share, and central banks don't pursue policies of deliberately creating inflation through expanding the supply of money and credit. In this video we hear the case for less market, less prioritization of economic efficiency, and more governmental direction of the distribution of money and resources. It is unclear to me how prices would necessarily go down in this scenario.
Robots are cheaper and more efficient than human labor so if you replace all industries with robots then every industry’s cost of production falls while their actual production increases. This causes prices to fall because we’re not only making everything for cheaper, but we’re also making more than we previously did. To think of why this would cause prices to fall, imagine the energy industry producing more for way less causing the price of electricity to fall dramatically. Virtually every industry in the world uses electricity so every industry would have a reduced cost of production from this cheap electricity on top of using robots. This recursive effect compounds to where the cost of production is decreased in every industry because every other industry’s cost of production is decreased. And so, it becomes really cheap to produce stuff which causes prices to fall
What is the best way to learn deep learning fundamentals via implementation (let's say pick a trivial problem of build a recommendation system for movies) using pytorch in Aug 26, 2023?
I have been fascinated with cyberpunk recently, and recent AI development has only intensified my fascination. Cyberpunk is a train wreck with seductive bodies, enchanting neon signs, and adolescent power fantasies. It's hard to look away from, and it's increasingly relevant to our real world. Great topic, thank you!
governments tend of have little to no real accountability for their actions. This doesn't incentivized good thoughtful actions that prioritize long term success...Would want the right checks and balances in place to keep government accountable prior growing it's size.
Great analysis David. As holistic metrics, for well-being, the place where I volunteer developed a common measurement called 'World Civility Index'. This Index is somewhat similar to a person's credit rating, but instead of measuring how well a person can pay his bills, it measures a person's soft skills such as social etiquette, empathy, intercultural awareness. The concept is that job-seekers can get the credential based on the World Civility Index, as proof, to show to employers EVERYWHERE! From an employer's point of view, they get to raise company culture simply by requesting job-applicants to have this credential, before coming on board. HR can also use such for internal performance evaluation, a new kind of KPI (key performance indicator) that historically would have been difficult to do.
I think a more realistic solution would be to have codetermination policies, where about 50% of votes in corporations, including banks, are given to non shareholders such as consumer and workers.
Neither Reagan nor Thatcher were nihilists. Thatcher would have been baffled to be characterized as such. She saw her political project as a restoration of traditional values, and property rights as integral to human dignity. Reaganism projected itself as a reinvigoration of America's founding spirit of liberty at a time of Cold War rivalry, inflation and energy crises. You can like or dislike this, you can scoff at it by all means, but none of it was borne of a nihilistic worldview.
David, before I'm gonna watch your video, I'm gonna tell you that the thing that I'm worried about is housing. With AI we can solve any problem, but I'm worried that problem with housing will stay the same. In my case, my whole early adulthood was impacted by situation with housing, and the place that I live doesn't offer any good job or education. Maybe jobs will go away, but still that doesn't solve the rest of the problems, like socializing with people, meeting potential partners, quality of living and access to goods and services. Do you see solutions to housing problem in the near future with AI?
There is plenty of cheap housing in places where hardly anybody wants to live. The housing 'problem' results from a growing population chasing real estate in desirable locations using cheap easily-accessible borrowed money. In a post-labour Utopia, supposedly there will be complete decoupling of location of human residence and location of economic production, potentially easing demographic pressure on cities as economic hubs.
@laudermarauder David is arguing against property rights, (where have I heard that before) so you'll be happy and own nothing. Presumably central planners will own your house.
David is arguing against STRONG property rights. The rights of individuals/corporations to own massive plots of land, apartment complexes, factories etc. These kinds of property rights are problematic. He is not arguing against personal property (roof over your head, clothing etc).
@@TheAzzabi Weaker property rights will empower the little guy? When has that ever been the case? “Own nothing and be happy” is only the latest version of the old anti-property Marxist grift. The elites will always decide who gets to own what, they do not care what we think. Big players always rig the system in their own favor, weaker property rights will only hurt the small fry.
There are many problems with this: 1. There are no incentives for all humans to be productive. Leading to depression. Not all humans are inspired by a shared view or even agree with it. Self gain will still be a powerful motivator for some. 2. No accounting for one of the worst problems in humanity, corruption. 3. Assuming all countries in the world have strong institutions. There are countries where people get killed for disagreeing with the government. 4. The government is a source of inefficiency and corruption. Increasing the size of it can only make things worse
Nailed it. We've seen this play out, over and over, counted the bodies, and still these fools think top down redistribution will work. Why do otherwise rational people think that forcing people to submit to their authoritarian whims is OK? We should be breaking up these 'too big to fail' power structures, not building bigger ones.
All big institutions are inefficient. This is not exclusive to the state. It applies to corporations aswell. Coordination of large groups people always entails some amount bureaucracy. Also, there is a big difference between the incentives that apply to people currently. For the wealthy, they choose to work to become more wealthy. For the poor, they work lest they starve. Every living person has the right to welfare, not just those that had a good spawn point.
@@karlanderson1900 the idea of a welfare state is to provide a social safety net for the people. So that they dont immediately starve if they lose their jobs. It provides flexibility for the working class, and gives them bargaining power. In many cases it also provides free healthcare, education and so forth. I am not sure what you mean, when you say that the welfare state is a cash cow for political cronies? From my understanding, the political cronies work to dismantle the state. The lack of social safety net and regulation, allows them to more freely exploit workers.
@@TheAzzabi A safety net and a welfare state are not the same thing. A safety net does not incentivize generational dependency. Political cronies ARE the state. They are the political class and the corporate donor class who own them. It's organized corruption and they have no incentive to dismantle themselves. Big government and big business have no interest in the little guy, except at election time. As long as they keep you believing their propaganda the grift will keep on growing. If you want to sort the "bad guys" from the "good guys", watch who the establishment media tries to destroy - that's who they fear.
Post-labor economics seems pretty far off from where we are now. Housing, healthcare and education (or what is considered to be 'education') keeps going up in price while wages stagnate. Interestingly, we might be close to having solutions for housing and education costs. Traditional universities are probably doomed. Online courses are a fraction of the cost. Housing prices are caused more by land shortages in areas that are job centers (politcs plays a big role here, obviously). This could be alleviated by remote work, robotaxis, and off-grid technologies such as: Starlink Internet, solid state batteries combined with solar and 3D printed homes. Healthcare is a whole other beast. The healthcare system in the US is outrageously expensive and convoluted for even routine procedures. It's not clear that technology advances will solve this problem anytime soon.
You're under estimating how fast AI is evolving and scaling. The world you know it today will be vastly different in 2034 by 2044 the early 20s will be considered the good old days for most
Fear and bad news sell. Any sci-fi writer/movie script writer who wants to sell books/movies creates dystopian stories, because they sell. So instead of looking at fiction (sure it's fun, I love sci-fi stories myself), why not look at actual statistics/metrics of human well-being, including health, safety, peace, knowledge and happiness? Steven Pinker in his book "Enlightenment Now" looks at the stats/metrics of modern human well-being and makes the case that life has indeed improved over time. In regard to PLE, sure, let's do it!
I don’t understand how ushering in the big government big brother era is somehow a better option. I’d rather fight to retain my freedom than live off my daily issue from the system. Just seems extremely naive to think anyone is gonna subsidize your existence - it’ll be a lot more grim
I would like to make 2 points. 1. If you have people with different ideologies, you will have conflict. A society need's an over arching framework that sets the base values that laws are based upon. 2. Negative incentives are way stronger than positive ones. If you decriminalize stealing, you get way more people stealing. Doesn't matter if all basic needs are met already.
Cyberpunk is an intentional parody of NeoLiberalism - and far more than "slightly" exaggerated. We've seen little more than lip service to the idea of shrinking government - it just keeps growing. We had a little bit of deregulation in the early neoliberal years, and it was mostly pretty good for consumers - phone companies, air fares, trucking, package delivery, choice of electric company in some areas, etc.) Probably deregulation of the Finance industry has been the most questionable, but even that was just a loosening - finance remains highly regulated. Not even close to the corporatist anarchy of CyberPunk. Privatization of prisons has been questionable - but it isn't like prisons were nice places before either.
@@TheAzzabi Federal govt expenditures as % of GDP grew dramatically from 1950 to 1982. Most of the deregulation I cited happened back in the 1980's, and there was a modest federal govt share of GDP reduction from 1990 to 2000, probably due to the 1990's economic boom. But since 2000 federal share of GDP has grown (~20%) back to the 1980's share of GDP.
I'm not sure cyberpunk2077 is an exaggeration, we're being turned into the friggin borg... I think you know. Maybe it's time to explain the Stat Trek suit. It aint just because you wanna be bros with Data is it?
Companion article: medium.com/@dave-shap/from-cyberpunk-dystopia-to-post-labor-utopia-escaping-the-neoliberal-trap-648253517ce5
very good
I started watching David for his coverage of artificial intelligence but now I watch him for his coverage of FUTURE possible societal, and government organization possibilities.
He's right up there with Isaac Arthur in my opinion.
@@vagrant1943 high praise indeed. He does way far future and I'm lookin 2-20 years out maximum.
100% indeed this episode of David's was absolutely awesome and the content went into places that I was completely unprepared for. Intellectual, cerebral and most thought provoking. We need more people like David in public life but unfortunately our political systems are wired up so that the best possible leaders are discouraged from ever serving.
We got the cyberpunk dystopia the '80's promised us, but without the arcologies, flying cars, robot arms, and cool outfits. Well, OK, we do actually have robot arms, and they're pretty cool (for amputees and people born without arms), but not to the point that anyone would want to chop off their real arm to get one.
The cyberpunk aesthetic is cool, I can't deny that. I think there is a place for that kind of look in a city, but it can't be everywhere and the cities can't lose their culture either.
I would love a video on how we can prevent the government from becoming completely authoritarian if we give it more power. I agree with you on the pitfalls of neo-liberalism, though I am not convinced big government is the answer either. In a dystopian cyberpunk, you still have the ability to fight back in some way, a big corpo can be dethroned by another big corpo, but if you have a government with absolute power, in the age of AI, there isn't much you can do about it.
Excellent video. I posted an unscripted video about cyberpunk and our lived moment in history yesterday. Your video is much better. I admire your focus and organization.
What’s most concerning is each dystopian outlook of the future we think of wouldn’t really be like that to a T, it’d prolly be more of a mix between multiple different dystopian scenarios.
Great video bro, let's compost this system and build anew
I think Ayn Rand would love cyberpunk. She was very pro business.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. Much appreciated.
Fuck yeah, new Dave Shapiro video 🤝
Welcome back. You need this back 👑
CyberPunk is a WARNING! not a roadmap... You manage to distill the cyberpunk essence excellently here, giving me some hope for the future in the dichotomy between ultimate cyberpunk and current reality. While it's bad now, it's not that bad yet. However the environmental crises of anthropogenic climate change is getting very severe, and if the biosphere collapses it's gonna get nasty real quick
🎉😂❤ Excellent commentary regarding the impact of AI and technology on nature, in particular, people.
Thanks so much, David, for your thoughtful podcasts, which I think are important for understanding the future playbook for living, loving, and learning.
I believe and act on the premise that dysfunction is the manifestation of confusion. Healthy functioning is based on living and loving your strengths and weaknesses. 🎉❤😊
You always open my mind David. Thank you.
Pry it open with a crow bar!
Amazing video. I am glad I found your channel. Keep the great work
You're so smart man. One of the most intelligent people I've ever come across. It feels like you are lightyears above my intelligence. To be able to use AI to reach levels of intelligence that was closed shut before, that is the biggest advantage I see as an individual. I will get to raise my intelligence exponentially and be able to go from minority, ghetto life and Social Networks to top tier Intelligence societies opening a whole new world of opportunity and experiences. Ofcourse anybody could learn anything through the internet, but through AI the rate at which we can learn and also apply knowledge that is the shift from the age of information to the age of knowledge. 👌 You have a clear crystallized vision it's amazing you're a true role model for many young males.
Thanks man. I can't say anything more to such kind words.
Why AREN'T economists trying to push better metrics than GDP? This would be a massive lever for the focusing of public dissatisfaction on key aspects of governmental failures that are currently more nebulous
GDP is very difficult to measure but is vastly less difficult to measure than subjective metrics of human happiness. GDP at least provides a measure of something tangible and important, which is the real added value of goods and services transacted in the economy in a given time period. It doesn't matter how prosperous, orderly or free society gets, humans will always find ways to be discontented, restless, and anxious. This is something that we will always have to reckon with, even in Mr Shapiro's AI utopia.
@@laudermarauder I'm actually not convinced by either of these arguments.
Yes it's hard to come up with a good metric that isn't impossible to measure, that's why economists need to spend a lot of time coming up with and refining these, it's not like they have much better to do, this is really important.
Yes ennui would exist to some extent but the idea that anxiety is "essential to the human condition" is an extremely west-centric idea. Believe it or not in different societies across time and today this isn't the case
@@sagetmaster4 because GDP makes the US look good?
Why in the world would government funded economists not be interested in focusing on government failures?
Very refreshing watching these videos where your core/political beliefs shine through, because they are extremely far off from my own. I get a healthy dose of "counter opinions, but actually nuancedly expressed".
I agree, more government gives me pause. But I plan to be happy in my own DAO governed territorial region.
Deep understanding and unique presentation
Government needs to be kept in check and most of all separate money and state. Only then can the politicians do anything useful instead of "redistributing" money (filling their own pockets).
The author William Gibson said it was situation left on fast forward.
We used to role play Shadowrun back in the day...it covered a lot of these themes.
This is why I've been saying that this idea that all the books, movies, video games, etc depicting Cyberpunk futures is showing people a future they should avoid isn't working the way "it's supposed to be". Just like how it's difficult to think of alternatives to a harmful system you're stuck in because that's all you ever see around you, this idea of flooding the world with awful futures is only pushing people towards them even more strongly. It's especially difficult when the system set up promotes the continued creation of more relevant content because that's what generates profit and profit is what decides what more people go on to create.
Great video, very thorough
Do you think that Western Europe (Germany, the Nordic countries, etc.) are a bit ahead of the curve with their social nets being a bit stronger?
Also, do you think that there would be a big divide in how different countries react to PLE? For instance, the UK/US would struggle more because of their societal structures vs. other European countries where consensus-seeking happened more often in their past?
Those countries have some fundamental different narratives and beliefs. I'm not sure if they are "ahead" in terms of economic doctrine, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Notions of what money is and, with that the purpose and method of international banking, has to be moved to a new paradigm. What is 'money', if not an expression of energy and its capacity to influence and create change. The simple step of removing interest bearing debt, or at least restricting it, might be a step in the right direction, just to start.
We are moving to the era of Quantum Finance I. E. Crypto, blockchain no fiat!
I'm no gold bug, but it does seem highly coincidental that in 1971 Nixon broke the convertibility of the dollar to gold, and from that point forward compensation essentially flat-lined.
Part of that must have been that the average Joe and Jane were now completely subject to fiat currency, making it easiest to not incrementally improve compensation other than to track inflation.
Also, it seems like Nixon unwittingly super-enabled globalization, from which a lot of the world's population benefited far more than US citizens. Cold comfort to anyone in the USA hoping their kids would do better than they did, but the flip side is that US compensation was protected from declines that perhaps could have arisen from unrestricted global wage competition.
I really loved this show Ty!❤❤❤
Thanks for your great video. I have a question: How would you get large corporations to embrace the shift to PLE? Who owns them? Is there still a stockmarket? Does the redistribute wealth require a powershift (if it is even possible within our democracy without a revolution)?
It will need to happen organically. I'm just illuminating what I see as the likely path. If jobs start going down, and if people stop spending, then we'll need PLE. The problem, I think, will not be companies (they want the bottom line) but will be old fashioned people yammering on about "we just need more jobs!"
We're already in that dystopia
28:30 GDP is not a good metric for personal well being by any means TODAY, David.
Thank you for this comprehensively informative video
Well yeah, you're right. But GDP is going to be *even worse* real soon lol
Of course, there will be sub economies where communities will work with one another like the Amish to promote mental health, and live by rules that they feel are more aligned with their values. There will be people who opt out of an automated society, although they may be a minority, they may be significant.
Yup pay attention to the rise of Christian millionaires they move in silence!
David, have you Ever watched the movie "In Time" with Justin Timberlake, and if so have you made a video on it?
Here is the synopsis of the movie:
"In a future where people stop aging at 25, but are engineered to live only one more year, having the means to buy your way out of the situation is a shot at immortal youth. Here, Will Salas finds himself accused of murder and on the run with a hostage - a connection that becomes an important part of the way against the system."
My question to you is in a world where people like Jeff Bezos exist and have hundreds of billions, and could end world hunger around the planet, but we still have people starving to death, what makes you optimistic about the future.
WHile I dont think reality will play out like it does in that movie, its a movie, and its using a simplified system to hint at deeper truths. Like the Minority Report and precrime... I dont think we will have three esp children laying in a pool predicting crime (or whatever, been awhile since I watched it) the movie uses that plot device to explore possibilities. (and now with things like AI STARTING to be able to read minds it gets interesting...)
ANyways, went off on an accidental tangent. Id love to see you basically do a reaction to the movie In Time, and talk about whatever comes to mind.
There’s no stopping it.😢
Offsetting deflation it seems that we had an experiment during the pandemic where they did send out checks to everybody and kept interest rates super-low and so may I will give us unemployment and also deflation and then that means our monetary and fiscal policies can easily give everybody at Ubi
I'd be OK with a cyberpunk future if I had an Ana de Armas AI girlfriend.
since when did maintenance of private buildings become the governments responsibility? urban decay is a sign of lack of longterm investment in an area by the private owners of said buildings, which can be caused by lack of faith in government institutions, but there's numerous other causes. This mindset of looking to the government to fix the most mundane of issues is extremely dangerous for the times to come, and you're already begging them to take more power.
Not a coincidence that the 1980s ST:TNG introduced the Ferengi!
One critique I have of your videos, is that you tend to analyse everything from an American point of view, but project that point of view out as if it's a global thing.
Like, you're talking about the need to subsidize health care. Bro, the US is the only developed country where it's not already subsidized/publicly funded.
Healthcare in the US is not subsidized for working-age US taxpayers and their children, but is very heavily subsidized for everyone else (chiefly in the form of "Medicare" for those aged 65 and over, and "Medicaid" for the poor). The total amount that the US federal government spends on Medicare and Medicaid as a percentage of GDP exceeds even the total public health expenditure of many advanced countries that provide comprehensive publicly funded healthcare coverage.
But why do Canadians travel to the Mayo Clinic?
Its almost funny. David is putting this out there. Like someone in a position of authority or power. Actually cares what we the people care about!
David the people in power. Don't care about you, me, or anyone!!
No, but they love when we encourage top down solutions to problems created by top down solutions!
Problem with such permissive redistribution: some/many people could create huge resource demand by having as many children as they want (and can now afford).
(How) Should this be controlled?
I suspect any coming social contract renegotiation will require significant concessions of liberty (obligations) in return for such free welfare - especially given these humans are now essentially useless to the industrial system and many now have far less bargaining power than they had the last time their social contracts were renegotiated. People can’t impactfully strike nor make credible threats of revolution.
You could counter by saying that the power of the people is in their consumption, and the corporations will always need their consumption. But is this really true?
I want to know why militaries/states heavily using AI and drones won’t eventually decide they no longer need humanity (as soldiers or decision-makers), nor the economic subsystem required to provide for their needs. The economy can be focused entirely on the production of military power with no resources wasted on maintaining Earth’s biological ecosystems. Why would such organisations choose to voluntarily waste resources on useless human pets that simply play? Especially after the pets have lost all negotiating power.
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo obviously money is virtual, just like language or culture is virtual, but in what world is supply and demand an *arbitrary* system? do you even know what a market economy is?
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo everything that currently exists does so because it can create power from resources to prevent its annihilation.
States ultimately use military power to maintain exclusive control of their territories and other resources. Most democracies emerged from feudalism because subjects at various points organised sufficient power to challenge the existence of their states and either peacefully or by force, restructured their social contracts. Those settlements required a balance of power between state and people. The state needed resources exclusively controlled by the people to maintain its own existence - their labour, their bodies etc. But once people no longer exclusively control resources required by states then they really have no bargaining power to maintain their present privileges which the states grant them.
The people exist because states support and maintain them for their use. But once those uses are gone the transaction is no longer attractive. People need to bring something valuable to the table to justify themselves. Valuable production and the restraint from violent destruction was the offering. But if these aren’t on offer anymore, the transaction doesn’t make sense. This isn’t just capitalist, this is more fundamental - it’s an economic exchange. All economic systems depend on the exchange of (valuable) resources from one party to another. Even communism can’t do without resource exchange. What communism requires (in its abstract theoretical form) is resource abundance where the cost of resources is zero, and so too the cost of freely satisfying human economic demand. But I (and I think most) don’t believe such infinite abundance is possible in a finite universe without a uniform distribution of energy and mass. Resources which are local are inherently more valuable than those which are remote. And humans require and currently use a lot of local resources that could be converted to uses more directly valuable to the goals of sovereign powers (states) for maintaining their sovereignty - which in a post-labour economy doesn’t include maintaining humans as they produce nothing useful to states. Humans can’t afford to be valueless to the parties on which they depend for their livelihood and existence.
Otherwise as you say the elites (specifically the sovereigns) can essentially just stop feeding their people and forcibly protect all industrial infrastructure required for the production of their military power while they starve. So long as states have rivals, their primary goal (at least according to realist analysis) will be maximising their security by maximising their military power. If they no longer need to share with us, why would they?
@@ashtondowling-iq2lo Crony capitalism is what we have, and crony capitalism is not capitalism. The unholy alliance of corporate and government power they call crony capitalism has another name: Fascism.
The separation of government and the donor class is the only way out, small efficient limited government with effective anti-trust capacity. Break up the monster corporations and encourage competition in the marketplace. And don't allow the press to become an arm of either, as is now. We have fascist gangsterism as the rising global power, and a corporate captured press is one reason why.
7. how and in what sense do we drive down prices? isn't that thing very relative? can t-shirts be cheaper in Bangladesh than they are today?
Prices are indeed relative... to an exchange value in terms of money. Money prices tend to go down (all else equal) when companies strive to produce more efficiently and compete with other for market share, and central banks don't pursue policies of deliberately creating inflation through expanding the supply of money and credit. In this video we hear the case for less market, less prioritization of economic efficiency, and more governmental direction of the distribution of money and resources. It is unclear to me how prices would necessarily go down in this scenario.
Robots are cheaper and more efficient than human labor so if you replace all industries with robots then every industry’s cost of production falls while their actual production increases. This causes prices to fall because we’re not only making everything for cheaper, but we’re also making more than we previously did.
To think of why this would cause prices to fall, imagine the energy industry producing more for way less causing the price of electricity to fall dramatically. Virtually every industry in the world uses electricity so every industry would have a reduced cost of production from this cheap electricity on top of using robots. This recursive effect compounds to where the cost of production is decreased in every industry because every other industry’s cost of production is decreased. And so, it becomes really cheap to produce stuff which causes prices to fall
In the same sense that industrial agriculture made it so that we went from 50% of our budget going to food to 8%
this has never worked before in necessities. More revenue is more interesting.
What is the best way to learn deep learning fundamentals via implementation (let's say pick a trivial problem of build a recommendation system for movies) using pytorch in Aug 26, 2023?
I'm a post-doomer already but I like your presentations a lot
The greatest cyberpunk media of all time is the battle angel Alita Manga. The movie is only 1 part of like 20 and not even close to hard core enough
How about the Bell riots and the parallels we're seeing in today's societies?
I have been fascinated with cyberpunk recently, and recent AI development has only intensified my fascination. Cyberpunk is a train wreck with seductive bodies, enchanting neon signs, and adolescent power fantasies. It's hard to look away from, and it's increasingly relevant to our real world. Great topic, thank you!
pure id
So California (Los Angeles) in a nutshell?
Ouch. I try not to say it, but yeah. Cyberpunk 2077 looks like some parts of San Francisco.
Sounds like South Africa today minus the tech :(
To your point, things in SA are not ideal.
Even if AGI never happens, looks like we can acheive a very good life with current inventions by humans.
If life gets low enough then the tech will get lowered.
governments tend of have little to no real accountability for their actions. This doesn't incentivized good thoughtful actions that prioritize long term success...Would want the right checks and balances in place to keep government accountable prior growing it's size.
Great analysis David. As holistic metrics, for well-being, the place where I volunteer developed a common measurement called 'World Civility Index'. This Index is somewhat similar to a person's credit rating, but instead of measuring how well a person can pay his bills, it measures a person's soft skills such as social etiquette, empathy, intercultural awareness. The concept is that job-seekers can get the credential based on the World Civility Index, as proof, to show to employers EVERYWHERE! From an employer's point of view, they get to raise company culture simply by requesting job-applicants to have this credential, before coming on board. HR can also use such for internal performance evaluation, a new kind of KPI (key performance indicator) that historically would have been difficult to do.
I think a more realistic solution would be to have codetermination policies, where about 50% of votes in corporations, including banks, are given to non shareholders such as consumer and workers.
Neither Reagan nor Thatcher were nihilists. Thatcher would have been baffled to be characterized as such. She saw her political project as a restoration of traditional values, and property rights as integral to human dignity. Reaganism projected itself as a reinvigoration of America's founding spirit of liberty at a time of Cold War rivalry, inflation and energy crises. You can like or dislike this, you can scoff at it by all means, but none of it was borne of a nihilistic worldview.
This is propaganda. Both of them just did as they were told by their corporate benefactors.
David, before I'm gonna watch your video, I'm gonna tell you that the thing that I'm worried about is housing. With AI we can solve any problem, but I'm worried that problem with housing will stay the same. In my case, my whole early adulthood was impacted by situation with housing, and the place that I live doesn't offer any good job or education. Maybe jobs will go away, but still that doesn't solve the rest of the problems, like socializing with people, meeting potential partners, quality of living and access to goods and services. Do you see solutions to housing problem in the near future with AI?
There is plenty of cheap housing in places where hardly anybody wants to live. The housing 'problem' results from a growing population chasing real estate in desirable locations using cheap easily-accessible borrowed money. In a post-labour Utopia, supposedly there will be complete decoupling of location of human residence and location of economic production, potentially easing demographic pressure on cities as economic hubs.
@laudermarauder David is arguing against property rights, (where have I heard that before) so you'll be happy and own nothing. Presumably central planners will own your house.
David is arguing against STRONG property rights. The rights of individuals/corporations to own massive plots of land, apartment complexes, factories etc. These kinds of property rights are problematic.
He is not arguing against personal property (roof over your head, clothing etc).
@@TheAzzabi Weaker property rights will empower the little guy? When has that ever been the case? “Own nothing and be happy” is only the latest version of the old anti-property Marxist grift. The elites will always decide who gets to own what, they do not care what we think. Big players always rig the system in their own favor, weaker property rights will only hurt the small fry.
There are many problems with this:
1. There are no incentives for all humans to be productive. Leading to depression. Not all humans are inspired by a shared view or even agree with it. Self gain will still be a powerful motivator for some.
2. No accounting for one of the worst problems in humanity, corruption.
3. Assuming all countries in the world have strong institutions. There are countries where people get killed for disagreeing with the government.
4. The government is a source of inefficiency and corruption. Increasing the size of it can only make things worse
Nailed it. We've seen this play out, over and over, counted the bodies, and still these fools think top down redistribution will work. Why do otherwise rational people think that forcing people to submit to their authoritarian whims is OK? We should be breaking up these 'too big to fail' power structures, not building bigger ones.
All big institutions are inefficient. This is not exclusive to the state. It applies to corporations aswell. Coordination of large groups people always entails some amount bureaucracy.
Also, there is a big difference between the incentives that apply to people currently. For the wealthy, they choose to work to become more wealthy. For the poor, they work lest they starve.
Every living person has the right to welfare, not just those that had a good spawn point.
@@TheAzzabi The welfare state is a bloated bureaucracy too - and the incentive is to make it grow because it's a cash cow for rich political cronies.
@@karlanderson1900 the idea of a welfare state is to provide a social safety net for the people. So that they dont immediately starve if they lose their jobs. It provides flexibility for the working class, and gives them bargaining power. In many cases it also provides free healthcare, education and so forth.
I am not sure what you mean, when you say that the welfare state is a cash cow for political cronies?
From my understanding, the political cronies work to dismantle the state. The lack of social safety net and regulation, allows them to more freely exploit workers.
@@TheAzzabi A safety net and a welfare state are not the same thing. A safety net does not incentivize generational dependency.
Political cronies ARE the state. They are the political class and the corporate donor class who own them. It's organized corruption and they have no incentive to dismantle themselves.
Big government and big business have no interest in the little guy, except at election time. As long as they keep you believing their propaganda the grift will keep on growing. If you want to sort the "bad guys" from the "good guys", watch who the establishment media tries to destroy - that's who they fear.
I hate to say it, but we are not doing much to avoid this outcome. Everything is for sale in this world. That will never change...
Post-labor economics seems pretty far off from where we are now. Housing, healthcare and education (or what is considered to be 'education') keeps going up in price while wages stagnate. Interestingly, we might be close to having solutions for housing and education costs. Traditional universities are probably doomed. Online courses are a fraction of the cost. Housing prices are caused more by land shortages in areas that are job centers (politcs plays a big role here, obviously). This could be alleviated by remote work, robotaxis, and off-grid technologies such as: Starlink Internet, solid state batteries combined with solar and 3D printed homes. Healthcare is a whole other beast. The healthcare system in the US is outrageously expensive and convoluted for even routine procedures. It's not clear that technology advances will solve this problem anytime soon.
You're under estimating how fast AI is evolving and scaling. The world you know it today will be vastly different in 2034 by 2044 the early 20s will be considered the good old days for most
Fear and bad news sell. Any sci-fi writer/movie script writer who wants to sell books/movies creates dystopian stories, because they sell. So instead of looking at fiction (sure it's fun, I love sci-fi stories myself), why not look at actual statistics/metrics of human well-being, including health, safety, peace, knowledge and happiness? Steven Pinker in his book "Enlightenment Now" looks at the stats/metrics of modern human well-being and makes the case that life has indeed improved over time.
In regard to PLE, sure, let's do it!
Is there a certain order you intended for viewers to watch your videos?
I don’t understand how ushering in the big government big brother era is somehow a better option. I’d rather fight to retain my freedom than live off my daily issue from the system. Just seems extremely naive to think anyone is gonna subsidize your existence - it’ll be a lot more grim
This is literally exactly what Andrew Yang argued for
missed yah XD
I would like to make 2 points. 1. If you have people with different ideologies, you will have conflict. A society need's an over arching framework that sets the base values that laws are based upon. 2. Negative incentives are way stronger than positive ones. If you decriminalize stealing, you get way more people stealing. Doesn't matter if all basic needs are met already.
Designers ??
This is why Einstein couldn’t be a statesman. These policies couldn’t be more disastrous when put together.
Oh speaking of monetary policy it may very well be that Warren mosler and Stephanie kelton might have the best 3/4 how we transition
Eh... Not so sure you hit the nail.
Neoliberalism is the definition of true good, fairness and equality.
Cyberpunk is an intentional parody of NeoLiberalism - and far more than "slightly" exaggerated.
We've seen little more than lip service to the idea of shrinking government - it just keeps growing. We had a little bit of deregulation in the early neoliberal years, and it was mostly pretty good for consumers - phone companies, air fares, trucking, package delivery, choice of electric company in some areas, etc.) Probably deregulation of the Finance industry has been the most questionable, but even that was just a loosening - finance remains highly regulated. Not even close to the corporatist anarchy of CyberPunk. Privatization of prisons has been questionable - but it isn't like prisons were nice places before either.
This comment is ridiculously ahistorical 😂
@@TheAzzabi Federal govt expenditures as % of GDP grew dramatically from 1950 to 1982.
Most of the deregulation I cited happened back in the 1980's, and there was a modest federal govt share of GDP reduction from 1990 to 2000, probably due to the 1990's economic boom. But since 2000 federal share of GDP has grown (~20%) back to the 1980's share of GDP.
I'm not sure cyberpunk2077 is an exaggeration, we're being turned into the friggin borg... I think you know. Maybe it's time to explain the Stat Trek suit. It aint just because you wanna be bros with Data is it?