> No my argument is that trying at a broad systemic level to make specific outcomes happen is susceptible to the information problem.
This is exactly what I said you would say:
> I suppose the argument you are making is that any attempt to interfere with the present system of resource allocation will constitute a centralization that would be less effective than free market capitalism
Further:
> Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best.
We are a long way off from the self-replicating systems that could feasibly make work effectively optional, but you haven't made a convincing argument as to why it is improbable that automation could reach that point.
> And yes I’m aware of Japanese strawberry picking robots.
You clearly were not aware of them or you would have picked better examples. Your original comment consisted solely of the statement: "It's the same thing." and now you're continuing with that flippant attitude by pretending that I'm misunderstanding your argument when I anticipated it in its entirety.
I clearly was aware of them. Do you think I just rattled of the bit about needing special glue to hold the fabric and only certain seam types being possible? There was a whole thing about these in the Economist last year and it was discussed on HN. While it’s technically possible you can’t deploy it. It turns out gluing an then applying solvents to fabrics doesn’t result in a product people want.
This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has. So yeah, maybe super advanced AGI could do it, but probably not. We don’t even have good models now of how large economies work down to a granular level. People are like I said messy and respond in weird ways to their environments. The best we can do right now is working with prices as signals for the amount of effort other people are willing to put into something. And while that’s imperfect, it’s just improbable that we can do much better. Which is not to say that narrow objectives aren’t possible, only that the bigger and broader you aim the more impossible it becomes.
You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate. The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.
> This Star Trek stuff is improbable because everything has to be coordinated somehow and waving your hand and saying magical future ai is the only proposal anyone ever has.
Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
> You cited them as examples of tasks that would be difficult to automate.
Yes because they are. I specifically gave an example where a machine exists but it's impossible to use for the real world, and an example where economics generally prevent adoption. That gets to my whole point.
> The pickers have been commercially deployed for the last four years.
Yes narrowly, and in only a few places where there are extreme labor shortages.
You are clearly misunderstanding me.
> Redistribution already occurs without the use of an AI.
I didn't make the claim that it didn't happen.
I feel like you're willfully ignoring what I'm saying. These things are hard and rolling them out universally often doesn't work because it is either impractical or economically infeasible to automate things or you run up against regulatory/cultural/material issues. The best we can do is piecemeal progress where incentives align.
This is exactly what I said you would say:
> I suppose the argument you are making is that any attempt to interfere with the present system of resource allocation will constitute a centralization that would be less effective than free market capitalism
Further:
> Trying like the op suggested to automate away work is utopian and improbable at best.
We are a long way off from the self-replicating systems that could feasibly make work effectively optional, but you haven't made a convincing argument as to why it is improbable that automation could reach that point.
> And yes I’m aware of Japanese strawberry picking robots.
You clearly were not aware of them or you would have picked better examples. Your original comment consisted solely of the statement: "It's the same thing." and now you're continuing with that flippant attitude by pretending that I'm misunderstanding your argument when I anticipated it in its entirety.