How AI, Robotics, and Clean Energy Will End Labor and Money – A Future Where Everything Is Free

[FlashDangerpants]

You said: Hi, ChatGPT. How are you today?


ChatGPT said:
Hey! I'm doing great, thanks for asking. How about you? What's on your mind today?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68097e63-a978 ... cbc9774a9e

An interesting greeting from ChatGPT. Not very professional in a sense, maybe.

How would we humans know the difference between a conscious AI and an unconscious one? And if there is no such thing as "consciousness" beyond computational systems (BigMike says there's no ghost in the machine), then is AI any different at all than what we are? And if Ai is no different than we are, then can it evolve or end up like us, including our faults?

A lot of what is going on here is predicated on assumptions about AI that make no sense to me. The AI in question (for the thread topic) is apparently super smart, far beyond anything we have access to today, but for some reason it doesn't find trivial repetitive tasks boring and it has no opinions that we didn't program it with.

I don't see how we can have this super flexible AI that can answer all questions just as well as us, but which wouldn't get bored if you try to make it converse with Age.

Big Mike isn't AI, he looks that way because he uses a limited range of formulaic manipulation techniques in every conversation, which is why he always uses your name in the first sentence of any reply to you (an active listening / NLP technique popular with used car salesmen). Any AI created to maintain the illusion of real human conversation would have more variety than he offers.

[accelafine]

You said: Hi, ChatGPT. How are you today?


ChatGPT said:
Hey! I'm doing great, thanks for asking. How about you? What's on your mind today?

https://chatgpt.com/share/68097e63-a978 ... cbc9774a9e

An interesting greeting from ChatGPT. Not very professional in a sense, maybe.

How would we humans know the difference between a conscious AI and an unconscious one? And if there is no such thing as "consciousness" beyond computational systems (BigMike says there's no ghost in the machine), then is AI any different at all than what we are? And if Ai is no different than we are, then can it evolve or end up like us, including our faults?

A lot of what is going on here is predicated on assumptions about AI that make no sense to me. The AI in question (for the thread topic) is apparently super smart, far beyond anything we have access to today, but for some reason it doesn't find trivial repetitive tasks boring and it has no opinions that we didn't program it with.

I don't see how we can have this super flexible AI that can answer all questions just as well as us, but which wouldn't get bored if you try to make it converse with Age.

Big Mike isn't AI, he looks that way because he uses a limited range of formulaic manipulation techniques in every conversation, which is why he always uses your name in the first sentence of any reply to you (an active listening / NLP technique popular with used car salesmen). Any AI created to maintain the illusion of real human conversation would have more variety than he offers.

Then he must be a genius who is incapable of making a single typo.

[FlashDangerpants]

https://chatgpt.com/share/68097e63-a978 ... cbc9774a9e

An interesting greeting from ChatGPT. Not very professional in a sense, maybe.

How would we humans know the difference between a conscious AI and an unconscious one? And if there is no such thing as "consciousness" beyond computational systems (BigMike says there's no ghost in the machine), then is AI any different at all than what we are? And if Ai is no different than we are, then can it evolve or end up like us, including our faults?

A lot of what is going on here is predicated on assumptions about AI that make no sense to me. The AI in question (for the thread topic) is apparently super smart, far beyond anything we have access to today, but for some reason it doesn't find trivial repetitive tasks boring and it has no opinions that we didn't program it with.

I don't see how we can have this super flexible AI that can answer all questions just as well as us, but which wouldn't get bored if you try to make it converse with Age.

Big Mike isn't AI, he looks that way because he uses a limited range of formulaic manipulation techniques in every conversation, which is why he always uses your name in the first sentence of any reply to you (an active listening / NLP technique popular with used car salesmen). Any AI created to maintain the illusion of real human conversation would have more variety than he offers.

Then he must be a genius who is incapable of making a single typo.

My posts have terrible spelling if I use chrome - because I don't use a spellcheck in that browser, and then suddenly I spell like an educated human when I use Vivaldi, where I do.

A Grammarly browser plugin would make most people here write in a manner that resembles his, but so would adherence to any style guide. But more likely he is just fastidious.

[accelafine]

A lot of what is going on here is predicated on assumptions about AI that make no sense to me. The AI in question (for the thread topic) is apparently super smart, far beyond anything we have access to today, but for some reason it doesn't find trivial repetitive tasks boring and it has no opinions that we didn't program it with.

I don't see how we can have this super flexible AI that can answer all questions just as well as us, but which wouldn't get bored if you try to make it converse with Age.

Big Mike isn't AI, he looks that way because he uses a limited range of formulaic manipulation techniques in every conversation, which is why he always uses your name in the first sentence of any reply to you (an active listening / NLP technique popular with used car salesmen). Any AI created to maintain the illusion of real human conversation would have more variety than he offers.

Then he must be a genius who is incapable of making a single typo.

My posts have terrible spelling if I use chrome - because I don't use a spellcheck in that browser, and then suddenly I spell like an educated human when I use Vivaldi, where I do.

A Grammarly browser plugin would make most people here write in a manner that resembles his, but so would adherence to any style guide. But more likely he is just fastidious.

I can't stand any kind of 'spellcheck'. I always disable it. But you have to admit, his writing skills are beyond exceptional. No spellcheck is going to do that.

[FlashDangerpants]

I recommend you read Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, written in 1930 and making certain predictions about life and work in the 1970s. Famous in part for not coming true at all, but actually highly prescient and in a sense completely correct.

It's a short paper at 7 pages
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

What it teaches us is that we can correctly predict that future society will have a vastly more productive economy than today's, but we don't have any means to predict what goods and services might become available and therefore we don't have a viable way to predict how they will distribute and allocate time, work and so on.

The Star Trek future where all scarcity has ended is a very distant prospect. AI that is smart enough to run the whole world as a benevolent dictator making all decisions and managing all supply chains for us is not practicably on the horizon.

Think of it this way: Google started the whole self-driving car hype almost 20 years ago and back then everyone thought that all the real problems involved would be fixed by 2020. All that happened in reality was that the easy problems got fixed real fast, and then new reasons why some of the other problems would turn out to be difficult were discovered. We are a decade late with self-driving taxis that can only operate on a specific set of roads that they have been carefully set up for. These things always turn out more complicated than they seemed before we started.

Similarly, Keynes didn't predict colour TV sets watching moon landings (and adverts); cheap international holidays; home computers; online gambling addictions and all the other things that make us unwilling to to work only so many hours as are required to live a 1930s lifestyle, how could he? Similarly he didn't have any way to predict all the new types of job those things would create, he just knew that a lot of the old ones would go.

In the century since he wrote, the profession of Travel Agent went from a tiny niche occupation to a major industry employing millions worldwide and back to tiny niche again. A good understanding of how all of that happened would help analyse the likelihood of our society, or anything resembling it actually giving up on the idea of work.

Thanks—Keynes' essay is a classic, and you're right, it’s remarkably insightful and off the mark in some key ways. But I think we’re past the era of just "new jobs replacing old ones." What’s emerging now isn’t just another wave of economic evolution—it’s the end of the job paradigm itself. Not a shift in types of work, but a collapse of the need for human labor in production at all. That’s not a tweak to capitalism; that’s a civilizational reset.

We're still in a paradigm of child labour sewing shoes together in Bangladeshi sweatshops because no robot can properly handle fabrics that fold on themselves when moved. Soon we should have automated production lines for sneakers and jeans, and that is an amazing thing, what a time to be alive. But the "end of the job paradigm itself" is nowhere near, that is a sci-fi fantasy as distant today as it was in Keynes' time. Please don't overdo the messianic sales nonsense.

[FlashDangerpants]

Then he must be a genius who is incapable of making a single typo.

My posts have terrible spelling if I use chrome - because I don't use a spellcheck in that browser, and then suddenly I spell like an educated human when I use Vivaldi, where I do.

A Grammarly browser plugin would make most people here write in a manner that resembles his, but so would adherence to any style guide. But more likely he is just fastidious.

I can't stand any kind of 'spellcheck'. I always disable it. But you have to admit, his writing skills are beyond exceptional. No spellcheck is going to do that.

Not seeing it, sorry. His flourishes really only land when does one technique - the one where he uses a long sentence with multiple clauses to set up the point. And then a short punchy one to deliver it.

The rest of the time, it could be Immanuel Can writing that prose.

[accelafine]

My posts have terrible spelling if I use chrome - because I don't use a spellcheck in that browser, and then suddenly I spell like an educated human when I use Vivaldi, where I do.

A Grammarly browser plugin would make most people here write in a manner that resembles his, but so would adherence to any style guide. But more likely he is just fastidious.

I can't stand any kind of 'spellcheck'. I always disable it. But you have to admit, his writing skills are beyond exceptional. No spellcheck is going to do that.

Not seeing it, sorry. His flourishes really only land when does one technique - the one where he uses a long sentence with multiple clauses to set up the point. And then a short punchy one to deliver it.

The rest of the time, it could be Immanuel Can writing that prose.

Nonsense. 'His' writing is exquisite. No one else on here comes close (except me of course ). IC can write, but he's hindered by religious bias. I just want to know how TheBigMike does it.

[BigMike]

I recommend you read Keynes' Economic Possibilities for our Grandchildren, written in 1930 and making certain predictions about life and work in the 1970s. Famous in part for not coming true at all, but actually highly prescient and in a sense completely correct.

It's a short paper at 7 pages
http://www.econ.yale.edu/smith/econ116a/keynes1.pdf

What it teaches us is that we can correctly predict that future society will have a vastly more productive economy than today's, but we don't have any means to predict what goods and services might become available and therefore we don't have a viable way to predict how they will distribute and allocate time, work and so on.

The Star Trek future where all scarcity has ended is a very distant prospect. AI that is smart enough to run the whole world as a benevolent dictator making all decisions and managing all supply chains for us is not practicably on the horizon.

Think of it this way: Google started the whole self-driving car hype almost 20 years ago and back then everyone thought that all the real problems involved would be fixed by 2020. All that happened in reality was that the easy problems got fixed real fast, and then new reasons why some of the other problems would turn out to be difficult were discovered. We are a decade late with self-driving taxis that can only operate on a specific set of roads that they have been carefully set up for. These things always turn out more complicated than they seemed before we started.

Similarly, Keynes didn't predict colour TV sets watching moon landings (and adverts); cheap international holidays; home computers; online gambling addictions and all the other things that make us unwilling to to work only so many hours as are required to live a 1930s lifestyle, how could he? Similarly he didn't have any way to predict all the new types of job those things would create, he just knew that a lot of the old ones would go.

In the century since he wrote, the profession of Travel Agent went from a tiny niche occupation to a major industry employing millions worldwide and back to tiny niche again. A good understanding of how all of that happened would help analyse the likelihood of our society, or anything resembling it actually giving up on the idea of work.

Thanks—Keynes' essay is a classic, and you're right, it’s remarkably insightful and off the mark in some key ways. But I think we’re past the era of just "new jobs replacing old ones." What’s emerging now isn’t just another wave of economic evolution—it’s the end of the job paradigm itself. Not a shift in types of work, but a collapse of the need for human labor in production at all. That’s not a tweak to capitalism; that’s a civilizational reset.

We're still in a paradigm of child labour sewing shoes together in Bangladeshi sweatshops because no robot can properly handle fabrics that fold on themselves when moved. Soon we should have automated production lines for sneakers and jeans, and that is an amazing thing, what a time to be alive. But the "end of the job paradigm itself" is nowhere near, that is a sci-fi fantasy as distant today as it was in Keynes' time. Please don't overdo the messianic sales nonsense.

That’s a fair pushback, and I agree—it’s important to stay grounded in what’s actually happening, not just what could happen. Yes, we still live in a world with child labor, sweatshops, and all-too-human suffering baked into supply chains. And yes, there are still countless tasks—like handling soft fabrics or caring for the elderly—that machines struggle with. The present is messy. But that doesn’t mean the long-term trajectory isn’t real.

Because here’s what we’re seeing, right now, in real time:
- Robots are already displacing factory workers in automotive and electronics assembly.
- AI is eliminating entire layers of white-collar jobs—legal clerks, copywriters, paralegals, customer support, data entry, even some coding.
- Logistics, agriculture, transportation, and even medicine are undergoing rapid automation.
- And clean energy—solar, wind, geothermal—is not only replacing fossil fuels, but also decentralizing energy production, lowering marginal costs toward zero.

These aren’t speculative someday-maybe developments. They’re happening now. Sure, they’re uneven. Sure, they hit different regions at different times. But the direction is clear. It’s not that we’re living in Star Trek yet. It’s that we’re accelerating toward a tipping point, faster than most institutions are willing to admit.

So I take your skepticism seriously, but I’d also ask:
How long do you think we should wait before we even start talking about how to prepare for the end of the job paradigm itself?
Do we wait until half the population is unemployed and calling it "early retirement"? Until wealth concentration makes 19th-century aristocracy look egalitarian? Until the remaining labor economy consists of emotional caretaking, street performance, and competitive social media influence?

Because my argument isn’t that this is all happening tomorrow. It’s that it’s no longer safe—or responsible—to treat it like science fiction. The time to plan for the fallout is before the cliff, not halfway down.

[FlashDangerpants]

Thanks—Keynes' essay is a classic, and you're right, it’s remarkably insightful and off the mark in some key ways. But I think we’re past the era of just "new jobs replacing old ones." What’s emerging now isn’t just another wave of economic evolution—it’s the end of the job paradigm itself. Not a shift in types of work, but a collapse of the need for human labor in production at all. That’s not a tweak to capitalism; that’s a civilizational reset.

We're still in a paradigm of child labour sewing shoes together in Bangladeshi sweatshops because no robot can properly handle fabrics that fold on themselves when moved. Soon we should have automated production lines for sneakers and jeans, and that is an amazing thing, what a time to be alive. But the "end of the job paradigm itself" is nowhere near, that is a sci-fi fantasy as distant today as it was in Keynes' time. Please don't overdo the messianic sales nonsense.

That’s a fair pushback, and I agree—it’s important to stay grounded in what’s actually happening, not just what could happen. Yes, we still live in a world with child labor, sweatshops, and all-too-human suffering baked into supply chains. And yes, there are still countless tasks—like handling soft fabrics or caring for the elderly—that machines struggle with. The present is messy. But that doesn’t mean the long-term trajectory isn’t real.

You wrote "end of the job paradigm itself". That's a very big claim. Yet you defend it as if I were sniping at some small and reasonable claim.

Because here’s what we’re seeing, right now, in real time:
- Robots are already displacing factory workers in automotive and electronics assembly.
- AI is eliminating entire layers of white-collar jobs—legal clerks, copywriters, paralegals, customer support, data entry, even some coding.
- Logistics, agriculture, transportation, and even medicine are undergoing rapid automation.
- And clean energy—solar, wind, geothermal—is not only replacing fossil fuels, but also decentralizing energy production, lowering marginal costs toward zero.

• Robots have been displacing people in car factories since at least the 70s, and machines have been displacing human labour since the plough was invented. Both caused technological unemployment and so will the latest innovations. That is not the overthrow of the job.

• AI is indeed eliminating the writing of boilerplate code, and some limited search engine use. All sorts of jobs exist that can make use of AI to achieve greater productivity but cannot be replaced by it and are not at any risk of being replaced by it any time soon. The jobs in customer service and copywriting that have been lost to AI did not make maximal use of the agent's talents, although I expect AI copywriting is littered with errors

These aren’t speculative someday-maybe developments. They’re happening now. Sure, they’re uneven. Sure, they hit different regions at different times. But the direction is clear. It’s not that we’re living in Star Trek yet. It’s that we’re accelerating toward a tipping point, faster than most institutions are willing to admit.

I believe that there are much greater obstacles than you are willing to admit.

So I take your skepticism seriously, but I’d also ask:
How long do you think we should wait before we even start talking about how to prepare for the end of the job paradigm itself?
Do we wait until half the population is unemployed and calling it "early retirement"? Until wealth concentration makes 19th-century aristocracy look egalitarian? Until the remaining labor economy consists of emotional caretaking, street performance, and competitive social media influence?

The "end of the job paradigm itself" is a marketing term that you have made up. Why not address the likely instead? Why not consider historic parallels while you are at it?

250 years ago, agriculture employed 90% of the human workforce globally. Mechanisation overturned that and brought mass unemployment to the UK countryside (and Belgium too). The displaced workers formed a massive new labour pool in cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester where enterprising capitalist pigdogs herded them into factories where they created a surge in production of new manufactures. Prices for goods such as textiles fell rapidly spurring new growth in other towns and new industries, but also creating new technological unemployment for the piece workers in the countryside who made their off season income out of small textile work. And so the cycle continues...

All of that though is why we are able to have enough teachers that all kids get a pretty good education. It's why we have surplus dog walkers and a great and bountiful plenty of bakers. Reducing the employment footprint of food manufacture from 90% to something like 3% today made all those people available for new types of employment.

It's not really your call whether that will happen again. Today AI writes and narrates absolute garbage on Youtube, but when people learn new ways to use AI to write scripts (as accelafine is unshakeably convinced you already do), and when it can mimic human speech just a little better, we will have a new and much cheaper way for people to get into writing and creating cartoons and a platform for them to publish it all on and get paid. Who knows how many people will find a new niche?

You are failing to take human aspiration, ingenuity and demand for novel goods and services into account in much the same way that Keynes did.

Because my argument isn’t that this is all happening tomorrow. It’s that it’s no longer safe—or responsible—to treat it like science fiction. The time to plan for the fallout is before the cliff, not halfway down.

So plan for a real cliff. Millions of people will need an income they are no longer well trained to earn. UBI is one solution. Redistributive taxation another. Jobs guarantees, massive retraining schemes, job sharing schemes ... there's so many possible options for actual possible situations you can consider, why do you need to sell a vision of sugar candy mountain instead?

[BigMike]

We're still in a paradigm of child labour sewing shoes together in Bangladeshi sweatshops because no robot can properly handle fabrics that fold on themselves when moved. Soon we should have automated production lines for sneakers and jeans, and that is an amazing thing, what a time to be alive. But the "end of the job paradigm itself" is nowhere near, that is a sci-fi fantasy as distant today as it was in Keynes' time. Please don't overdo the messianic sales nonsense.

That’s a fair pushback, and I agree—it’s important to stay grounded in what’s actually happening, not just what could happen. Yes, we still live in a world with child labor, sweatshops, and all-too-human suffering baked into supply chains. And yes, there are still countless tasks—like handling soft fabrics or caring for the elderly—that machines struggle with. The present is messy. But that doesn’t mean the long-term trajectory isn’t real.

You wrote "end of the job paradigm itself". That's a very big claim. Yet you defend it as if I were sniping at some small and reasonable claim.

Because here’s what we’re seeing, right now, in real time:
- Robots are already displacing factory workers in automotive and electronics assembly.
- AI is eliminating entire layers of white-collar jobs—legal clerks, copywriters, paralegals, customer support, data entry, even some coding.
- Logistics, agriculture, transportation, and even medicine are undergoing rapid automation.
- And clean energy—solar, wind, geothermal—is not only replacing fossil fuels, but also decentralizing energy production, lowering marginal costs toward zero.

• Robots have been displacing people in car factories since at least the 70s, and machines have been displacing human labour since the plough was invented. Both caused technological unemployment and so will the latest innovations. That is not the overthrow of the job.

• AI is indeed eliminating the writing of boilerplate code, and some limited search engine use. All sorts of jobs exist that can make use of AI to achieve greater productivity but cannot be replaced by it and are not at any risk of being replaced by it any time soon. The jobs in customer service and copywriting that have been lost to AI did not make maximal use of the agent's talents, although I expect AI copywriting is littered with errors

These aren’t speculative someday-maybe developments. They’re happening now. Sure, they’re uneven. Sure, they hit different regions at different times. But the direction is clear. It’s not that we’re living in Star Trek yet. It’s that we’re accelerating toward a tipping point, faster than most institutions are willing to admit.

I believe that there are much greater obstacles than you are willing to admit.

So I take your skepticism seriously, but I’d also ask:
How long do you think we should wait before we even start talking about how to prepare for the end of the job paradigm itself?
Do we wait until half the population is unemployed and calling it "early retirement"? Until wealth concentration makes 19th-century aristocracy look egalitarian? Until the remaining labor economy consists of emotional caretaking, street performance, and competitive social media influence?

The "end of the job paradigm itself" is a marketing term that you have made up. Why not address the likely instead? Why not consider historic parallels while you are at it?

250 years ago, agriculture employed 90% of the human workforce globally. Mechanisation overturned that and brought mass unemployment to the UK countryside (and Belgium too). The displaced workers formed a massive new labour pool in cities like London, Birmingham and Manchester where enterprising capitalist pigdogs herded them into factories where they created a surge in production of new manufactures. Prices for goods such as textiles fell rapidly spurring new growth in other towns and new industries, but also creating new technological unemployment for the piece workers in the countryside who made their off season income out of small textile work. And so the cycle continues...

All of that though is why we are able to have enough teachers that all kids get a pretty good education. It's why we have surplus dog walkers and a great and bountiful plenty of bakers. Reducing the employment footprint of food manufacture from 90% to something like 3% today made all those people available for new types of employment.

It's not really your call whether that will happen again. Today AI writes and narrates absolute garbage on Youtube, but when people learn new ways to use AI to write scripts (as accelafine is unshakeably convinced you already do), and when it can mimic human speech just a little better, we will have a new and much cheaper way for people to get into writing and creating cartoons and a platform for them to publish it all on and get paid. Who knows how many people will find a new niche?

You are failing to take human aspiration, ingenuity and demand for novel goods and services into account in much the same way that Keynes did.

Because my argument isn’t that this is all happening tomorrow. It’s that it’s no longer safe—or responsible—to treat it like science fiction. The time to plan for the fallout is before the cliff, not halfway down.

So plan for a real cliff. Millions of people will need an income they are no longer well trained to earn. UBI is one solution. Redistributive taxation another. Jobs guarantees, massive retraining schemes, job sharing schemes ... there's so many possible options for actual possible situations you can consider, why do you need to sell a vision of sugar candy mountain instead?

You're right—“end of the job paradigm” is a big claim. But it’s not a marketing term; it’s an attempt to name a shift that's already beginning, not ending. And if you're saying it's not here yet—of course it’s not. But the trendlines aren’t imaginary. They’re visible now in factory floors, office buildings, even classrooms.

So let me ask again, simply:
How long do you think we should wait before seriously discussing how to prepare for it?

Not science fiction. Not utopia. Just preparation—for a reality where automation keeps accelerating and demand for human labor keeps shrinking.

[phyllo]

I honestly don’t remember ever saying that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity. That doesn’t even sound like something I’d argue.

If we're now saying parts of the Bible—like hell—were just "products of their time," then what exactly makes any of it timeless or sacred?

I own a book, haven't ready it yet, called Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman. Not having read it, I have a vague idea of the arguments he makes in the book, and I'm pretty sure a huge portion of it is dedicated to arguing that many modern Christian understandings of Hell actually are not rooted in Biblical text, and even the parts that are are rooted in misunderstandings and misinterpretations of that text.

So perhaps the correct understanding of Christianity is far less barbaric and unkind than a lot of Christians would have you believe...

That’s a fascinating take—and if true, it opens up a whole other can of worms. Because if modern Christians have misunderstood or misinterpreted core concepts like hell for centuries… then what exactly have they been preaching all this time? Fire and brimstone sermons, moral panic, guilt-based obedience—all possibly based on mistranslations or mythological baggage?

And if the “correct” version of Christianity is actually more kind and humane, then why did it take over 2,000 years, a printing press, modern linguistics, and Bart Ehrman to point that out?

It just reinforces the idea that this wasn’t divine revelation—it was human storytelling, evolving through error, fear, and politics. Strip away the misinterpretations and what’s left? A confused, inconsistent patchwork written by people who barely understood the cosmos, let alone the human brain. And now AI can write a more coherent ethics manual in a weekend. Strange times.

Now, as for the “God-like powers” thing—yeah, I see how that could sound a little starry-eyed. But again, what I’m describing isn’t divine intervention, it’s highly advanced systems engineering. We're talking about supply chains managed with sensor networks and machine learning models, not miracles. AI can track environmental data, predict outcomes, and help us reduce waste—not because it has a soul or a conscience, but because it’s a tool with reach and speed far beyond what we’ve had before. It’s not God. It’s Google, with steroids and a brain.

True, AI has no soul, no conscience. And also no intelligence, understanding or experience of reality.

But you give it miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot.

And you're right—if AI is handling everything logistical and productive, that’s a real system, and people will absolutely have to adapt to it. But here’s where we may disagree: I think it’s possible to draw a line between technical systems that run physical infrastructure and moral systems that govern human life. AI can do the first. It should never do the second.

I don't see how a separation would be possible considering how the 'enthusiasts' think AI is so much better at everything. They are bound to cross the line.

[BigMike]

I honestly don’t remember ever saying that AI could write a better ethics than Christianity. That doesn’t even sound like something I’d argue.

I own a book, haven't ready it yet, called Heaven and Hell by Bart Ehrman. Not having read it, I have a vague idea of the arguments he makes in the book, and I'm pretty sure a huge portion of it is dedicated to arguing that many modern Christian understandings of Hell actually are not rooted in Biblical text, and even the parts that are are rooted in misunderstandings and misinterpretations of that text.

So perhaps the correct understanding of Christianity is far less barbaric and unkind than a lot of Christians would have you believe...

That’s a fascinating take—and if true, it opens up a whole other can of worms. Because if modern Christians have misunderstood or misinterpreted core concepts like hell for centuries… then what exactly have they been preaching all this time? Fire and brimstone sermons, moral panic, guilt-based obedience—all possibly based on mistranslations or mythological baggage?

And if the “correct” version of Christianity is actually more kind and humane, then why did it take over 2,000 years, a printing press, modern linguistics, and Bart Ehrman to point that out?

It just reinforces the idea that this wasn’t divine revelation—it was human storytelling, evolving through error, fear, and politics. Strip away the misinterpretations and what’s left? A confused, inconsistent patchwork written by people who barely understood the cosmos, let alone the human brain. And now AI can write a more coherent ethics manual in a weekend. Strange times.

Now, as for the “God-like powers” thing—yeah, I see how that could sound a little starry-eyed. But again, what I’m describing isn’t divine intervention, it’s highly advanced systems engineering. We're talking about supply chains managed with sensor networks and machine learning models, not miracles. AI can track environmental data, predict outcomes, and help us reduce waste—not because it has a soul or a conscience, but because it’s a tool with reach and speed far beyond what we’ve had before. It’s not God. It’s Google, with steroids and a brain.

True, AI has no soul, no conscience. And also no intelligence, understanding or experience of reality.

But you give it miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot.

And you're right—if AI is handling everything logistical and productive, that’s a real system, and people will absolutely have to adapt to it. But here’s where we may disagree: I think it’s possible to draw a line between technical systems that run physical infrastructure and moral systems that govern human life. AI can do the first. It should never do the second.

I don't see how a separation would be possible considering how the 'enthusiasts' think AI is so much better at everything. They are bound to cross the line.

Thanks, Phyllo. You’ve pulled together a lot of threads here, and I’m genuinely glad you did—it’s a chance to slow down and clarify some things that may have come off a little too glib or oversold. Let’s start with that quote you found.

Yes—I did say AI could write a more coherent ethics manual than Christianity. And yeah, when taken out of context, that does sound like I’m assigning it divine authorship. But here’s what I actually meant: AI, drawing from vast amounts of human knowledge, history, philosophy, and moral reasoning, can synthesize ideas in ways that are faster and structurally clearer than ancient religious texts written in fragments over centuries, with frequent contradictions and reinterpretations. It’s not that AI is somehow more moral. It’s that it can be more coherent—more logically structured—because it isn’t bound by dogma, cultural inertia, or institutional fear.

So no, I wasn’t arguing that AI has consciousness or insight into the human soul. I was saying that, technically speaking, it can produce ethical frameworks that are clearer, more consistent, and up-to-date with modern knowledge. That’s not miraculous. That’s text prediction with access to a gigantic library.

Now, let me ask you directly—are you serious when you say I’m giving AI “miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot”? Miraculous?! I’ve said it can track data at scale, manage complex systems, and optimize logistics. That’s not magic. That’s what software already does in hundreds of industries today. When I describe systems that can manage supply chains or predict energy needs, I’m talking about what already exists, just taken a few steps further.

You’re right that AI has no intelligence in the human sense. No lived experience. No reality of its own. That’s precisely why I keep drawing the line between technical control and moral authority. And yes, I share your concern that if we blindly trust AI as a decision-maker—not just a tool—then that line will be crossed. It’s why we need public debate, regulation, and ethical boundaries in place now, not after the fact.

So if you see me as an “enthusiast,” that’s fine—but I’m an enthusiast with guardrails. I want to see what these tools can do to reduce suffering, waste, and inequality—not because they’re better than us, but because they don’t suffer like we do. That makes them powerful assistants—but terrible leaders.

Let’s stay vigilant. I’m with you on that. But let’s also stay honest about what’s actually happening—and what we’re capable of using wisely, before someone else uses it recklessly.

[FlashDangerpants]

So let me ask again, simply:
How long do you think we should wait before seriously discussing how to prepare for it?

Ok, well depending on which futurologist you ask, we are in the 4th or 5th or 6th industrial revolution right now. Your speculations about an AI that controls the entire global supply chain for every commodity and nullifies all need for human about is about 12 of those industrial revolutions away.

So we need to give it 6 industrial revolutions I guess before we have enough info to even guesstimate how society will have been changed by all the steps required to get us anywhere near an AI that can control everything. So when kids think ChatGPT is the funny thing from the olden times that grandma used to help her cheat on her homework, let's revisit.

[BigMike]

So let me ask again, simply:
How long do you think we should wait before seriously discussing how to prepare for it?

Ok, well depending on which futurologist you ask, we are in the 4th or 5th or 6th industrial revolution right now. Your speculations about an AI that controls the entire global supply chain for every commodity and nullifies all need for human about is about 12 of those industrial revolutions away.

So we need to give it 6 industrial revolutions I guess before we have enough info to even guesstimate how society will have been changed by all the steps required to get us anywhere near an AI that can control everything. So when kids think ChatGPT is the funny thing from the olden times that grandma used to help her cheat on her homework, let's revisit.

Fair enough—you want a concrete claim? Here it is:

I predict that by the late 2050s, at least 80% of all human labor in the most developed countries will be gone. Not because people get lazy, but because they won’t be needed. AI, robotics, and fully autonomous systems—powered by clean, nearly free energy—will have taken over the vast majority of what we now consider “work.”

That’s not twelve industrial revolutions away. It’s one very fast-moving one that’s already underway. So the real question isn’t if we revisit this—it’s whether we’ll be ready by the time that conversation becomes unavoidable.

[phyllo]

Yes—I did say AI could write a more coherent ethics manual than Christianity. And yeah, when taken out of context, that does sound like I’m assigning it divine authorship. But here’s what I actually meant: AI, drawing from vast amounts of human knowledge, history, philosophy, and moral reasoning, can synthesize ideas in ways that are faster and structurally clearer than ancient religious texts written in fragments over centuries, with frequent contradictions and reinterpretations. It’s not that AI is somehow more moral. It’s that it can be more coherent—more logically structured—because it isn’t bound by dogma, cultural inertia, or institutional fear.

So no, I wasn’t arguing that AI has consciousness or insight into the human soul. I was saying that, technically speaking, it can produce ethical frameworks that are clearer, more consistent, and up-to-date with modern knowledge. That’s not miraculous. That’s text prediction with access to a gigantic library.

It becomes coherent by dropping some bits. But is it dropping the correct bits? Who knows?

Now, let me ask you directly—are you serious when you say I’m giving AI “miraculous abilities to achieve things that humans cannot”? Miraculous?! I’ve said it can track data at scale, manage complex systems, and optimize logistics. That’s not magic. That’s what software already does in hundreds of industries today. When I describe systems that can manage supply chains or predict energy needs, I’m talking about what already exists, just taken a few steps further.

It's miraculous in the sense of being so astonishingly perfect and effective.

So if you see me as an “enthusiast,” that’s fine—but I’m an enthusiast with guardrails. I want to see what these tools can do to reduce suffering, waste, and inequality—not because they’re better than us, but because they don’t suffer like we do. That makes them powerful assistants—but terrible leaders.

Consider that one idea : "reduce inequality".

Is that good? Is that what we want and need? How much should inequality be reduced? How should it be done?

Is AI going to be told to "reduce inequality" and it decides how to do it?

What happens if suddenly we find that it has some negative consequences? Are we going to be able to turn it off, to go back?