I should probably preface this with the caveat that this is purely my hypothesis, and I can’t speak for Other Sam in any official capacity…but in a fantastic article from 2016 titled Sam Altman’s Manifest Destiny (absolutely worth reading), he did plenty of speaking for himself, and that article sent me down a Sam Altman rabbit hole.
I have a few reservations. As Larry David would say, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Scarcity is a real problem, but the way resources are being used are very much not promoting long-lasting goods. The two most valuable items of property a person can own is a house and a car. AI will certainly help users with cheap services, but it's not contributing to lower cost of building large things- like houses and cars. I think robotics will be great towards lowering the cost of constructing a pre-fabbed home, but one thing that might need to change for home ownership to become affordable is zoning. In some places, wealthier individuals move out of state to avoid paying high taxes, leaving the burden of development to lower income families. It seems clear that the cycle of debt is perpetuated by unobtainable homeownership. I write about this here:
The most manufactured processor in history is the ARM7TDMI: https://m.hexus.net/business/news/components/148534-arm-celebrates-passing-200-billion-chips-shipped-milestone/ Over 10 billion of these cell phone chips were produced (some estimates say 20-30billion). There aren't even 9 billion people on the planet yet. Yet, 1-2 billion people do not have internet access. In a more perfect world (everyone could afford a phone), old phones would be refurbished and handed down. These are products that do not need to be disposed every 5 years. It just so happens that cell phone towers get upgraded and the modems no longer work on 2G and 3G in some regions. My definition of abundance is durability, because manufacturing has an environmental limit. There are limits to growth.
The problem I have with things like fusion, despite its relative safety, is that these are not technologies that will have worldwide accessibility anytime soon. One cannot export or construct a pop-up fusion plant to the middle of a warzone and expect it to not get sabotaged. There's no way to construct it in "last mile" regions. Even if thousands of fusion plants could be build, would they also desalinate the ocean water, so that there is enough potable water for 9+ billion people?
In Malcom Gladwell's book Blink, he has a chapter on Red Teaming. Analog communication was inconceivable to the Blue Team: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 A lot of people seem to be super optimistic about AI and Starlink, almost as if they have this Blue Team mentality. But there are also potentially issues with technologies of centralization, and that's what Blue Team is largely based on- asymmetrical conflict. One doesn't need to look much further than geopolitical events to see potential red-teams seeking disrupt blue-team technology, simply because it is an attempt to maintain a balance of power: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/17/us/politics/us-china-global-spy-operations.html
When I think of abundance, I think of 5 different radio frequencies that can't easily be jammed (e.g. shortwave, LF, AM, FM, 600MHZ, 1800MHz,etc). The technology that can support this at a portable level isn't necessarily a priority of Big Tech- most investments are in datacenters, rather than local-first computing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxscM_jFHpk), and it serves as a safeguard to centralization. Decentralized networks aren't without their risks either (e.g. IMSI-catchers), but at least offer an alternative in a worst-case scenario.
Agreed on durability. Planned obsolescence and decisions made to degrade quality in the name of profit really chap my ass.
As for decentralization, pros and cons. I think we need some centralization—for example, I believe we need to unify as Humans of Earth above and beyond any other tribal affiliation—but the governance from that point should probably be distributed. Or if not distributed, at least not run by the equivalent of a beauty pageant.
As for distribution, most of the limitations there are ties to greed, not capability. We’re already more than capable of producing all the power, food, and water needed for everyone. We just need the bloodsucking parasites to be removed so “water gets to the end of the row”.
AI and robotics, optimally applied, will almost certainly lead to the end of money and “for money” jobs, which is a good thing. And where I think Sam Altman is aiming. The question is, how hard will those who are winning the current game fight to keep that game from changing…
I have a few reservations. As Larry David would say, "Curb Your Enthusiasm." Scarcity is a real problem, but the way resources are being used are very much not promoting long-lasting goods. The two most valuable items of property a person can own is a house and a car. AI will certainly help users with cheap services, but it's not contributing to lower cost of building large things- like houses and cars. I think robotics will be great towards lowering the cost of constructing a pre-fabbed home, but one thing that might need to change for home ownership to become affordable is zoning. In some places, wealthier individuals move out of state to avoid paying high taxes, leaving the burden of development to lower income families. It seems clear that the cycle of debt is perpetuated by unobtainable homeownership. I write about this here:
https://github.com/hatonthecat/Post-scarcity
https://medium.com/p/93b5e2b3b69c (cars)
The most manufactured processor in history is the ARM7TDMI: https://m.hexus.net/business/news/components/148534-arm-celebrates-passing-200-billion-chips-shipped-milestone/ Over 10 billion of these cell phone chips were produced (some estimates say 20-30billion). There aren't even 9 billion people on the planet yet. Yet, 1-2 billion people do not have internet access. In a more perfect world (everyone could afford a phone), old phones would be refurbished and handed down. These are products that do not need to be disposed every 5 years. It just so happens that cell phone towers get upgraded and the modems no longer work on 2G and 3G in some regions. My definition of abundance is durability, because manufacturing has an environmental limit. There are limits to growth.
The problem I have with things like fusion, despite its relative safety, is that these are not technologies that will have worldwide accessibility anytime soon. One cannot export or construct a pop-up fusion plant to the middle of a warzone and expect it to not get sabotaged. There's no way to construct it in "last mile" regions. Even if thousands of fusion plants could be build, would they also desalinate the ocean water, so that there is enough potable water for 9+ billion people?
In Malcom Gladwell's book Blink, he has a chapter on Red Teaming. Analog communication was inconceivable to the Blue Team: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002 A lot of people seem to be super optimistic about AI and Starlink, almost as if they have this Blue Team mentality. But there are also potentially issues with technologies of centralization, and that's what Blue Team is largely based on- asymmetrical conflict. One doesn't need to look much further than geopolitical events to see potential red-teams seeking disrupt blue-team technology, simply because it is an attempt to maintain a balance of power: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/17/us/politics/us-china-global-spy-operations.html
When I think of abundance, I think of 5 different radio frequencies that can't easily be jammed (e.g. shortwave, LF, AM, FM, 600MHZ, 1800MHz,etc). The technology that can support this at a portable level isn't necessarily a priority of Big Tech- most investments are in datacenters, rather than local-first computing (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxscM_jFHpk), and it serves as a safeguard to centralization. Decentralized networks aren't without their risks either (e.g. IMSI-catchers), but at least offer an alternative in a worst-case scenario.
Agreed on durability. Planned obsolescence and decisions made to degrade quality in the name of profit really chap my ass.
As for decentralization, pros and cons. I think we need some centralization—for example, I believe we need to unify as Humans of Earth above and beyond any other tribal affiliation—but the governance from that point should probably be distributed. Or if not distributed, at least not run by the equivalent of a beauty pageant.
As for distribution, most of the limitations there are ties to greed, not capability. We’re already more than capable of producing all the power, food, and water needed for everyone. We just need the bloodsucking parasites to be removed so “water gets to the end of the row”.
AI and robotics, optimally applied, will almost certainly lead to the end of money and “for money” jobs, which is a good thing. And where I think Sam Altman is aiming. The question is, how hard will those who are winning the current game fight to keep that game from changing…