Mike Lorrey writes:
>> >> I did not assume machine slavery, ...
>> >
>> >Uh, I don't think so. If all AI machines were treated with a slave
>> >existence, then biological humanity as a whole would develop an
>> >aristocratic level of wealth based on the uncompensated profits from the
>> >productivity of the AI machines. ...
>>
>> Perhaps, but I don't at all see how this is contrary to what I said.
>
>Well, for example, if the average compensation level for a machine
>intelligence were $0.00, while the average compensasion level for a biological
>human level intelligence were $30,000.00, you could state accurately that the
>average wage level would drop to $15,000.00 if half the work force were AI.
>However, no legally human entity's wage would drop. Moreover, since the
>biological human's productivity would be seen to rise (as the AI's he or she
>manages increase their productivity), then the human's wage should rise to
>compensate for this rise in productivity. This sceanario directly contradicts
>the implied conclusions of your paper, that introduction of machine
>intelligence would lead to poverty for all....
I did not say "poverty for all". My results are consistent with either of these extremes: humans get all consumption, or they are get just as much per capita as machine intelligences. Perhaps you could read what I said before you disagree with it? (see http://hanson.berkeley.edu/aigrow.pdf)
Robin Hanson
hanson@econ.berkeley.edu http://hanson.berkeley.edu/
RWJF Health Policy Scholar, Sch. of Public Health 510-643-1884
140 Warren Hall, UC Berkeley, CA 94720-7360 FAX: 510-643-8614