Top
Best
New

Posted by colesantiago 10/29/2025

Life After Work(www.mechanize.work)
35 points | 93 commentspage 3
triceratops 10/29/2025|
> a tenfold increase in GDP represents a very conservative estimate of how much full automation could increase economic output. If this modest increase were reflected proportionally in US tax revenues we could resolve all current Social Security funding shortfalls

This would require a fundamental rewriting of Social Security funding law. Right now it's funded solely by payroll taxes. Read: mass automation will be utterly devastating for Social Security because there will be no paychecks to withhold taxes on.

If the author's predictions actually come to pass, it will look a lot like a wealth tax. The current political and economic elites are extremely allergic to anything resembling that.

> Progressive income taxation is a central pillar of government revenue in most high-income countries around the world. If the rich could effectively coordinate to eliminate income redistribution, they would have abolished this system long ago

Hopelessly naive. Rich people are rich because of their assets. Not their income.

oramit 10/29/2025||
I had to check the year on this post because I couldn't believe someone could post something this naive in 2025.
trial3 10/29/2025||
i don’t think you’re supposed to read this if you don’t have “e/acc” in your twitter bio

> Historical precedent: child labor

amazing start. crushing it already

> Consider Qatar as a point of comparison. Migrant workers make up roughly 94% of the country’s workforce, yet only Qatari citizens, who make up the remaining 6%, are eligible to receive most government welfare benefits. As a result, Qatari citizens enjoy remarkable prosperity, with minimum pensions valued at over $5,700 per month and an early retirement age of 50.

consider: the upsides of doing slavery. a libertarian utopia of remarkable prosperity

> Future humans might gain entirely new senses, develop completely new ways to communicate, and expand our minds beyond recognition. From our present vantage point, we may become gods.

this is actually ripped directly from the closing paragraph of Don’t Create The Torment Nexus

qsort 10/29/2025||
I think the idea is that once we have AI that can use AI to help AI build AI we're so wealthy that we can afford to live lives of leisure. Naturally in that scenario shortly thereafter everyone dies, but we don't talk about that part.
SketchySeaBeast 10/29/2025||
Which isn't even true. We aren't all wealthy, those people who own the compute for the AI become wealthy. The rest of us, whose only value was labour, stop having value.
indigodaddy 10/29/2025||
Yeah I also thought these comparisons were a bit odd/off-putting. But I guess they must have thought that transmogrifying from slave to AI worker would strip away the stigma? Not sure if..
alastairr 10/29/2025||
This is incredibly shallow, and feels almost bordering on a type of delusion. Even if you agree that all labour _could_ be automated, it's highly debatable whether you'd want it to be. A lot of human society is for humans and by humans, and that is a good thing. We are social animals, automation of every task is not desirable to say the least.
sp4cec0wb0y 10/29/2025|
This point is becoming self evident in the rejection of generative AI by the broader populace. Maybe I am in a bubble, but it seems that everyone except tech bros (those who have something to gain in adoption) hate generative AI. Creation is what makes us humans enjoy life. No one (real) wants to automate the humanities.
alastairr 10/29/2025||
I agree, though it's hard to tell what people outside the tech sphere are signalling about what they think about the tech - many seem to be pretty positive about chatgpt.

What concerns me is that I don't think it's widely understood enough that there's a frantic, cultish mindset around the tech in SV and tech circles - a mindset that wants to see society upended in search of justifying the investments being made.

1-more 10/29/2025||
Pyotr Kropotkin in _The Conquest of Bread_ writes the following conclusion about the advent of greenhouse agriculture and steam power and what they mean for European labor at the turn of the 20th century. It's a communist (well, they'd argue about that) book so it's got a lot of numbers and no great punchy pull quote, so this is as succinct as I can be:

> In basing the maintenance of these 150 acres on the Jersey average, requiring the work of three men per acre under glass—which makes less than 8,600 hours of work a year—it would need about 1,300,000 hours for the 150 acres. Fifty competent gardeners could give five hours a day to this work, and the rest would be simply done by people who, without being gardeners by profession, would soon learn how to use a spade, and to handle the plants. But this work would yield at least—we have seen it in a preceding chapter—all necessaries and articles of luxury in the way of fruit and vegetables for at least 40,000 or 50,000 people. Let us admit that among this number there are 13,500 adults, willing to work at the kitchen garden; then, each one would have to give 100 hours a year distributed over the whole year. These hours of work would become hours of recreation spent among friends and children in beautiful gardens, more beautiful probably than those of the legendary Semiramis.

> This is the balance sheet of the labour to be spent in order to be able to eat to satiety fruit which we are deprived of today, and to have vegetables in abundance, now so scrupulously rationed out by the housewife, when she has to reckon each half-penny which must go to enrich capitalists and landowners.

The work week has gotten much shorter since this was written, no doubt about that. But we keep aiming for ~5 hours a week with the profits of our higher mechanized productivity spread out among everyone and somehow we keep missing that one.

monkeyboykin 10/29/2025||
These AI bros are getting too high sniffing their own farts. They need to do a tour of duty doing actual manufacturing automation work.
buildsjets 10/29/2025||
Been working at it for 30 years, and we still cant fully automate the drilling of all holes and installation of all threaded fasteners in large aircraft primary structure. Hundreds of millions, potentially billions invested.
dwpdwpdwpdwpdwp 10/29/2025||
>>> "For each human, there could be thousands of robots, effectively an army of tireless servants for each individual."

yeah, blog at me after a few years of managing even a small fleet of robots

cool_man_bob 10/29/2025||
> In our lifetimes, we may see fully realistic virtual reality, abundant fusion power, cognitive enhancement through brain augmentation, mind uploading, relativistic space travel, unlimited personalized entertainment, full control over our genomes, ultra-luxurious hypersonic air travel, and extremely pleasurable drugs that carry no major side effects.

Promised before. It was a lie then, it will be a lie now.

Seriously though is this sort of stuff just nostalgia bait for people who were naive enough to believe it the last time?

sp4cec0wb0y 10/29/2025|
This is for people who read "Ready Player One" and thought it was a utopia. Those who soy over their tech fetishisms.
jimbokun 10/29/2025||
TLDR: AI automating all jobs away is OK because UBI.
SketchySeaBeast 10/29/2025|
Yes, yes, we will definitely get UBI, the government will absolutely be able to extract the required wealth from the few techno-feudal lords who control the entirety of humanity's compute.
jimbokun 10/31/2025||
I'm summarizing what I perceive to be the argument, not agreeing with it.
xivzgrev 10/29/2025||
lol. Money is used to allocate resources. Most people sell their time to earn money. So if people don't have job anymore, theyre screwed if they don't have money, and they're screwed if they get a "universal income" or something. Why? Because everyone gets it, so how do you allocate scarce resources?

Suppose 1000 people live in a town where half own homes and half rent. A home comes up for sale and assume all renters want to own a home. If every renter is receiving the same income, who gets the house?

In today's world, whoever pays the most money. In this future world, maybe still the same (so who has the saved the most and can pay cash), or maybe alternative payments / bartering on the side to sweeten the deal.

Either way it's not this utopia where suddenly everyone can afford scarce resources - the price will just go up to remain scarce

riehwvfbk 10/29/2025||
It's not as much "lol" as what's implied, you have to read between the lines a bit. Their example is Qatar, a tiny elite supported by slaves. And in the brave new world we'll have a tiny elite supported by AI slaves. Left unsaid is what will happen to those for whom there is no place within the tiny elite.

There are two possibilities: mass extinction, or the new elite isn't tiny. Everyone hopes for the latter and fears the former.

DontchaKnowit 10/29/2025||
This makes no sense to me. Work is needed only because there is scarcity. If no humans are needed to work, that means there is not serious scarcity.
delegate 10/29/2025|
I'm very skeptical about such a future. The 'world' is already high tech. We're already drowning in products and entertainment.

At the same time, a million people talk to chatgpt about suicide each week, there's an epidemic of loneliness, mental health issues, wars, famines, pollution, climate change and the list goes on.

Work is not just about earning wages. A lot of people find a sense of purpose, a sense of belonging, community, pride and joy in the work they do. For many it's also about the hierarchy, the title, the career ladder, etc.

I for one don't see how more automation / tech is going to fix the fundamental problems that the previous waves of automation have left behind.