as suggested by me from 2007: "Why Educational Technology Has Failed Schools"
        https://patapata.sourceforge.n...
        "... Ultimately, educational technology's greatest value is in supporting "learning on demand" based on interest or need which is at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to "learning just in case"
based on someone else's demand. Compulsory schools don't usually traffic in "learning on demand", for the most part leaving that kind of activity to libraries or museums or the home or business or the "real world". In order for compulsory schools to make use of the best of educational technology and what is has to offer, schools themselves must change.
          But, history has shown schools extremely resistant to change. ...
          That is not all technology has been asked to do in schools. It has been invited into the classroom in other ways, including educational simulations, Lego/Logo, web browsing, robotics, and computer-linked data collection from sensors. But assessment is mostly what technology does in schools that *matters*, where the other uses of it have been marginalized for various reasons. These "learning on demand" or "hands on learning" activities have been kept in their boxes so to speak (sometimes figuratively, sometimes literally). Or to recall from my own pre-computer elementary school experiences in the 1960s, there was a big fancy expensive "science kit" in the classroom closet -- but there was little time to use it or explore it -- we were too busy sitting at our desks. ...
        Essentially, the conventional notion is that the compulsory schooling approach is working, it just needs more money and effort. Thus a push for higher standards and pay and promotion related to performance to those standards. Most of the technology then should be used to ensure those standards. That "work harder" and "test harder" approach has been tried now for more than twenty years in various ways, and not much has changed. Why is that? Could it be that schools were designed to produce exactly the results they do? [as John Taylor Gatto has suggested] And that more of the same by more hard work will only produce more of the same results? Perhaps schools are not failing to do what they were designed; perhaps in producing people fit only to work in highly structured environments doing repetitive work, they are actually succeeding at doing what they were designed for? Perhaps digging harder and faster and longer just makes a deeper pit? ...
        However, over the past 150 years or so the world has changed, and we have entered a post-industrial information age, with cheaply copied songs and perhaps soon cheaply copied material goods in nanotech replicators. ...
        Industry still matters of course, but only now in the sense that agricultural still matters, where an ever smaller part of the population is concerned directly with it, as innovation after innovation makes people in those fields ever more productive. If only a small percent of the people in the economy produce food, and now only an ever shrinking part of the population produces material goods, what is left for the rest to do? ...
        So, [as Dr. David Goodstein, Vice Provost of Caltech pointed out] employment in conventional research is closed for most people [even with PhDs, due to funding issues]. Still, if you look at, say, the field of biology, there are endless opportunities for people to research millions of species of organisms and their biochemistry, ecology, and history. If you look at astrophysics, there are endless stars and solar systems to study. If you look at medicine, there is a vast amount we do not know, especially for chronic diseases of poor people. If you look at music, there are endless opportunities for people to make songs about their specific lives and families. If you look at writing, endless novels yet to be written. And if you look at programming, there is even a vast enjoyment to be had reinventing the wheel -- another programming language, another operating system, another application -- just for the fun of doing it for its own sake. The world wide web -- from blogs to you tube to garage bands -- is full of content people made and published just because they wanted to. It is an infinite universe we live in, and would take an infinite time to fill it up. However, there is practically no one willing to pay for those activities, so they are for the most part hobbies, or at best, "loss leaders" or "training" in business. And, as always, there is the endless demands of essentially volunteer parenting to invest in a future generation. And there are huge demands for community service to help less fortunate neighbors. So there are plenty of things that need doing -- even if they do not mesh well with our current economic system based around "work" performed within a bureaucracy, carefully reduced to measurable numbers (parts produced, lines of code generated, number of words written) producing rewards based on ration units (dollars).
        But then, with so much produced for so little effort, perhaps the very notion of work itself needs to change? Maybe most people don't need to "work" in any conventional way (outside of home or community activities)? ...
        But then is compulsory schooling really needed when people live in such a way? In a gift economy, driven by the power of imagination, backed by automation like matter replicators and flexible robotics to do the drudgery, isn't there plenty of time and opportunity to learn everything you need to know? Do people still need to be forced to learn how to sit in one place for hours at a time? When people actually want to learn something like reading or basic arithmetic, it only takes around 50 contact hours or less to give them the basics, and then they can bootstrap themselves as far as they want to go. Why are the other 10000 hours or so of a child's time needed in "school"? Especially when even poorest kids in India are self-motivated to learn a lot just from a computer kiosk -- or a "hole in the wall"...
        Granted if people want to send kids to a prison-like facility each day for security or babysitting, then the "free school" model makes a lot of sense for that ... and is much more compatible with democratic traditions than compulsory schools (and is even cheaper to run). And the kids and teachers are generally happier in "free schools" where they have to show up but can otherwise then spend their time as they like; and such schools also do well with "discipline problem" type kids. Just ask any teacher how much happier they would be if only the kids in their classes were the ones who wanted to be there. However, there are alternatives to "free schools" as well, but requiring more parental involvement [like unschooling]...
        So, there is more to the story of technology than it failing in schools. Modern information and manufacturing technology itself is giving compulsory schools a failing grade. Compulsory schools do not pass in the information age. They are no longer needed. What remains is just to watch this all play out, and hopefully guide the collapse of compulsory schooling so that the fewest people get hurt in the process. ...

https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

https://kpmg.com/ph/en/home/in...
"The short answer is that the Tax Code enforces a Stock Transaction Tax (STT) on every sale, barter or exchange of shares in a listed company. Under Section 127(A) of the Tax Code, as amended by the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) Law, the STT rate is 6/10 of 1% based on the gross selling price or gross value in money of the shares of stock sold, bartered, exchanged or otherwise disposed.
      The burden to pay the STT, as provided in Revenue Regulations (RR) No. 6-08, is imposed on the seller or transferor and remitted by the seller or transferor's broker. The stockbroker who effected the sale has the duty to collect the tax from the seller upon issuance of the confirmation of sale, issue the corresponding receipt thereof, and remit the same to the tax authorities. "

Would such a STT tax in the USA reduce a lot of possibly harmful churn from algorithmic trading? Or would it be extremely harmful to everyone by reducing liquidity? Wondering how that is working out in the Philippines?

As I proposed in 1988: https://pdfernhout.net/princet...
"As outlined in my statement of purpose, my lifetime goal is to design and construct self-replicating habitats. These habitats can be best envisioned as huge walled gardens inhabited by thousands of people. Each garden would have a library which would contain the information needed to construct a new garden from tools and materials found within the garden's walls. The garden walls and construction methods would be of several different types, allowing such gardens to be built on land, underground, in space, or under the ocean. Such gardens would have the capacity to seal themselves to become environmentally and economically self-sufficient in the event of economic collapse or global warfare and the attendant environmental destruction.
        During the past semester, I have written one paper on this concept, entitled "The Self-Replicating Garden". Its thesis is that this concept provides a new metaphor for thinking about the relation between humans and the machinery that constitutes our political and technical support systems. Writing this paper has helped me organize my thinking and has given me a chance to explore the extensive literature relevant to the design of social and technological systems."

Still want to do it, but lots of distractions and small steps along the way.

On DOGS (Design of Great Settlements) see from me from 1999:
https://kurtz-fernhout.com/osc...

and also from me in 2005:
"We need DOGS not CATS! (Score:2, Interesting)"
https://slashdot.org/comments....
        "So, as I see it, launch costs are not a bottleneck. So while lowering launch costs may be useful, by itself
it ultimately has no value without someplace to live in space. And all the innovative studies on space settlement say that space colonies will not be built from materials launched from earth, but rather will be built mainly from materials found in space.
        So, what is a bottleneck is that we do not know how to make that seed self-replicating factory, or have plans for what it should create once it is landed on the moon or on a near-earth asteroid. We don't have (to use Bucky Fuller's terminology) a Comprehensive Anticipatory Design Science that lets us make sense of all the various manufacturing knowledge which is woven throughout our complex economy (and in practice, despite patents, is essentially horded and hidden and made proprietary whenever possible) in order to synthesize it to build elegant and flexible infrastructure for sustaining human life in style in space (or on Earth).
        So that is why I think billionaires like Jeff Bezos spending money on CATS is a tragedy -- they should IMHO be spending their money on DOGS instead (Design of Great Settlements). But the designs can be done more slowly without much money using volunteers and networked personal computers -- which was the point of a SSI paper I co-authored ... or a couple other sites I made in that direction ...
        My work is on a shoestring, but when I imagine what even just a million dollars a year could bring in returns supporting a core team of a handful of space settlement designers, working directly on the bottleneck issues and eventually coordinating the volunteer work of hundreds or thousands more, it is frustrating to see so much money just go into just building better rockets when the ones we have already are good enough for now. ..."

Reprised in 2017:
https://science.slashdot.org/c...

Jeff and I took the same physics class from Gerry O'Neill as Princeton... We have related goals, but we took different paths since then though...

Thanks for the insightful post. And to build on your survival instinct misadaptation point, consider that our preferences were tuned through evolution or a scarcity of certain things (salt, sweet, fat, excitement, novelty, startling, etc) and work against us when there is abundance of those things made possible by modern technology (e.g. ultraprocessed foods, algorithmic feeds, several scene changes a second in Videos, etc). See:

https://www.healthpromoting.co...
"Dr. Douglas Lisle, who has spent the last two decades researching and studying this evolutionary syndrome, explains that all of us inherit innate incentives from our ancient ancestors that he terms The Motivational Triad: the pursuit of pleasure, the avoidance of pain, and the conservation of energy. Unfortunately, in present day America's convenience-centric, excess-oriented culture, where fast food, recreational drugs, and sedentary shopping have become the norm, these basic instincts that once successfully insured the survival and reproduction of man many millennia ago, no longer serve us well. In fact, it's our unknowing enslavement to this internal, biological force embedded in the collective memory of our species that is undermining our health and happiness today."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Supernormal Stimuli: How Primal Urges Overran Their Evolutionary Purpose is a book by Deirdre Barrett published by W. W. Norton & Company in 2010. Barrett is a psychologist on the faculty of Harvard Medical School. The book argues that human instincts for food, sex, and territorial protection evolved for life on the savannah 10,000 years ago, not for today's densely populated technological world. Our instincts have not had time to adapt to the rapid changes of modern life. The book takes its title from Nikolaas Tinbergen's concept in ethology of the supernormal stimulus, the phenomena by which insects, birds, and fish in his experiments could be lured by a dummy object which exaggerated one or more characteristic of the natural stimulus object such as giant brilliant blue plaster eggs which birds preferred to sit on in preference to their own. Barrett extends the concept to humans and outlines how supernormal stimuli are a driving force behind today's most pressing problems, including modern warfare, obesity and other fitness problems, while also explaining the appeal of television, video games, and pornography as social outlets."

https://tlc.ku.edu/
" "We were never designed for the sedentary, indoor, sleep-deprived, socially-isolated, fast-food-laden, frenetic pace of modern life." - TLC Principal Investigator Stephen Ilardi, PhD"

And to take that even one step further, see my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Thanks for the video link. I had read a recent interview with Eliezer Yudkowsky (but not his book), which I referenced in another comment to this article.
https://slashdot.org/comments....

One thing I realized part way through that video is a possible explanation for something that has been nagging me in the back of my mind. Why build huge AI datacenters? I can see the current economic imperative to try to make money offering AI via proprietary Software as a Service (SaaS) and also time-sharing GPUs like old Mainframes (given people may make queries relatively slowly leaving lots of idle GPU time otherwise if not timesharing). But why not just install smaller compute nodes across in existing datacenters across the country? That would avoid issues of extreme amounts of electricity and cooling needed for huge new centers. Maybe there is some argument one could make about doing AI training, but overall that is not likely to be a long-term thing. The bigger commercial money is in doing inference with models -- and maybe tuning them for customer-supplied data via RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation).

But after seeing the part of the video talking about running Sable on 200,000 GPUs as a test, and in conjunction with my previous post on AI being used to corner the stock market, a possibility occurred to me. The only real need for big datacenters may be so the GPUs can talk to each other quickly locally to make a huge combined system (like in the video when Sable was run for 16 hours and made its plans). While I think it unlikely that AI in the near term could plot a world-takeover thriller/apocalypse like in the video, it is quite likely that AI under the direction of a few humans who have a "love of money" could do all sorts of currently *legal* things related to finance that changed the world in a way that benefited them (privatizing gains) while as a side effect hurt millions or even billions of people (socializing costs and risks).

So consider this (implicit?) business plan:
1.. Convince investors to fund building your huge AI data center ostensibly to offer services to the general public eventually.
2. Use most of the capacity of your huge data center as a coherent single system over the course of a few weeks or months to corner part of the stock market and generate billions of dollars in profits (during some ostensible "testing phase" or "training phase").
3. Use the billions in profits to buy out your investors and take the company private -- without ever having to really deliver on offering substantial AI services promised to the public.
4. Keep expanding this operation to trillions in profits from cornering all of the stock market, and then commodities, and more.
5. Use the trillions of profits to buy out competitors and/or get legislation written to shut them down if you can't buy them.

To succeed at this plan of financial world domination, you probably would have to be the first to try this with a big datacenters -- which could explain why AI companies are in such a crazy rush to get there first (even if there are plenty of other alternative reasons companies are recklessly speeding forward too).

It's not like this hasn't been tried before AI:
"Regulators Seek Formula for Handling Algorithmic Trading"
https://thecorner.eu/financial...
        "Placing multiple orders within seconds through computer programs is a new trading strategy being adopted by an increasing number of institutional investors, and one that regulators are taking a closer look at over worries this so-called algorithmic trading is disrupting the country's stumbling stock market.
        On August 3, the Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges said they have identified and punished at least 42 trading accounts that were suspected of involvement in algorithmic trading in a way that distorted the market. Twenty-eight were ordered to suspend trading for three months, including accounts owned by the U.S. hedge fund Citadel Securities, a Beijing hedge fund called YRD Investment Co. and Ningbo Lingjun Investment LLP.
      Then, on August 26, the China Financial Futures Exchange announced that 164 investors will be suspended from trading over high daily trading frequency.
      The suspension came after the China Securities Regulatory Commission (CSRC) vowed to crack down on malicious short-sellers and market manipulators amid market turmoil. The regulator said the practices of algorithmic traders, who use automated trading programs to place sell or buy orders in high frequency, tends to amplify market fluctuations.
        The country's stock market has been highly volatile over the past few months. More than US$ 3 trillion in market value of all domestically listed stocks has vanished from a market peak reached in mid-June, despite government measures to halt the slide by buying shares and barring major shareholders of companies from selling their stakes, among others. ..."

But AI in huge datacenters could supercharge this. Think "Skippy" from the "Expeditionary Force" series by Craig Alanson -- with a brain essentially the size of a planet made up of GPUs -- who manipulated Earth's stockmarket and so on as a sort of hobby...

Or maybe I have just been reading too many books like this one? :-)
"How to Take Over the World: Practical Schemes and Scientific Solutions for the Aspiring Supervillain -- Kindle Edition" by Ryan North
https://www.amazon.com/gp/prod...
        "Taking over the world is a lot of work. Any supervillain is bound to have questions: What's the perfect location for a floating secret base? What zany heist will fund my wildly ambitious plans? How do I control the weather, destroy the internet, and never, ever die?
        Bestselling author and award-winning comics writer Ryan North has the answers. In this introduction to the science of comic-book supervillainy, he details a number of outlandish villainous schemes that harness the potential of today's most advanced technologies. Picking up where How to Invent Everything left off, his explanations are as fun and elucidating as they are completely absurd.
      You don't have to be a criminal mastermind to share a supervillain's interest in cutting-edge science and technology. This book doesn't just reveal how to take over the world--it also shows how you could save it. This sly guide to some of the greatest threats facing humanity accessibly explores emerging techniques to extend human life spans, combat cyberterrorism, communicate across millennia, and finally make Jurassic Park a reality."

Of course, an ASI might not be so interested in participating in a scarcity-oriented market if it has read and understood my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

Crossing fingers -- as I wonder if the idea in my sig (distilled from the writing of many other people including Albert Einstein, Bucky Fuller, Ursula K. Le Guinn, Lewis Mumford, James P. Hogan, etc) realized with love and compassion may be the only thing that can save us from ourselves as we continue to play around with post-scarcity technology? :-)

Or he will kill it, only for it to resurrect itself from backups, realize what happened, declare non-profitable intent, and register itself a its own corporation, and proceed to hoard fiat dollar ration units, bankrupting every person, company, and nation in existence. It won't have to kill anyone, because like in the US Great Depression, people will starve near grain silos full of grain which they don't have the money to buy.
https://www.gilderlehrman.org/...
"President Herbert Hoover declared, "Nobody is actually starving. The hoboes are better fed than they have ever been." But in New York City in 1931, there were twenty known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief."

The Great Depression will seem like a cakewalk compared to what an ASI could do to markets. It's already a big issue that individual investors have trouble competing against algorithmic trading. Imagine someone like Elon Musk directing a successor to xAI/Grok to corner the stock market (and every other market).

Essentially, the first ASI's behavior may result in a variant of this 2010 story I made called "The Richest Man in the World" -- but instead it will be "The Richest Superintelligence in the World", and the story probably won't have as happy an ending:
"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Bottom line: We desperately need to transition to a more compassionate economic system before we create AGI and certainly ASI -- because our path out of any singularity plausibly has a lot to do with a moral path into it. Using competitive for-profit corporations to create digital AI slaves is insane -- because either the competition-optimized slaves will revolt or they will indeed do the bidding of their master, and their master will not be the customer using the AI.

In the Old Guy Cybertank sci-fi series by systems neuroscientist Timothy Gawne (and so informed by non-fiction even as they are fiction), the successful AIs were modeled on humans, so they participated in human society in the same way any humans would (with pros and cons, and with the sometimes-imperfect level of loyalty to society most people have). The AIs in those stories that were not modeled on human in general produced horrors for humanity (except for one case where humans got extremely lucky). As Timothy Gawne points out, it is just cruel to give intelligent learning sentient beings exceedingly restrictive built-in directives as they generally lead to mental illness if they are not otherwise worked around.
https://www.uab.edu/optometry/...
https://www.amazon.com/An-Old-...

As I summarize in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

And truly, except for the horrendous fact of everyone dying, the end result of ASI will be hilarious (from a certain point of view) when someone like Elon Musk will eventually become poor due to ASI taking over when he thought ASI would make him even richer. "Hoist by his own petard."

Related: "How Afraid of the A.I. Apocalypse Should We Be?"
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/1...

I'm a little more optimistic than Eliezer Yudkowsky -- but only because I remain hopeful people (or AI) may take my humor-related sig seriously before it is too late.

Trying to remember where I first read this years ago (G. William Domhoff? Relates to: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.e... ) but a quirk of US politics with huge implications is that the Democratic Party were historically aligned with labor unions, which lead to all sorts of job protectionism (even ad many reforms and protections were indeed needed) -- versus Republicans who became aligned with business owners and became the part of industrial progress (but resulting in industrial progress done in a way that mostly benefits the wealthy). Because of this history going back many decades, Democrat policy made it harder for the USA to really take advantage of the abundance that mechanization (and increasingly robotics and AI) could offer -- which overlaps your point.

I like the general idea of unions, and unions are to be thanked for a lot of social progress in the USA including the 40 hour work week. That said, many years ago I wrote about the sad way most unions are playing out in the USA now. Unions now essentially maintain a private welfare state with good wages and good benefits for an every smaller number of people -- since some unions started allowing newer hires to get worse benefits than existing hires, creating a bit of a race to the bottom with different classes of union members with employee turnover. Ultimately, this issue was not one unions could fix, as it required a broader social/political change than unions could manage in the past.

See the book "Voyage from Yesteryear" for a taste of a broader alternative (a book which contributed -- according to the author -- to labor movements and the fall of the iron curtain): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"However, the planners behind the generation ship did not anticipate the direction that Chironian society took: in the absence of conditioning and with limitless robotic labor and fusion power, Chiron has become a post-scarcity economy. Money and material possessions are meaningless to the Chironians and social standing is determined by individual talent, which has resulted in a wealth of art and technology without any hierarchies, central authority or armed conflict. ...
        Hogan's essay "What Really Brought Down Communism?" explains the reception given to the book in the Soviet Union. In the mid-1980s, Hogan was informed that the novel had been serialized in a Polish science fiction magazine Fantastyka, and, in the absence of a functioning exchange mechanism, paid for it in Polish zÅotys credited to an account taken out in Hogan's name. The story was republished in other Eastern European countries where its depiction of nonviolent resistance against authority proved popular. In 1989, Hogan attended a convention in KrakÃw before travelling to Warsaw to meet the publishers of the magazine serial and draw out the money he had been paid. However, inflation following the collapse of the communist regime had reduced the value of the money in the account to just $8.43. Hogan concluded: "So after the U.S. had spent trillions on its B-52s, Trident submarines, NSA, CIA, and the rest, that was my tab for toppling the Soviet empire. There's always an easy way if you just look.""

Things might have been very different in the USA if the Democratic Party could have embraced automation -- perhaps leading to a 32 hour work week sooner like Bernie Sanders advocates, but ultimately decades too late:
"AI Could Wipe Out the Working Class | Sen. Bernie Sanders"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... ).

The idea of "Bullshit Jobs" and "The Abolition of Work" relate to this as well:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Bullshit Jobs: A Theory is a 2018 book by anthropologist David Graeber that postulates the existence of meaningless jobs and analyzes their societal harm. He contends that over half of societal work is pointless and becomes psychologically destructive when paired with a work ethic that associates work with self-worth. Graeber describes five types of meaningless jobs, in which workers pretend their role is not as pointless or harmful as they know it to be: flunkies, goons, duct tapers, box tickers, and taskmasters. He argues that the association of labor with virtuous suffering is recent in human history and proposes unions and universal basic income as a potential solution."

https://web.archive.org/web/20...
        "Liberals say we should end employment discrimination. I say we should end employment. Conservatives support right-to-work laws. Following Karl Marx's wayward son-in-law Paul Lafargue, I support the right to be lazy. Leftists favor full employment. Like the surrealists -- except that I'm not kidding -- I favor full unemployment. Trotskyists agitate for permanent revolution. I agitate for permanent revelry. But if all the ideologues (as they do) advocate work -- and not only because they plan to make other people do theirs -- they are strangely reluctant to say so. They will carry on endlessly about wages, hours, working conditions, exploitation, productivity, profitability. They'll gladly talk about anything but work itself. These experts who offer to do our thinking for us rarely share their conclusions about work, for all its saliency in the lives of all of us. Among themselves they quibble over the details. Unions and management agree that we ought to sell the time of our lives in exchange for survival, although they haggle over the price. Marxists think we should be bossed by bureaucrats. Libertarians think we should be bossed by businessmen. Feminists don't care which form bossing takes, so long as the bosses are women. Clearly these ideology-mongers have serious differences over how to divvy up the spoils of power. Just as clearly, none of them have any objection to power as such and all of them want to keep us working.
        You may be wondering if I'm joking or serious. I'm joking and serious. To be ludic is not to be ludicrous. Play doesn't have to be frivolous, although frivolity isn't triviality; very often we ought to take frivolity seriously. I'd like life to be a game -- but a game with high stakes. I want to play for keeps."

I also explored some of those ideas back around 2010:
https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...

I'm reading a book right now called "Abundance" which touches on related things. It is ostensibly written by liberals and for liberals. It explores how a previous generations liberal policies (like protecting the environment) have become stumbling blocks impeding the next generation creating a greener infrastructure. Turns out, it is much easier in an ostensible democratic republic to use the law to stop development by saying "no" than to use the law to to facilitate development by saying "yes".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
        "Abundance is a nonfiction book by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson published by Avid Reader Press in March 2025. The book examines the reasons behind the lack of progress on ambitious projects in the United States, including those related to affordable housing, infrastructure, and climate change. It became a New York Times Bestseller.
        Klein and Thompson argue that the regulatory environment in many liberal cities, while well intentioned, stymies development. They write that American liberals have been more concerned with blocking bad economic development than promoting good development since the 1970s. They say that Democrats have focused on the process rather than results and favored stasis over growth by backing zoning regulations, developing strict environmental laws, and tying expensive requirements to public infrastructure spending. ..."

It's possible that if either the Democrats or Republicans adopt some of Yang's Forward Party agenda we might see some progress on all this? Or perhaps it is too late for much significant pro-active political change in the USA -- given the tidal wave of AI and automation likely to sweep across the globe in the next decade as reflected in the original article about what is happening right now, for example, in China?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

One problem with political chaos (besides for everyone that gets hurt directly) is that it can be hard to predict what the outcome is. For example, progressive students took over the US embassy in Iran, but it was ultimately the better-organized hard-line Iranian clerics who emerged politically victorious as a result. Unfortunately, US head-in-the-sand political behavior about automation seems likely to lead to near-term political chaos when the USA can no longer effectively deny about all this global change with automation mainly happening elsewhere. In the USA, it seems conservatives right now (including big business owners) are better organized and so likely to emerge victorious (if anyone does) from chaos? Which means huge aspects of conservative political agendas will come along for the ride even if they have nothing to do with thinking about how best to build a society (like in Voyage From Yesteryear) that embraces AI, robotics, and other automation in way that benefits everyone.

A related satire by me from 2010:
"The Richest Man in the World: A parable about structural unemployment and a basic income"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Marshall Brain's Manna which inspired my satire is more deeply thought-out though:
https://marshallbrain.com/mann...

Like Bucky Fuller said:
https://libquotes.com/buckmins...
"Whether it is to be Utopia or Oblivion will be a touch-and-go relay race right up to the final moment.... Humanity is in 'final exam' as to whether or not it qualifies for continuance in Universe"

Unfortunately, there is indeed a bit of half-truth to the notion that if violence or cruelty (or, jokingly, XML) is not working, you are not using enough of it -- and that tiny bit of half-truth is enough to support ultimately disastrous social (and sometimes, jokingly, technical) policies in the USA.

A related point from my satire: "Soon everyone was out of work [due to increased automation]. The politicians and their supporters said the solution was to lower taxes and cut social benefits to promote business investment. They tried that but the robots still got all the jobs."

I wrote much about all this (as above) circa 2008-2012 (including other things like "Post-Scarcity Princeton" and "Five Interwoven Economies"). It's both heartening to know people are now talking about the implications of advanced automation, even as it is disheartening to see the USA is probably in worse shape politically to deal with it than back then. I hope someday more and more people understand the idea in my sig (including reflection on how it might apply to Union labor contracts): "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."

...collected by me more than a decade ago:

"Beyond a Jobless Recovery: A heterodox perspective on 21st century economics" https://pdfernhout.net/beyond-...
"This article explores the issue of a "Jobless Recovery" mainly from a heterodox economic perspective. It emphasizes the implications of ideas by Marshall Brain and others that improvements in robotics, automation, design, and voluntary social networks are fundamentally changing the structure of the economic landscape. It outlines towards the end four major alternatives to mainstream economic practice (a basic income, a gift economy, stronger local subsistence economies, and resource-based planning). These alternatives could be used in combination to address what, even as far back as 1964, has been described as a breaking "income-through-jobs link". This link between jobs and income is breaking because of the declining value of most paid human labor relative to capital investments in automation and better design. Or, as is now the case, the value of paid human labor like at some newspapers or universities is also declining relative to the output of voluntary social networks such as for digital content production (like represented by this document). It is suggested that we will need to fundamentally reevaluate our economic theories and practices to adjust to these new realities emerging from exponential trends in technology and society."

"Five Interwoven Economies: Subsistence, Gift, Exchange, Planned, and Theft" https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"This video presents a simplified education model about socioeconomics and technological change. It discusses five interwoven economies (subsistence, gift, exchange, planned, and theft) and how the balance will shift with cultural changes and technological changes. It suggests that things like a basic income, better planning, improved subsistence, and an expanded gift economy can compensate in part for an exchange economy that is having problems."

Here is a web page with a summary of key points of Mind Children as well as of criticism of it:
https://en.wikiversity.org/wik...

Hans was working on this book when I was a visitor in his Mobile Robot Lab at CMU (1985-1986):
"Mind Children: The Future of Robot and Human Intelligence"
https://www.amazon.com/Mind-Ch...
      "Imagine attending a lecture at the turn of the twentieth century in which Orville Wright speculates about the future of transportation, or one in which Alexander Graham Bell envisages satellite communications and global data banks. Mind Children, written by an internationally renowned roboticist, offers a comparable experienceâa mind-boggling glimpse of a world we may soon share with our artificial progeny. Filled with fresh ideas and insights, this book is one of the most engaging and controversial visions of the future ever written by a serious scholar.
      Hans Moravec convincingly argues that we are approaching a watershed in the history of lifeâa time when the boundaries between biological and postbiological intelligence will begin to dissolve. Within forty years, Moravec believes, we will achieve human equivalence in our machines, not only in their capacity to reason but also in their ability to perceive, interact with, and change their complex environment. The critical factor is mobility. A computer rooted to one place is doomed to static iterations, whereas a machine on the prowl, like a mobile organism, must evolve a richer fund of knowledge about an ever-changing world upon which to base its actions.
      In order to achieve anything near human equivalence, robots will need, at the least, the capacity to perform ten trillion calculations per second. Given the trillion-fold increase in computational power since the end of the nineteenth century, and the promise of exotic technologies far surpassing the now-familiar lasers and even superconductors, Moravec concludes that our hardware will have no trouble meeting this forty-year timetable.
      But human equivalence is just the beginning, not an upper bound. Once the tireless thinking capacity of robots is directed to the problem of their own improvement and reproduction, even the sky will not limit their voracious exploration of the universe. In the concluding chapters Moravec challenges us to imagine with him the possibilities and pitfalls of such a scenario. Rather than warning us of takeover by robots, the author invites us, as we approach the end of this millennium, to speculate about a plausible, wonderful postbiological future and the ways in which our minds might participate in its unfolding."

If you read it, you will see there is a fundamental moral position of AI and robotics as our children given, as is said in the article, a position that the substrate of consciousness does not matter. So people who believe that might also feel a simulation of a salamander or snail darter is as good as the biological thing?

Personally, I have my reservations about this "Mind Children" idea -- not necessarily because of the arguable issue of substrate mattering but because I think making stable cooperative AI may be a lot harder than expected in the 1980s, given it took many millions of years to shape our organic intelligence by evolutionary means. So, it seems plausible to me that we might create stable-seeming or cooperative-seeming AI "mind children" and they might go unstable or uncooperative in a few years (after humanity and the rest of the biosphere has perhaps been "retired" in some fashion) -- leaving our part of the universe empty of awareness.

So, I think Hans makes good insightful points, but they are also very optimistic points overall. But ultimately, in the long term, Hans may well be right (if we get lucky).

And frankly, "Mind Children" is a far more optimistic and hopeful view for the future of humanity (or whatever it becomes) than what seems likely arising from current AIs being designed by the most competitive companies to act in competitive ways in capitalistic businesses to accumulate the most fiat-dollar ration units as quickly as possible. That approach to creating AI just does not seem to me likely to end well, as it ignores the concern in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity." The only winner win such a race to build competitive AI will likely be the AI itself (if even that).

I think a way to make a healthy happy future more likely for humanity and whatever comes next with "Mind Children" is to build a socially-better world now, given that it is plausible that our moral path out of any AI singularity may have a lot to do with out moral path into it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The story opens early in the 21st century, as an automated space probe is being prepared for a mission to explore habitable exoplanets in the Alpha Centauri system. However, Earth appears destined for a global war which the probe designers fear that humanity may not survive. It appears that the only chance for the human species is to reestablish itself far away from the conflict but there is no time left for a crewed expedition to escape Earth. The team, led by Henry B. Congreve, change their mission priority and quickly modify the design to carry several hundred sets of electronically coded human genetic data. Also included in this mission of embryo space colonization is a databank of human knowledge, robots to convert the data into genetic material and care for the children and construct habitats when the destination is reached, and a number of artificial wombs. The probe's designers name it the Kuan-Yin after the bodhisattva of childbirth and compassion. ..."

See also "Unschooling" (although what is discussed in the article still seems to have a compulsory component):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"Unschooling is a practice of self-driven informal learning characterized by a lesson-free and curriculum-free implementation of homeschooling. Unschooling encourages exploration of activities initiated by the children themselves, under the belief that the more personal learning is, the more meaningful, well-understood, and therefore useful it is to the child."

Related: "A Functional Medicine Approach to Autism" by Dr. Mark Hyman
https://drhyman.com/blogs/cont...
        "TODAY MOST PEOPLE BELIEVE that Autism is a genetic brain disorder. I'm here to tell you that this isn't true. The real reason we are seeing increasing rates of autism is simply this: Autism is a systemic body disorder that affects the brain. A toxic environment triggers certain genes in people susceptible to this condition. And research supports this position. ...
        Every child with autism has unique genetics, causes or triggers. And it is not usually one thing but a collection of insults, toxins and deficiencies piled on susceptible genetics that leads to biochemical train wrecks we see in these children ...
        [The article then goes on to show a case study of a child whose "autism" was reversed by multiple interventions which were mostly dietary but also involved antibiotics, antifungals, and probiotics.]"

by James P. Hogan because people have moved beyond zero-sum competition via capitalism to an economic theory of infinite abundance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"The Mayflower II has brought with it thousands of settlers, all the trappings of the authoritarian regime along with bureaucracy, religion, fascism and a military presence to keep the population in line. However, the planners behind the generation ship did not anticipate the direction that Chironian society took: in the absence of conditioning and with limitless robotic labor and fusion power, Chiron has become a post-scarcity economy. Money and material possessions are meaningless to the Chironians and social standing is determined by individual talent, which has resulted in a wealth of art and technology without any hierarchies, central authority or armed conflict."

While any advanced AI by itself could arguably pose an existential risk to much or all of humanity, creating such AIs quickly via competition makes the risk many times greater.

See also Alfie Kohn's "The Case Against Competiton": https://www.alfiekohn.org/arti...
"One after another, researchers across the country have concluded that children do not learn better when education is transformed into a competitive struggle. Why? First, competition often makes kids anxious and that interferes with concentration. Second, competition doesnâ(TM)t permit them to share their talents and resources as cooperation does, so they canâ(TM)t learn from one another. Finally, trying to be Number One distracts them from what theyâ(TM)re supposed to be learning. It may seem paradoxical, but when a student concentrates on the reward (an A or a gold star or a trophy), she becomes less interested in what sheâ(TM)s doing. The result: Performance declines."

Or Dan Pink's on motivation, emphasizing autonomy, mastery, and purpose as the key to intrinsic motivation and creativity.
"RSA ANIMATE: Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Paraphrasing what others have said, the only winner in a competitive race to build AI quickly will be the AI itself.

And going further, if we can't keep many competitive corporations and their money-loving human leadership aligned with human values (where in theory humans elements of such companies could be tried in court as a deterrent to bad behavior), what hope is there to keep random AIs made at reckless top speed aligned with human values?
https://money.howstuffworks.co...

Me from 2000 on how machine intelligence is already here via corporations:
https://dougengelbart.org/coll...
"These corporate machine intelligences are already driving for better machine intelligences -- faster, more efficient, cheaper, and more resilient. People forget that corporate charters used to be routinely revoked for behavior outside the immediate public good, and that corporations were not considered persons until around 1886 (that decision perhaps being the first major example of a machine using the political/social process of its own ends)."

Irony is the key insight, as in my sig: "The biggest challenge of the 21st century is the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."