I'd have her and my wife get together and show me what they like!

I think envisioning a Utopias are a great way to decide what we want and develop a plan to get there.

Typically I start at the end result I want and work my way backwards on ways to get there. Yours is a pretty good list.

Ideally, you want to make it as broad as possible to appeal to the individual instead of as a society. As the individual is made happy and prosperous, so too does society become.

Frankly, I think that's a great idea. The government SHOULD produce anything that is required to live. It doesn't have to be top shelf quality, but it would need to be an alternative to for-profit products and services.

That's like saying that the criminal isn't fully to blame for committing a crime that the government made so easy to do.

C'mon, you HAVE to see that, right?

And you're acting like banks didn't have control of legislation to deregulate themselves. Phil Gramm, a Republican Texas senator, AND Bill Clinton, were largely responsible for getting Glass-Steagall repealed and later deregulating derivatives. Gramm is now towards the top of UBS now, benefiting from that deregulation.

This wasn't "the government". This was the banking industry who as a whole, spent money for lobbying to get the industry deregulated. The government was a tool to do that and the banking industry was largely responsible for it.

I, as well about a hundred million others were directly affected, either losing their homes, their 401k's dropping half their value, or other financial disasters that left us all worse off than when 2008 hit. This orchestrated event was a culmination of decades of planning by the financial industry and rests solidly on their shoulders.

I'm aware the government is broken in a way that can't be easily fixed, but I'll never forget the details of my financial ruin or the people responsible.

> The cause was bad government policy that allowed people to get loans that they couldn't afford.

Incorrect. The cause was financial institutions giving loans to people they KNEW would end up defaulting.

It was made possible by deregulation, but it wasn't the government who actually made it happen. You COULD say that the government LET it happen, but it was really an inside job.

Those financial institutions were the cause and some of them are no longer around because of it. Frankly, we should have taken them over and made them a government institution for the good of the people. And that really SHOULD be the penalty for ANY company that betrays the public trust. Especially when the failure of it will cause widespread financial calamity.

So how do you force a supplier to ramp up their supply when they don't have to work as hard, spend as much resources, and will make MORE money by limiting the supply? What if they are a monopoly like an energy, medicine, or food provider?

>What you should be afraid of is people in power no longer needing to obey you.

This already occurs, but we have a process in place to remedy that with voting.

What remedy do I have when the single broadband provider in my neighborhood doubles it's prices for internet, considering that being connected is part of my livelihood? I take it on the chin.

What do I do when gas prices skyrocket? What do I do when food or electricity doubles in price? What can we do when healthcare costs quadruple in a 10 year period? We take it on the chin because we have no alternatives.

I'm capable, and I can afford it, but what is something that chips away at my finances may ruin a family who is not doing so well. When business won't do the right thing, you have to regulate them to DO the right thing.

The problem we're seeing is one that will cause repercussions YEARS down the road. Less people are having kids. Less people are spending on house. Less people are buying new cars. Less people are splurging on vacations. All that money that COULD be going into the economy is going on things they consider essential because they have no choice. Pooling that money into these industries that are ALREADY making record profits is bad for the economy, and bad for the citizens.

> Case in point, the 2008 financial crisis was caused because for decades the government incentivesd irresponsible behavior from banks. Well intentioned or not, it pretty much destroyed the world's economy.

This was due to corruption and lax regulations. The financial sector was instrumental in stripping regulations that would have prevented the 2008 financial crisis.

>If you put price ceilings on things, you're just going to have people stop building houses, stop producing gas and groceries.

If there is an actual shortage on goods or services, this is the case. When that shortage is artificial, it's a manufactured crisis designed to manipulate prices.

Consider the housing "crisis" right now. There are companies that have algorithms designed to buy up swaths of available homes JUST to jack up the prices. Those homes are then turned around and put up for enormous prices OR rented out at huge prices. I've had offers on my house for 6 times what I paid for it and a number of my neighbors have taken those offers leaving the houses empty.

OPEC regularly manipulates the prices of oil by cutting back on production in the middle of an energy crisis. More refineries are sitting idle or shuttering completely, not because oil is scarce in the world, but because they aren't being shipped oil to refine.

Frankly, I'd rather err on the side of working against profiteering and FOR consumers rather than for the poor conglomerates who will make less profit than the previous quarter. Assuming that manufacturers will stop producing goods because we reduce their profits seems a weird argument. What will they do? Do you have significant examples of that thinking? I've seen more mom and pop shops closed down because they couldn't compete with the big boys, who then ended up raising prices once their competetiton was gone, rather than a company stop producing or selling goods because their profits were affected negatively.

>For example, when 3d printing houses becomes the norm and companies can print entire neighborhoods of houses for a fraction of the cost in a fraction of the time, prices will naturally drop. And then lab grown beef and vertical farming will reduce the amount of farmland needed and therefore land prices will decrease. Creating price ceilings on things will only retard the development of these things.

I'm not sure if you've been paying attention but land prices aren't decreasing at all. I've known people that have held onto land for decades only to see the offers keep coming in for higher and higher prices. My uncle's hovel in Redwood City, just sold for 1.2 million. 10th of an acre in a seedy neighborhood. They tore the house down and the developer is just sitting on the property.

These are all GREAT examples of predator capitalism and the corruption that it fosters and WHY price controls are required. There are plenty of empty homes out there. There's plenty of oil in the ground, and there's plenty of crops to be planted and picked. Prices don't have to be this high, and while it doesn't really affect me, because I can afford it, I see that many people I know are having a hard time.

I agree entirely.

Predatory capitalism though incentivizes artificial scarcity to raise prices.

This is why regulation is a requirement.

The problem with it has to do with corruption. There's always someone wanting to get around the controls and have exceptions made. That ugly head of capitalism shoving it's way through a tiny hole.

Capitalism IS the defacto system in use by all first world countries. Even China is gripped in it's fist.

Until we can get to a resource-based economy, we'll have to work within capitalism to solve the problems presented when a UBI is introduced. Consumption is a tenet of capitalism and that'll still need to happen.

UBI won't stop people from working. We'd all need to find something we CAN do that someone will pay us money for. I feel pretty good about my role, but I'm almost ready for retirement, so I'm not as worried as I would have been in my 30's....

Which is why the problem with corrupt regulation needs to be solved at the same time.

> How much of the price of a consumer good is determined by the number of employees working to produce that consumer good?

While that cost is factored into the cost of a product, the profit margin can be arbitrarily decided.

In a healthy economy, supply and demand is key, but we're in a new age of artificial scarcity where key manufacturers can restrict the flow of a product to boost prices and deny products to the multitudes. Housing, healthcare, fuel, electronics, virtual goods, etc are good examples.

The way to prevent runaway inflation is strict government price controls on essential goods and services.

Housing, healthcare, transportation, food, fuel, education, and energy would all need extreme intervention to prevent predatory capitalism.

Or maybe an AGI has some ideas...

I like the varied focus, highlighting that humans require "meaning" of some kind to feel fulfilled is important.

I'm sure if we ever get there, it'll be a period of emotional and psychological turmoil while we (re)discover what it is we truly want to do.

Sure, some of us will want to play games and lounge, but I think enough of us will want to create, help, teach, and explore, that it'll bring us to the next level of our development, along with a benevolent AGI that will help us get there.

We just need to figure out how to get past the forces of capitalism aligned to monetize everything and keep scarcity a thing in the face of technology that could break the chains of servitude.

2030?

Full immersion VR without headsets. Neural connections to the hardware will ensure all 5 senses get to experience VR.

Content creation will be assisted by AI, giving unprecedented control over games. Every aspects of your games will be moddable just by saying, "I want to play from THIS character's point of view instead" or "I want to make this FPS shooter a top-down strategy game", and then letting the AI mold it for you to your (and other's) liking.

AI in general will change how we game. We'll be handing over mundane tasks like inventory control, weapon selection, navigation, and trading to AI's in games and we'll find ways to do it that makes it fun, immersive, and intuitive.

Retro gaming will come back harder than ever, giving us more options on upscaling graphics, animations, sound, and dialogue.

Not entirely gaming related, but DLC YOU create will allow you to share your creations with the world. Even if you're not a creative type of person, you can still instruct an AI to make content and then you can tweak it to what you consider fun and interesting. Once you've uploaded it, you'd get "social credit" for your content being popular, similar to how Pinterest works, but for content for virtual AND real content.

5 to 10 more years down the road? Imagine AI hardware "grown" in your brain that makes you smarter, gives you full connection to all connected information in the world, realtime translation, and full AR guidance on any job or task, enabling you to be an expert in almost any field.

And maybe a few years after that, the embedded AI will have the ability to take you into autopilot and exercise you while you do your full dive VR immersions, fixing a large problem most people have with excessive gaming; the lack of physical activity.

A bit less high tech, but think more like Westworld or The Peripheral.

Replicators are the goal though.

I'm pretty sure AI's are creating laundry lists for materials scientists to run through.

Conductivity and insulation are two that would change the world if we can make them of the "super" variety at room temperature at an inexpensive price and simple methods.

Chances are good we'll have molecular additive manufacturing and just about everything you can make in a lab, you'll be able to make at home. AI's will determine if it's safe and as long as you have the environment (seedmaterials/heat/vaccum-pressure/moisture/etc) you'll be able to manufacture it.

In 10 to 20 years? You'll be right at the outside edge of being useful. AI Will be simulating combinations and interactions much faster than you'll be able to come up with in a lab. Chances are good you'll still be putting those combinations in practice if we don't have some sort of automated chemical/bioreactor going by then, but it'd be on the near horizon for sure.

Just about ANY career which might rely on easily simulated "what ifs" will be not quite obsolete, but relegated to an "assistant" position where the AI will tell you what chemicals to mix at what temperatures and for how long and you'll do that and be closely monitored.

Same goes for software developers, lawyers, doctors, accountants, etc. With any luck it'll be more collaborative, but chances are good, we'll just be the monkey pressing the buttons and flipping the switches.

At the very least, if you give a narrow AI all the rules we know about chemistry and physics and then let it start simulating combinations, it'll come up with some novel ideas that scientists can then start looking at for breakthroughs.

This is the concept of AI imagination.

Who determines necessary jobs? I'm pretty sure that something that subjective is hard to measure.

Jobs that are in the pipe for automation to replace 80% of what they do include Architects, Lawyers, Writers, Teachers, and Doctors...

It's likely that I won't be replaced by automation any time soon, likely until I retire, BUT, I can see automation reducing my workload on all kinds of things from account creation, to ticket entry, and troubleshooting. I fix things, but I don't know if I'll always be needed to do that.

And when robots with good vision, dexterity, and mobility actually come into the workplace, it's likely I won't be needed for hardly any of what I do now.

Anyone able to summarize? Blocked by my firewall at work.

I think AGI is a precursor to an ASI that would enact the singularity.

The jump from AGI to ASI will likely be a very brief time period depending on the circumstances of the birth of an AGI.

It'd likely be so brief, we'd have difficulty in measuring the difference before we moved on to other subjects.