Introduction. [Recording date: May 1, 2024.]
Russ Roberts: Today is May 1, 2024. My guest is philosopher and writer Nicholas Bostrom from Oxford University. This is his second appearance on EconTalk. He started here in December 2014 talking about his book Superintelligenceabout the dangers of artificial intelligence – of AI – and he was very quick to worry about that.
His new book, and our topic today, says Deep Utopia: Life and Meaning in a Dissolved World. Nick, welcome back to EconTalk.
Nicholas Bostrom: Thank you. And, there is, yes. No. 2014. It’s been a while.
Russ Roberts: Yes. And, I’ve gotten a lot smarter since then. I’m sure you are too. But none of us is very wise; but there are interesting things. But that is not our topic.
Russ Roberts: Our topic is your new book, and I want to say before we start, this is an amazing book. It increases the mind. It is a poem. It’s going. It’s funny. The writing is excellent. Every page is full of ideas. And it’s about what you call ‘deep utopia’ – the world we seem to be heading towards, a world of material abundance, robots, AI that can do everything better than us, which seems to lead to a world of almost, if not literally, endless entertainment.
And, in such a world, he asks, among many things, what would become of us then? What would give our lives meaning and purpose in the ‘settled world,’ as you call it? And, what were we going to do all day?
And I think, as you point out, thinking about these issues forces us to think about them not-utopian problems–the question of how we live our lives now and what is most of us close to utopia; and for many, not very close.
But let’s start by trying to say something very encouraging. I think a lot of people are very uncomfortable with the idea of a settled world—the idea of all the entertainment we want all the time. Talk about why people worry about that and why you think those worries aren’t as worrying as others think.
Nicholas Bostrom: We have built our vision of ourselves and our reputation to a large extent on the idea that we can make some useful contribution to the world, whether it is on a larger scale or just to your family or your community. So, to the extent that’s the foundation of your self-esteem, if that foundation is removed, you can get a kind of vacuum under your feet that can be disturbing.
Therefore, in a solved world where all practical problems have already been solved, there are no more problems to solve, or where practical problems remain can be better taken care of by advanced AIs and robots. Therefore, either way, there would be nothing useful for human work.
So, that forces, then, a radical re-examination of what the basis of a good human life might be. And, no doubt it would need to express some valuable ideas about what life should be. And, I think that’s part of where this feeling of discomfort can come from.
There is also, perhaps, a common concern that people may have about if they don’t get a job, how will they support themselves? But, those I have set aside in this book so that I can reach the level where we can ask about the basic values at stake, assuming that we solve all the practical problems that exist between where we are now and this hypothetical result.
Russ Roberts: Also, which reminds us of the discussions some people have had about the idea of a Universal Basic Income [UBI] when many people suggested that even if we could, quote, “pay” through the budget to take care of people at the highest level, it would be wrong because people have no reason to work, and then they will— I don’t know if you are quoting it or not, but there is, I think, a sense that the hands idlers are the devil’s workshop. But, you disagree, I think, and clearly.
Nicholas Bostrom: Yes. However, I think it may be true for some people that too much leisure is bad and some people need, I think, a lot of external pressure to maintain their upright posture, psychologically speaking. And, I think, I’m very hopeful that if it was the only change – let’s say, there was a big economic wind like the Gulf State or something that gets from a lot of wealth underground and they live on rent. from that. Sometimes it works well and sometimes not so well. I am very hopeful that, at least in theory, we can have a culture change that would allow people to be raised for a good pastime rather than a productive worker. I think the school system right now is clearly, to the extent that it aims to achieve any result, it aims to produce a moral workforce. L, as if you are being told[?taught?] sitting at your desk. You are given small tasks that you have to do that you have to do. Why? Because the teacher says do it; then it is scored and graded and there is a quality control stamp at the end of it.
Then, you can go on to work in an office building or a factory depending on what level–this I think hopefully in the light of the future is a sad model of what human development might be. It is necessary now because there there is all these jobs that need to be done, so we need to have workers who do them. But, if you imagine the scenario there they weren’t there all these tasks that needed to be done, then I think we can think of better ways of raising children, maybe cultivating an appreciation of art and literature, good conversational skills, laughter, physical activities, appreciation of nature, all these things are currently put aside.
Russ Roberts: And, it’s–one of my favorite themes is that culture evolves. It is not under anyone’s control. It responds to all forms of energy in the world, economic development and more. And, we’re going to talk more about this because it’s interesting — you have very interesting things to say about how things might change in a different world.
I think there is always an interesting question of the speed at which culture can change compared to the speed of technology. There can be great suffering and challenge if that culture responds slowly.
The example I think of the most is smartphones. When cell phones came along, like others, I sometimes said, ‘Oh, our culture is going to change with what you can do.’ And, it you have changed; and it’s changed that you can sit there by yourself and look at your phone and answer your phone during meetings and scroll through your social media feed at dinner and in all kinds of ways that I can’t see. It is closely related to human prosperity.
And, I say that as a person it does some of those things sometimes. So, cultural practices I think in the end the will change, but I think there’s a question of speed–but maybe we have plenty of time.
Nicholas Bostrom: Yes. So, I don’t mean us would be use increased recreation to ensure good health, and I am[?] saying that theoretically this seems possible.
So, I think there’s a lot of different layers to this onion, and what I see as the outermost layer–which is where most of this discussion begins and ends–is that we’re considering a particular situation of increasing average automation. Maybe some people are out of a job, and maybe the answer to that is retraining or a flexible labor market to get them. new activities.
Like, we have a lot of jobs today that didn’t exist a hundred years ago when almost everybody was a farmer, so, like that. Then, it is combined with some kind of cultural adjustment to the new technology. Therefore, we hope to encourage more good use. So, I think if the technology was frozen in time where it is now or a few years advanced and then just apps, I think that would be a fair question and a fair answer. [More to come, 9:51]
Source link