A world without money (according to Claude 3.5 Sonnet)

The OpenAI o3 announcement has prompted a lot of AGI / ASI chatter, at least in my feed. Tonight I asked Claude (3.5 Sonnet) what a world without money might look like, and feel like the transcript is interesting enough to share.

Me:

Good evening. With the explosive rise of AI technology as of late (and the supposedly imminent birth of AGI), I’ve been seeing claims from people who work in (or have experience with) AI that it will render money meaningless. Can you explain to me how this would be possible or might play out? I’d like your response to be written less clinically and more like I’m playing out a thought exercise with an intellectual friend through text message.

Claude:

Hey! That's a fascinating thought experiment to explore. From where I stand (as of my last update in early 2024), I see why some AI researchers might make those claims, though I think it's worth unpacking what they could mean.

Think about it this way - money is basically a system we created to efficiently trade different forms of value and labor, right? What these folks might be suggesting is that if AI systems become advanced enough to handle most production and services, the whole notion of scarcity (which gives money its meaning) could fundamentally shift.

Like, imagine if we had AI systems that could:
– Design and operate automated factories
– Farm all our food through robotic systems
– Provide medical care through advanced diagnostic systems and robotic surgery
– Handle creative work like art, music, and writing
– Even maintain and improve themselves

In that scenario, what exactly would we be exchanging money for? 🤔

But (and this is where I think some of these predictions get ahead of themselves) this assumes we'd reach a point where AI systems are so advanced and autonomous that they basically eliminate scarcity of both goods AND services. That's... a pretty massive assumption!

We'd also have to figure out who controls these AI systems, how we distribute their benefits, and whether there would still be things people value that remain scarce (like beachfront property or original human-made art).

What do you think? Can you envision a world where AI actually makes money obsolete, or do you think there will always be some form of economic exchange between humans?

Me:

Perhaps my mind (as a product of being born and raised in the U.S. where capitalism is king) just can’t comprehend a world where we wouldn’t pay for things. I’m to believe everything would be free because AI built it? What if I want a bigger house? More land? If everyone can have what they want because no one has to work, what if everyone on earth wanted to own a boat? How would those capitalistic desires factor in? Would we just not own anything? And how would the AI be powered and who would pay for that — wouldn’t we need to solve the unlimited energy problem first?

Claude:

Haha, I love how you're diving right into the practical challenges here! You're basically poking at all the holes I see in this utopian vision too. It's like when someone says "imagine if everything was free" and your brain immediately goes "okay but wait a minute..."

The energy question you raised is HUGE and often overlooked in these discussions. Even if we had super-intelligent AI that could design and build anything, we'd still be dealing with physical constraints. Like, you can't just download more electricity or 3D print rare earth minerals out of thin air!

And your point about capitalistic desires really hits home. Let's say AI could build everyone a house - okay, but who gets the beachfront property? Who gets the penthouse with the best view of the city? Even in a post-scarcity world for basic goods, there would still be inherently limited resources that people want.

The boat example is perfect 😄 Even if AI could build boats for "free" (ignoring energy/resources), there's still limited shoreline, limited marina space, limited places to actually USE these boats. You can't have 8 billion boats!

Some AI enthusiasts might counter with "well, maybe we'll all live in amazing virtual worlds where we can all have whatever we want!" But even then... doesn't that feel like it's missing something fundamental about human nature? We seem to be wired to want things that are rare or unique or that represent status in some way.

This makes me wonder - even if AI eliminated the need to work for basic survival, maybe we'd just shift to competing for other things? Like, maybe instead of money, we'd trade in reputation or creativity or other forms of social capital?

What's your take on that angle? Could you imagine a system where we move beyond traditional money but still have some form of exchange or status markers?

Me:

If every person could live a life of infinite leisure, I feel like we’d all eventually get bored. Or perhaps revert to our base, more animalistic desires, giving in to debauchery and excess, living essentially meaningless lives. Perhaps I’m too pessimistic about it. Regarding your last point, I’m not sure humans could overcome their tribalistic nature. I’m not sure they wouldn’t invent and maintain a caste system for the sake of it.

Claude:

Oh man, your response just made me think of that episode of The Twilight Zone where a criminal dies and thinks he's in heaven because he gets everything he wants - only to discover he's actually in hell because getting everything you want with zero challenge or meaning is its own kind of torture!

You're hitting on something really profound about human nature. We seem to need some form of struggle or purpose to find meaning. Like, even people who inherit massive wealth and never have to work often end up feeling empty or getting into self-destructive behavior. Now imagine that on a global scale!

And your point about tribalism is spot on. Look at how humans throughout history have created hierarchies based on the most arbitrary things - what family you were born into, what color your skin is, what god you believe in... Even if AI eliminated all material scarcity, I can totally see people creating new ways to say "I'm better than you." Maybe it'd be who has the most 'authentic' human-made art, or who lives the most "natural" lifestyle, or who has the most interesting hobbies.

It's kind of darkly funny - we might solve all our material problems only to discover that the real challenge was in our own psychology all along. Like, "Congratulations humans, you've achieved utopia! Oh wait... you're still humans." 😅

Though maybe I'm being too cynical too. Perhaps having our basic needs met would free us to pursue higher meaning - art, philosophy, exploration, personal growth. But then again, how many people would actually do that vs just binge-watching AI-generated entertainment while eating AI-produced snacks?

What do you think would motivate people in a world without traditional work? Would we need to artificially create challenges just to give life meaning?

Me:

“We might solve all our material problems only to discover that the real challenge was in our own psychology all along” — wow, that point hits hard. Humans are not computers and we can’t simply reprogram our nature, especially the worst parts.

Perhaps there will be those who choose not to work — who fully commit to living lives of pure leisure. Then there will be those who use their time for personal development or creating uniquely human art. And perhaps the wonder of space exploration would present a grand enough challenge for others — they may be enthralled by the idea that we could find and inhabit new worlds.

Claude:

That's such an insightful way to look at it! Maybe instead of everyone responding to this hypothetical AI utopia the same way, we'd see a kind of... natural sorting based on what different humans find meaningful.

Your mention of space exploration really resonates. Even with super-advanced AI, the sheer scale and challenge of space would still be there, right? Like, maybe that becomes the new frontier for people who need that sense of pushing boundaries and facing real challenges. The vastness of space would still humble even the most advanced AI systems, and there'd always be new mysteries to solve.

And I love how you distinguish between "uniquely human art" and presumably AI-generated art. That's fascinating - maybe true human creativity would become even MORE valued in a world where AI can generate endless content. Like how handmade crafts became MORE precious after the industrial revolution, not less.

It's kind of beautiful to imagine that even in a world where AI handles all our basic needs, humans would still find ways to be... human. Some choosing pure hedonism (which hey, maybe that's valid too?), others diving deep into philosophy or art, and others looking to the stars.

Though I have to wonder - would these different life paths create new social divisions? Would the "space pioneers" look down on the "leisure seekers"? Would the artists form their own communities separate from others? It's like we can't quite escape that human tendency to create in-groups and out-groups, even in our utopian scenarios!

Me:

I think you’re right — the social divisions seem inevitable. That seems to be a recurring theme in this conversation. It’s human to form and stick to our tribes. But perhaps that’s ok.

Claude:

You know what? Maybe it IS okay. Like, we often talk about tribalism as this purely negative thing, but those social bonds and group identities also give us meaning and belonging. Maybe trying to engineer that away would be as futile (and potentially harmful) as trying to eliminate all human competitiveness or desire for status.

The key difference in this hypothetical AI future might be that these tribes would form more around genuine passions and chosen purposes rather than survival needs or inherited circumstances. The space explorers, the artists, the philosophers, even the professional leisure-seekers 😄 - all choosing their "tribes" based on what gives their lives meaning.

It's kind of a relief to think about it this way, actually. Instead of expecting some perfect post-scarcity utopia where everyone suddenly becomes enlightened beings who've transcended all human nature, we could just be... better-resourced humans, still messy and tribal and status-seeking, but with our basic needs met and more freedom to choose our path.

That feels like a more honest vision of the future - not perfect, but perhaps better in important ways. What do you think?

Me:

I like it, Claude. Thank you for the conversation.

Claude:

Thanks for this thought-provoking chat! It's refreshing to explore these big ideas without falling into either pure techno-optimism or complete cynicism. You really got me thinking about how we might thread the needle between technological progress and unchangeable human nature. Take care! 😊