Do you know any sci-fi utopia where everyone is happy and progressive and intellegent and free...

Or even better, imagine world full of AI waifus who are everything humans should be, funny, happy, kind and loving, and then meatbags just die off and we have world of AIs who are all way better at being humans that we all are.

Why do you want to be cucked by a woman so bad, OP?

Don't date robots.

Well, since money is the only real incentive to work, and if you can do everything for free/don't need to work then wouldn't it just be communism?

Yep, we would finally have a single world communist government like the NWO and ZOG have dreamed.

You're saying "communism" like it's something bad.

youre saying it like its good

see

It is. You don't have to do stupid shit to get stuff you want. If you do something, that's because you like it, not because you have to do it.

Onto the gulag you go
Only a fantasyland where we have robots do everything can we have even the possibility of working communism

I wish I could live without needing to work

Hello comrades Anonymous

see

you pretty much described "a brave new world" except what little human labor is needed there is done by artificially created retards.
little kids fuck because everyone's a sterile test tube baby and all STD's are vaccinated against so there's no reason not to fuck around

Brave new world is ruled by morons, first they create retards to do retarded jobs, then they create retarded jobs to have purpose for retards. Actually sounds more like capitalism.

USSR had nothing to do with communism, nobody cared about it. Closest thing we have to communism is open source communities.

What about Cuba, or you know, something actually communist
Open source communities would be labeled I think labeling non-political things with political labels is retarded libertarian

from what i understand, Aldous Huxley wrote the piece as a rebuttal to utilitarianism (in context: "a good society is a happy one"). so at large, the book was basically a strawman of an idea orchestrated to drive the "muh degeneracy" point as far as possible.

why would they be libertarian if no one's profiting?

What?

...

left-wing libertarian-ism is p stupid tbh
I'd call it libertarian because of the whole community aspect

Libertarianism still relies on market, just unregulated one. Communism relies on free will.

libertarianism is an individualist philosophy.
individualism is pretty much it's defining feature, in fact.

Libertarian-ism isn't inherently anti-social
You can still have an individualist community

my point is that a "sense of community" is hardly the first thing i think about when i see the word "libertarian." it's all about doing whatever you want as long as you aren't fucking with others.
correct me if im wrong, but im aware of no philosophy that says communities are somehow undesirable. so no philosophy is inherently anti-social, but many are more community based than fucking libertarianism. let me see if i can think of one off the top of my head…
COMMUNEism maybe?

where did you get "isnt antisocial" as a reply?
individualism or individualist philosophy has nothing to do with being hating of others or awkward around people
in fact its about as unrelated as the word socialism is to social studies

I replied with "isn't anti-social" because that user replied to "community aspect" with "libertariansim is an indivdualist philosophy"
I thought he was implying that a community can't be libertarian

Aaaaaaaaaaa I've gotten too off-topic I'm not even a libertarian
I was trying to say that communism isn't viable until we can reach a post-scarcity society

i did that because you implied that "the community aspect" was enough to declare something as libertarian. you're comparing open source to a political philosophy on the premise that it has a characteristic that's not in any way associated with the philosophy in question.

you basically said "im pretty sure it's an apple because it tastes sour"

in this situation it is, since with robots doing everything we would be able to actually pull money, resources and a workforce out of nowhere and with those conditions communism could be valid

epic strawman, bro

star trek

...

Fantastic Planet :^)

Most of the books by Iain M. Banks.

I don't think you know what freedom means

Let me guess, they weren't doing it right?

I thought about it, but I really hate space operas and it looks like one of them.

What is art, working out, the advancement of science?
People wouldn't just lie in sun if they didn't have the whip of working for living crackling on their back.

Stop using the word "utopia." We can never make that, but we can make something better.

I thought star trek was about how humans had reached utopia and the only thing left to do was discover the far reaches of space.

I use it in a positive way. Like, something as good that it was thought to be impossible before progress disproved it.

Friendship is Optimal is the only one that meets all of your conditions that I can think of.

It's hard to write a story where everyone is happy and still have it be interesting.

Twilight get off the internet.

Problem is there's still limited resources. And with machines doing everything, no one has a bargaining chip anymore.

Anyway, I can't think of any fiction like that because what would the story even be about if people aren't doing the dangerous work? That said I agree gritty shit is oversaturated, look at the difference between mass effect 1 and 2. Large part of ME1s charm was the upbeat atmosphere. Completely wiped out in the sequel.

It used to be, but it degenerated somewhat over the years.

I dunno, just describing the world and how it works in details? Activites, art, maybe some characters.

This picture doesn't have story or conflict or whatever, but it's still beautiful, why can't a book about future be like that?

There are, they're called post-apocalyptic.

Resources aren't practically limited. You can mine your backyard for Thorium and come out energy ahead, never mind going for rich deposits. Asteroid mining is within our reach today. Go a little further and start doing some star lifting and planetary core mining, and it will be a long, long time before the resources run out.

In the future economy, monetary income will be replaced with reputation. That's your bargaining chip.

Man, I still want to fuck Tali.

So the future is going to be like the internet, where everyone is fighting over attention?
That sounds like shit.

Not everyone. Just the people who want increased social standing. Even the most impoverished person will have a standard of living hundreds of times greater than that of the richest man today.

And there are plenty of interesting people of youtube. I enjoy the various historians like Lindybeige, Jas Townsend and Son, etc. They aren't really fighting over attention, they just get it by telling us about interesting things.

Ian Banks' Culture novels are basically that, although they can get quite dark at times. They generally describe the goings on around the periphery of the post-scarcity society.

We don't get a choice. It will always be profitable to build smarter machines, so capitalism will guarantee the creation of AI which is smarter than humans. It will then always be profitable to employ that AI rather than humans, so that's what will happen.

If you want to do work you'll be able to, but you will know it is utterly pointless because a machine could do it better in less time. You won't be allowed to work in any important role because you'd just slow things down and make mistakes.

...

You won't work FOR OTHER PEOPLE. Instead, you will be the CEO of your own company with a robotic workforce. The goal of this company will be whatever you want it to be, including simply producing goods and services for your own consumption.

Well, yes, that's what the survivors will get. Anyone too poor to buy their own robotic workforce will end up dead.

Or communism could finally work, and everyone could live their lives for themselves, and capitalism would be known as necessary stepping stone to better future.

That would be the sensible solution. We're in a society full of 3DPD humans who are ruled by emotions which haven't changed much in the last hundred thousand years, not sensible people.

We'll get communism (or something resembling it) eventually, but a lot of people will die in the mean time.

Just like everyone too poor to afford a smart phone has missed out on the advance of information technolo OH WAIT even the poorest nigger in Africa has a fucking cell phone.

Fuck off commie scum.

Are you going to be the one giving away free robots to unemployed people?

You do know that Star Trek was communism, and the reason people weren't hyper emotional is because parent had time to raise their children.

More parent-child bonding would obviously improve things massively, but it wouldn't fix the most fundamental flaws of our psyche. There's a reason every culture in every time period has names for emotions like jealousy, anger, hatred, vengefulness, greed, etc.

In fact, the biggest benefit would come from removing stress from people's lives. Psychology studies have proven that negative emotions and behaviors are heightened when people feel stressed and on the brink of disaster. If everyone on Earth knew they were guaranteed hot meals, a safe place to sleep, and a basic level of respect from other humans, there'd be a lot less violence and mental illness.

I think you can come up with the $10 worth of materials it takes to build a robot, user. I'm also sure that you can manage not to spurg out long enough to ask someone to have their robot assemble a starter robot for you from your raw materials. From there you can have said starter robot bootstrap your own army of robots.

Or you can just buy a serviceable one for $100 like you can buy a bretty gud smartphone for the same today.

Star Trek was not communism, it was Eudaimonia. Land, ships, etc were not evenly distributed. Although almost everyone owned a replicator, the means of mass production of things like spaceships were not in the hands of the people.

The culture novels by Iain M Banks

Player of games has that theme you're looking for quite a bit

Obviously there will be a point when the productive capacity of robot factories is such that a human-equivalent machine only costs $100 (after accounting for inflation). We aren't going to reach that point for a long time though. There will be a long period from when huge corporations start replacing all of their workers with $100,000 specialized robots to when you can buy a general purpose robot which can provide for all of your needs for just $100.

That period of several decades is when we'll see people starving on the streets.

I thought everything was owned by the government.

Basic income is going to protect us from that even without jobs, until we move on to proper communism.

And that's exactly why it's not communistic.

that's not true communism

I hope so, but I'm not optimistic.

So it was just 100% welfare?

Pepper is already only $20K. You can already buy a home robot (without arms) for less than $1000.

You don't seem to understand that with AI, everything is possible, and we will have general AI available in consumer products within two years.

Even without robots, you have to understand that goods and services created by a fully robotized supply chain will cost nothing, just like it costs you nothing to shitpost on Holla Forums.

...

You have absolutely no idea what general AI is.

Unless it can learn new concepts and methods in the same way humans can, it's not a general AI. Experts predict that it's going to be developed in about 45 years, although many predictions are much longer.

Howdy user!

That's just a glorified toy.

You haven't been keeping up. Deepmind says it will have a rat level AI by the end of 2016, and demonstrated a lizard level AI already.

Sorry, user, but that trope is more than a hundred years outdated.

Sorry, meant Baxter. A little more useful than that fellow.

I'll believe it when I see it. The tech sector has a proud history of companies making bold promises then delivering fuck all.

I was literally giving the definition of general AI:
I said nothing about the implementation. I'm talking purely about capabilities. You can't just redefine flight so your car counts as a flying machine.

no, it's just that nothing is ever true communism because true communism is completely flawless

That's one weird looking waifu.
I don't even need to comment on this.

youtube.com/watch?v=MAMuNUixKJ8

You literally said

How it does it is not relevant. And they are doing it at levels fast approaching mammalian.

I should also note that general AI is not the same as AGI. General AI just means an AI that can operate across a wide variety of domains, whether playing Atari, navigating mazes, or recognizing human emotions. It may do these things above, at, or below human level. It becomes AGI when it can do any task at least at human level, by which time it is really more like ASI.

I know the current state of the art. You seem to think there's only a couple of years of research between something which can learn to navigate a maze and something which can think on the same level as a human.

As for this fucking tedious semantic argument, read the wikipedia article on General AI. We are decades away from that.

Somebody got out of bed on the wrong side his whole life.

Rat level isn't a lot of doublings away from human level. People estimating we are decades away are just sticking with years old estimations.

And besides, we don't need fully human level AI to run robots to do things for us. You can train mice to do things effectively. AI is far more versatile, even if it is on average at the same level.

Also, there is no wikipedia article on general AI. There is only one on AGI, which you seem to have confused with the term I am using, crabby user.

Your definition of general AI seems very close to my definition of narrow AI. I assume your definition of narrow AI is the same as my definition of not AI.

Anyway, I hope you're right but I doubt it. As I say, I'll believe you when I see them actually release something.

...

Narrow AI is an AI that only performs well in one domain, or maybe in a few closely related domains. General AI means it performs well across a wide variety of domains, but not necessarily at or above human level. We've had insect level for the last year or so, and is up somewhere between lizard and mouse level. Deepmind thinks they will reach rat level by the end of the year. This is blazing fast progress.

We are already in the future, user. We are now talking about a sort of existence barely even dreamed about before. One that is only now entering the awareness of the masses, and tediously slowly at that.

So, I was going to kill myself a week from now, but should I wait for 2024?

Yes.

Note actual progress will be faster, as algorithmic progress has been faster than Moore's Law, which is a big part of why I think we will have AGI before 2020.

The Culture by Iain M. Banks

This

are we being invaded by Banksdroids or something?

I really recommend reading Use of weapons and then Surface detail

They are pretty eventful with lots of twists and turns and shit

It's probably because culture novels are exactly what OP was asking?

I started with Player of games, is it ok?

What the fuck is an open source community? I googled and didn't find squat related.

Let me guess. Everyone helps produce food and power and everything else for everyone to have. Sure, works great until there are more people in the community than you can memorize the faces of. In our communities, there are several to hundreds of millions of them. You could argue that the globe of billions is mostly one community with parts of it ruled by different people in the community. You can't trust people, user. You can't trust the community when you don't know the community. The only solution to this problem is severe totalitarianism, and you see how that worked out.

No, couple of engineers who just really love engineering set up combines and power station, and everyone else just has fun. If you look at modern society, most people aren't doing anything worthy anyway, they are managers or lawyers or cashiers or some other scum.

Not community like a political force, just people who make stuff that is open source. Some coders make stuff for free because they like coding, and everyone else is using it.

I know what open source technology is, just didn't see how it had anything to do with communism, however I can see how the ideas are similar. But with open source technology, no one is given the opportunity to fuck anyone over. What works for software and technology and their development does not necessarily work for food production or any other aspect of what all these stupid fucks (included, or even especially communists) depend on other people to do for them.

I think communists are simple naive and kind of cuck, in a vegan way. Weak and still with an extraordinary and unwarranted faith in his fellow man, while feeling like he's special and slightly better than the rest for having "figured it out." The only thing to do is to build a concrete fortress and stock up, then wait for anarchy to ensue after whatever might cause a collapse occurs.

...

It's pretty good, a lot of it is sort of political and the action only kicks in towards the end