I also made a similar market, with specific resolution criteria. Check it out:

https://manifold.markets/SimoneRomeo/will-we-have-to-work-in-the-future?r=U2ltb25lUm9tZW8

@SimoneRomeo and this

https://manifold.markets/SimoneRomeo/will-we-have-to-work-in-the-future-a9a18f56123c?r=U2ltb25lUm9tZW8

Do the people betting yes think there are some things that won't be automated by 2070?

Whatever "work" you're supposed to do, just give it to a robot or AI to do by then

You probably mean people betting yes.

You're right, edited

I think either a lot of things won't be automated, or we are near to create a AGI, and I think that if we develop an AGI in this time-frame we are dead.
Conditionally of us not being dead, I think a lot of jobs will still be necessary.

You need to define "work" to turn this into a meaningful question.

second this

In my opinion, the resolution criteria for this market are sufficiently clear.

Not even "comfortably" is sensibly defined. Many things that were considered luxuries not that long ago are now considered so essential by the average American that you would be considered objectively poor if you didn't have it (e.g. heating, AC, fridges, microwaves, broadband, cars, doorstep garbage collection etc). I don't think most poor people would agree that they live "comfortably".

As for "work", we understand that today as free, paid labor. That was not always the case, and might not be the case in the future. What if by 2070 there is material abundance and we don't have to work for money to buy material things, but rather for some kind of social credit? What if living in society without that social credit makes life intolerable despite having access to material "comfort"?

The question will be meaningless by resolution time, and for the same reason that AI doomers think work will disappear: shallow, uninformed, low-resolution thinking. They don't even have a clear idea of what the thing they think will disappear actually is.

"Comfortably" is explicitly defined as from the perspective of 2023. If the lack of social credits made life less comfortable than the median 2023 American's experience, and work was required for the typical American to acquire those social credits, I cannot see how there would be any question about resolving this No. Likewise, if new comforts were invented and required work to attain, but 2023 standards were available without work, the market would clearly resolve Yes.

"Work", though, is not so explicit. I don't see any reason it would be restricted to labor for cash vs labor for {asset}, but if, hypothetically, you could rent out parts of your brain for someone else's computation or rent out your body as robot while your mind is uploaded to the cloud, I could see the resolution getting murky. I'm sure there are loads more hypothetical edge cases beyond that.

If that opinion of yours was part of the description, I wouldn't have commented about it. As written, it's self-contradictory. Don't use a word if I need to disregard its meaning completely to understand what you're trying to say.

What I suggested about work is not an "edge case" like your brain-letting example. Work is more likely to transform than disappear. Will people be required to do anything to live comfortably in 2070? What would make anything "work" vs. "not work"?

By the way, I think you meant to end the first bit of your first paragraph with "Yes", otherwise I don't understand it.

In the first bit, an American would need to work to get social credits to get to a level of comfort of the median American in 2023, thus a No.

"Comfortably defined as subjectively equivalent to the standard of living of the median American in 2023." is from the description; are you saying I included an additional opinion beyond that criteria?

"an American would need to work [...] to get to a level of comfort of the median American in 2023, thus a No."

How come that's a no?

My point is that definition doesn't make sense. If the 2023 standard of living is considered abject poverty in 2070, and you need to work in order to live better, how would you resolve this?

On the one hand, you live "comfortably" by 2023 standards. On the other hand, work will still be necessary because no one (certainly not most people) will be satisfied with abject poverty.

So the answer to the title question will be "yes", and the description would suggest "no". "No, work is not necessary in 2070, because abject poverty is totally fine."

Exactly. Imagine comparing 1970 to 2020.

What if you could live, but no access to internet, no phone bill, no phone, no computer. Would be practically impossible. Even homeless people have phones these days.

We don’t know what that equivalent thing will be in 2070

>How come that's a no?

Sorry, yes, you're 100% right. I inverted the market it my head, Yes should be No and No should be Yes.

But it sounds like your issue isn't with the market's criteria being underspecified, but that it is asking something different from what you want it to ask. That's a case for making a new market rather than changing this one.

You and the author better not mind looking foolish in 2070 when the answer to the question posed in the title is clearly "Yes" and he resolves the market to "No" because the description contradicts what he meant to ask in the title.

I’ll be here in 2070 rules lawyering, this is an easy YES if you take the “real” experience: budget for comfort items, electricity for AC/Heating, going out for meals, partying, vehicle ownership, home ownership, etc. I don’t see how this wouldn’t require work of some kind for the average person in 2070.

Some people seem to be interpreting this as, “can bum around and be fed”, or genuinely think there will be gracious robot servants and no required human inputs.

The most important part might be defining how much work counts as work, or what counts.

There’s plenty of time to clarify so I won’t pressure the creator too much.. yet

Edit: from the comments

Maybe "work requiring >10 minutes per day at >50% of the effort that the median American puts in at work in 2023" or something?

The most important part might be defining how much work counts as work, or what counts.

That was my original one-line, 12-word comment. Is it wage labor? or what?

but then people disagreed without an argument and without providing a definition, and I can't allow someone to be wrong the internet

So is it a given in this conversation that no AGI will happen by 2070, for the people predicting Yes?

No, I don't think people think that there won't be something akin to AGI. I think of it more in terms of an economy that still resembles some level of capitalisim.

For my part I believe the only way "no work would be necessary" would be a sort of utopian socialist society is successfully established.

I don't hold a position in the market because the terms are pretty broad, like "What constitutes a typical American today or in 2070?"

I think a contemprary parallel would be, Does the typical American have to walk long distances today? I guess not, many(most) Americans have cars or rideshare or access to public transit, but it is generally not layabout and get places for free. You are expected to either pay for services or make a capital investment into a vehicle. And ostensibly there are some Americans that do walk long distances because they don't have the resources to pay for services or invest in their own transportation assets.

I suspect in 2070, the world will still have consideration for assets or services, i.e. nothing is free, and if AI or robots are the primary source of productivity, that someone will own the rights to that productivity if not the robots or AI themselves.

If you envision a future where everyone has a personal robot that does all the work necessary to support that person, how does that person get the robot in the first place? Either they work themselves and then invest the fruits of their labor into obtaining the robot, or there is someone/entity with control over enough resources to gift every child a robot. Like a utopian socialist society.

"if AI or robots are the primary source of productivity, that someone will own the rights to that productivity if not the robots or AI themselves ... If you envision a future where everyone has a personal robot that does all the work necessary to support that person, how does that person get the robot in the first place?"

I had expected the bottleneck you were imagining to full automation was something more along the lines of "there will always be such a huge supply of cheap human labor, it won't ever be economical for AI to replace it". But instead, you're asking how people can afford their robot/AI servant in the first place? It's not a bad point, since for someone without a family or connections, this could be difficult. But it doesn't seem like you're considering a transition period where some people are still working while others have already bought their servant. Once someone can afford their own perpetually-obedient "servant", they are basically set, and once they have kids they can pay for a servant for their kids too (if they are socialists, I suppose).

It's a cheerful image, and it won't happen. But hypothetically, humanity would become saturated over time, and eventually there wouldn't be people left who neither could afford a robot, nor had older family members who could buy one for them.

Either they work themselves and then invest the fruits of their labor into obtaining the robot, or there is someone/entity with control over enough resources to gift every child a robot. Like a utopian socialist society.

Would a discount for lower-income individuals also count as utopian socialism?