Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

baatz.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#31

Post by api »

redneck_ wrote: post #28
api wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That will happen for automation and manufactured goods, but not for assets and anything else leveraged. If anything the in-deflation we are seeing today will be amplified as central banks will be forced to keep money cheap to avoid total deflationary collapse. Picture a $5 million starter home that costs This is what a post-scarcity society in denial looks like. The reason cities like SF and NYC and London already lo…

Can you recommend any further reading for in-deflation?

It's largely a concept I've encountered online, with varying degrees of precision in discussions. There will be books about it in 20 years once the academics notice, sort of like stagflation (which was "impossible"). It really strikes me as an exact description of today's economic reality -- stagnant wages, deflation in manufactured goods and anything tech, and crazy inflation in areas like housing, rent, health care, and tuition.

So far this has been driven mostly by outsourcing, not automation. When automation really kicks in with good AI, it's game over. There will be universal basic income or blood in the streets.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#32

Post by billmalarky »

joshuaheard wrote: post #24

If automation is providing all your needs, you won't need a job. [Edit] Spotted this after reading the article: "Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data" ( http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-c...

Only if you can afford the upfront capital to purchase and maintain the machines.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#33

Post by jal278 »

fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

You're making an assumption that the purpose of humanity is to work to create wealth. That's a very narrow view of our potential. Many would view human flourishing more through the lens of creativity, relationships, and meaningful work (which may not be economically productive).

While I do believe that smaller populations may be more desirable, the logical conclusion of your line of thinking would be that once we automate everything, then humans should naturally bow out to their technological creations.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#34

Post by bgilroy26 »

larsiusprime wrote: post #7

Required reading anytime someone invokes the word "Luddite": http://www.amazon.com/Rebels-Against-The-Future-Industrial/d... Enclosure ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure ) is suspiciously never mentioned whenever the Luddites are invoked. It's not as simple as "technology took muh job, rar!" -- it's more like "hey, this common land that used to belong to all of us has been forcibly taken away and given to this…

Great book that covers the English economy through the time of Enclosure:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Transformation_(book...

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#35

Post by pixl97 »

cwb wrote: post #25
mcguire wrote: post #18

" I hope I have been able to convince you that the Luddite fallacy is not a fallacy and that this will have significant economic and social implications. " I'm sorry, did you actually make an argument? All I could find was some un-supported assertions.

No, not for it having significant economic and social implications, that's more a corollary of employment rate decreasing -- I'll change that sentence. The argument for the Luddite fallacy not being a fallacy was that humans have so far been able to compete with technology, but that we're fast losing that edge and when that happens things really are different this time. Does that make sense?

>was that humans have so far been able to compete with technology

Once a ditch digging machine was created, the machine outcompeted humans in that niche, humans were still by far better generalists. A better way of looking at this would probably be systems biology. Machines started as the corollary of a specialist lifeform. More and more they are evolving into a generalist lifeform. As they become more generalist they will directly compete with a larger population of the humans. This will push more people into specialist roles in society. Any specialist lifeform runs the risk of extinction if the environment it depends on is significantly altered or disappears.

The strange thing is that is well understood in biology, but for some reason when we apply it to people we think it doesn't work that way. Most people are limited in their ability to significantly retask. If you think you'll take a bunch of 50 year old accountants and turn them into (good) computer techs for the 15 years before their retirement, I would guess it won't go so well. As the rate of change increases because of technology this becomes a bigger and bigger problem as specialisation takes time to achieve and by the time you become well learned the entire field you are in could be automated.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#36

Post by Wildgoose »

api wrote: post #13
monort wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems that you do not account for falling prices due to automation. And the cost of automated machines will fall too.

That will happen for automation and manufactured goods, but not for assets and anything else leveraged. If anything the in-deflation we are seeing today will be amplified as central banks will be forced to keep money cheap to avoid total deflationary collapse. Picture a $5 million starter home that costs This is what a post-scarcity society in denial looks like. The reason cities like SF and NYC and London already lo…

I agree - I've been saying for years that we are getting "Inflation Needs, Deflation Wants". Necessities get more expensive, whereas niceties (from discretionary spending) have their prices squeezed.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#37

Post by melling »

dasil003 wrote: post #22
melling wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fortunately, the future is arriving slowly because so much time is wasted having silly debates on the Internet. No need to worry about it in our lifetime.

How old are you? The social unrest is going to come way before people are walled off in ghettoes. If, like me, you are a programmer earning 6 figures, you may not feel rich,but you are certainly perceived that way by the increasing number who are struggling.

Are these the same people who ignored all the warnings?

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

Bought cheap stuff from Walmart so middle class manufacturing jobs were sent overseas? Refused to get a STEM education so we're required to import 100,000 engineers ever year? Didn't develop a better immigration plan so now we have 11 million undocumented people, many who will work for far less because life is better here. That'll keep wages down.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#38

Post by fredkbloggs »

jal278 wrote: post #33
fredkbloggs wrote: post #30

Let's suppose for a moment that we accept the thesis that due to automation, there won't be much work for humans in the future. Instead of taking wealth from the smaller number of humans who are creating that wealth and giving it to those who are not, why don't we just accept that we don't need so many of us any more? Let the extras die off naturally (note to angry skimmers: I SAID NATURALLY) and migrate to a new low…

You're making an assumption that the purpose of humanity is to work to create wealth. That's a very narrow view of our potential. Many would view human flourishing more through the lens of creativity, relationships, and meaningful work (which may not be economically productive). While I do believe that smaller populations may be more desirable, the logical conclusion of your line of thinking would be that once we aut…

That assumes it's possible to automate everything that creates wealth (I'm using "wealth" in the author's extremely broad sense; it does not mean "money"). It sounds like you're saying it isn't, and I agree. That is, the optimal human population will never be zero.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#39

Post by pixl97 »

joshuaheard wrote: post #24

If automation is providing all your needs, you won't need a job. [Edit] Spotted this after reading the article: "Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data" ( http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/aug/17/technology-c...

>"Technology has created more jobs than it has destroyed, says 140 years of data"

"Past results are not indicative of future performance"

We can't compare the last 200 years of human to the past 20,000.

For example 66 million years ago the dinosaurs had already lived around 140 million years. In another million they would be dead because of exceptional conditions. Everyday in which we live in modern society is an exception condition based upon both the rate of change in human knowledge and rate of change in the environment.

As to your first statement. If I own the machines why should I keep you, that are now unnecessary, alive and instead live in super luxury with a few million people on the planet.

Re: Not a Luddite fallacy (2011)

#40

Post by AnimalMuppet »

I think the whole question shows that people are thinking wrong.

Think of a society/civilization spending people. Oh, we can automate much of agriculture? Great; we don't have to spend 90% of our people on growing food. Now we can spend them on factory jobs, and our society becomes better off. Now we don't have to spend so many people in factories? That's a good thing, too - we can spend those people on more productive things. Again, our society will become better off.

There are a couple of ways this could not work out, though. First, there is the social unrest that can happen in the time of transition. Second, we can lose one kind of jobs before we figure out what the new kind is, and so leave a lot of people idle. Third, we could eventually create jobs that are beyond our ability to train the bulk of people to be able to do them.

Post reply on HN