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

The rise of the useless class

ideas.ted.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 125 posts

Re: The rise of the useless class

#101

Post by davidivadavid »

Am I the only person who finds the whole concept of judging people as useful or useless completely nonsensical? So, machines will be able to perform jobs that are currently done by people. How does that make people useless? It assumes there's some sort of preordained, global utility function. "Oh, your job as a cab driver has been automated. You're useless." Uh, what? Useless to what? To whom?

Humans define what is useful or not. They're certainly not going to will themselves into uselessness, curl up into a ball and die. The idea that humans can be useless is complete nonsense to me. It's something akin to a type error. And I have a hard time understanding why that meme keeps being repeated and debated without anyone pointing this out.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#102

Post by Broken_Hippo »

mjmahone17 wrote: post #73
return0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can think of cooking as an example of a surprisingly complicated job. OTOH i can think of many supposedly "creative" jobs that are already ripe for disruption. Anything that has to do with visual arts for example, architecture, industrial design, medical, law etc. These jobs may not be fully automated, but the human supervisor will be relegated to a secondary role.

Visual arts and architecture are both things that seem like they'd "suffer" from induced demand: by making it significantly easier to build a unique home, we'd be lowering the cost of people getting individualized homes, which would disproportionately increase demand. Leading to more profitable work for more architects.

It might not actually get better for architects. After all, the job is a combination of creativity and data points (will the building stand?). The data and knowledge bit could theoretically be taken over by a computer. Suddenly, normal folks can design their own house. After all, the system would know (based on current at the time knowledge) if the building is a sturdy enough design. I think that advancement would also mean it suddenly gets easier to do home improvements as well.

Most new construction would still follow fads, since humans tend to like them - look at the popularity of the McMansion, after all. A few designs from creative folks, who are not architects, would be simply beautiful or simply weird.

The folks in the supply chain - or whoever owns it - would wind up being more profitable because of more demand, though.

edited for an afterthought.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#103

Post by Broken_Hippo »

pasquinelli wrote: post #68
sebringj wrote: post #45

This is short-term pessimism, inline with the common dystopian future of sci-fi. It is really difficult to predict human behaviors and technology in the long term. Humans have the ability to steer things to their advantage so interesting things can happen. Just for kicks here's a more hopeful approach that I've heard...merge AI with the brain like Kurzweil was predicting. Imagine if everyone was a genius and telekine…

"I'm sure it would be very difficult to hold on to beliefs devoid of reason in that case..." No offense but I literally laughed out loud when I got to that part. Reminds me of what people said about the internet. Doesn't that comparison lend credence to the notion that greater access to information might often lead to a retreat into comforting echo chambers? That greater ease of communication might often increase the…

To be fair, we are still fairly early on with this stuff.

Yes, folks have their echo chambers. But alternatively, perhaps we simply teach the new generation better critical thinking skills, introduce uncomfortable viewpoints, and how to better not fall for tricks such as "fake news".

Just because we have problems with echo chambers now doesn't mean that we will in the future. Heck, in a way, the internet is teaching us about our echo chambers - it isn't a new phenomenom (families and community provided it for us), but having a choice in one's echo chamber really is.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#104

Post by ninju »

davidivadavid wrote: post #101

Am I the only person who finds the whole concept of judging people as useful or useless completely nonsensical? So, machines will be able to perform jobs that are currently done by people. How does that make people useless ? It assumes there's some sort of preordained, global utility function. "Oh, your job as a cab driver has been automated. You're useless." Uh, what? Useless to what? To whom? Humans define what is…

I believe the designation of the people as useless is based on the fact that part of our value to society is measured by the utility that provide to society and with continuing automation of human tasks it will be harder for us to find way for all the humans in the world to provide utility at the same level as they are now.

Now I agree with you that this (valuing people by the utility they provide) is a shallow and incorrect way of measuring a human being's value but it is true.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#105

Post by Broken_Hippo »

Animats wrote: post #46

This has already happened. That's why Trump won. Check out Detroit or the Rust Belt, or most towns under 5,000 people not near a major population center.

I disagree. It isn't really that folks don't have their old job. With that job went their livelihoods. Houses, jobs, medical insurance. Bills get late and suddenly finding food becomes an issue. Others just have very stagnant wages, so they work harder but can't stretch their paycheck as far anymore.

Do you think Trump would have still been elected if we had a proper safety net and social support for folks?

Re: The rise of the useless class

#106

Post by davidivadavid »

ninju wrote: post #104
davidivadavid wrote: post #101

Am I the only person who finds the whole concept of judging people as useful or useless completely nonsensical? So, machines will be able to perform jobs that are currently done by people. How does that make people useless ? It assumes there's some sort of preordained, global utility function. "Oh, your job as a cab driver has been automated. You're useless." Uh, what? Useless to what? To whom? Humans define what is…

I believe the designation of the people as useless is based on the fact that part of our value to society is measured by the utility that provide to society and with continuing automation of human tasks it will be harder for us to find way for all the humans in the world to provide utility at the same level as they are now. Now I agree with you that this (valuing people by the utility they provide) is a shallow and i…

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're saying, but I think I'm talking about something slightly different. First, I think that what you're pointing out in your first paragraph, while wildly accepted, is completely unproven. Second, I don't think valuing people by utility is necessarily shallow, but the way I worded my original post might lead you to believe that.

Here's what I'm getting at (and failing horribly, because I'm too lazy to think it through): many articles have been written that seem to outline scenarios where runaway automation leads to a situation where you have some sort of closed loop automated economy where humans have no role to play, thus making humanity "useless." I think that's hogwash. It presupposes that the goal of humanity is to perform a certain number of tasks that happen to be the tasks we currently perform. If we can find something to substitute that performs the same tasks, our goal is accomplished, and thus humanity is "useless."

That's when I generally go: that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#107

Post by Nomentatus »

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8
yomly wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems convenient to blame technology, and it is definitely going to be the bigger cause in the long term. This said, I am strongly of the opinion that globalization is not a force that benefits everyone (to put it nicely) and it is not constructive that this opinion is not discussed more widely without having to pussyfoot around dirty words like protectionism and nationalism as if they are automatically bad words.

Globalization is centralization: finance is centralized in New York and London; manufacturing is centralized in China and Germany; IT outsourcing is centralized in India. Over the 19th and early 20th century, the benefits of American westward expansion and the development of the industrial Midwest largely accrued to the big banks in New York. The same is occurring, just on a larger scale and accelerated due to leaps…

Actually massive British investments provided a lot of the capital, so London got a very large share as well.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#108

Post by Nomentatus »

dantheman wrote: post #72
rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Globalization is centralization: finance is centralized in New York and London; manufacturing is centralized in China and Germany; IT outsourcing is centralized in India. Over the 19th and early 20th century, the benefits of American westward expansion and the development of the industrial Midwest largely accrued to the big banks in New York. The same is occurring, just on a larger scale and accelerated due to leaps…

The US manufactures more than it ever did, page 2 of this pdf shows it quite clearly: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42135.pdf The US is more than double Germany.

But with fewer workers.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#109

Post by reddytowns »

ryandvm wrote: post #28
binarymax wrote: post #16

I want to be like my dog, but smarter and with more freedom. Every day I look at the lazy beast and wonder at the simplicity of its existence. Give me that life and an allowance for supplies to create, eat, socialize, and travel and let me loose.

This is the missing component of the Drake equation. The probability of any given sentient species eventually developing AI that is sophisticated enough that they cease all outward exploration and turn into a galactic shut-ins. Completely content to while away the millennia playing Candy Crush VR while the automatons take care of their birth/feeding/death cycle...

I don't think they would they care about births. Having more humans would just reduce the technological resources available to provide for their personal happiness.

Re: The rise of the useless class

#110

Post by reddytowns »

hasbot wrote: post #89
binarymax wrote: post #16

I want to be like my dog, but smarter and with more freedom. Every day I look at the lazy beast and wonder at the simplicity of its existence. Give me that life and an allowance for supplies to create, eat, socialize, and travel and let me loose.

That's pretty much my life since I retired at 50. My existence isn't so simple as I have two houses, two cars, ten bikes, etc. but eventually it will be simple.

I retired at 35. I find it a blessing and a curse. With no kids or any other major attachments, I had to come to terms with how unimportant I am. Having a high paying job where people depend on you really feeds your ego. When that's gone, you can't avoid this fact and it takes some humility to deal with it.
Post reply on HN