161–170 of 234 posts
Machines helped make farming more productive so humans no longer have to live on farms, and dedicate their lives to the next meal on their table. If we were worried about jobs back then, we would've outlawed tractors and other machines. If we really want to create jobs, we would go back to manual labor to make produce our food.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to wait in line for 3 minutes while some old guy tries to figure out Please rewrite, this is borderline discriminatory and quite offensive. Some "old guys" can be as capable to handle such UI as some "young guys". Disclaimer: half-old guy. [EDIT] thanks for replacing "old guy" with "technophobe".
Not sure why you are being downvoted. Perhaps because ageism is still a borderline ok form of discrimination?
Robots making food will lower the cost of food, giving more people access to better nutrition. This will also free up labor and capital to do other things. Machines helped make farming more productive so humans no longer have to live on farms, and dedicate their lives to the next meal on their table. If we were worried about jobs back then, we would've outlawed tractors and other machines. If we really want to create…
Yes we definitely need more people on disability watching Maury
We should stop worrying whether AI will cost jobs, but instead think about who reaps the benefits of thousands of years of technological progress, and how those benefits can be distributed more fairly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Mattered to whom? People always matter at least to themselves.
> Mattered to whom? To those that run society and determine policy. > People always matter at least to themselves. Which is neither here nor there as to whether anyone will lend them a helping hand or let them perish e.g. in slums and poverty. Though even at that one would be surprised. People left without a job/role in society often don't matter even to themselves -- low self esteem, turning to drugs, alcohol, etc.
I see this argument all the time here, but no one accounts for the fact that we live in a society in which people's worth is largely determined by their ability to secure financial stability. Who's to say that people without jobs, allowed to live without societal derision in a (best case) post work future would be inevitably reduced in spirit?
We should stop worrying whether AI will cost jobs, but instead think about who reaps the benefits of thousands of years of technological progress, and how those benefits can be distributed more fairly.
Robots making food will lower the cost of food, giving more people access to better nutrition. This will also free up labor and capital to do other things. Machines helped make farming more productive so humans no longer have to live on farms, and dedicate their lives to the next meal on their table. If we were worried about jobs back then, we would've outlawed tractors and other machines. If we really want to create…
Why is the UI on these things so atrocious? It took him a number of key presses just to select from a list of 6 and many more to finalize the purchase. Why not have a bunch of large tactile buttons at the bottom of the screen like all normal vending machines do? I don't want to wait in line for 3 minutes while some technophobe tries to figure out how to nagivate a pressure touchscreen with 12 menus deep. It's not his…
My local coffee place has humans who operate an espresso machine, while Starbucks has baristas who push a button, and there are vending machines that produces espresso without having an operator. None of this excites a moral panic. Kitchen labor-saving devices have been being invented for hundreds of thousands of years. What's new? Think about wheat. Wheat used to be ground in stone mills operated by oxen or wind or…
What's new? Well, if we keep replacing low-skill jobs by high-skills ones, we may have a little problem: are humans going to keep up with the training? Is the workforce going to adapt fast enough? When job replacement happens over several generations, it's a pretty easy problem to solve. When it gets faster, turns out some human abilities are not scaling very well.
And that's another one - will that high skill job exist after 2-4 years of retraining?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Mattered to whom? To those that run society and determine policy. > People always matter at least to themselves. Which is neither here nor there as to whether anyone will lend them a helping hand or let them perish e.g. in slums and poverty. Though even at that one would be surprised. People left without a job/role in society often don't matter even to themselves -- low self esteem, turning to drugs, alcohol, etc.
>People left without a job/role in society often don't matter even to themselves -- low self esteem, turning to drugs, alcohol, etc. I see this argument all the time here, but no one accounts for the fact that we live in a society in which people's worth is largely determined by their ability to secure financial stability. Who's to say that people without jobs, allowed to live without societal derision in a (best cas…
So, it's more likely that they'll be left to rot, than that they'll be provided for and allowed to be included is a "post work future".