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

Just own the damn robots

thereformedbroker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 356 posts

Re: Just own the damn robots

#31

Post by anigbrowl »

taberiand wrote: post #25
anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

Because you'll be shot, probably by a robot.

That works OK as a deterrent against (some) individuals, but there are numerous historical examples of its failure to scale.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#32

Post by philipkglass »

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

Duplicate the means of production. If we really end up in a world where robots make the products and robots make the robots, then the means of production are information products that can be copied like software. (And there will be open source robots too, but copying without permission is the fallback position if commercial robots are too patent-encumbered to reimplement by legal means.)

I wouldn't steal a car... but I wouldn't feel a bit bad about having a machine build an identical copy of a friend's car for me.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#33

Post by michaelbuckbee »

arichard123 wrote: post #21

I just don't buy it. I understand I'm in a minority, so let me indulge myself and explain, for a moment, why I think AI / Robots are nothing to worry about. My claim is: Robots will not replace humans in all jobs. Further, it's more than because of Human preference, I think that Robots will lack cognitive abilities that we have. My expectation is that in each area where they are deficient then they may well become a…

It was some article here on HN a while back that framed this much better for me.

It's NOT that Robots are going to take all the jobs, it's that automation and productivity advances are going to reduce the people necessary by a drastic degree.

There's lots of stats like Ikea factories making 17x the bookcases they did in 1985 but with the same number of staff. But even in our technical and development niche, look at something like Instagram. They went from idea to billions of users with what a decade ago would have been a laughably small staff.

The future is the top 10% of staff executing with an army of automated services at their command to do the work that 90% of their colleagues used to do.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#34

Post by mooreds »

michaelbuckbee wrote: post #33
arichard123 wrote: post #21

I just don't buy it. I understand I'm in a minority, so let me indulge myself and explain, for a moment, why I think AI / Robots are nothing to worry about. My claim is: Robots will not replace humans in all jobs. Further, it's more than because of Human preference, I think that Robots will lack cognitive abilities that we have. My expectation is that in each area where they are deficient then they may well become a…

It was some article here on HN a while back that framed this much better for me. It's NOT that Robots are going to take all the jobs, it's that automation and productivity advances are going to reduce the people necessary by a drastic degree. There's lots of stats like Ikea factories making 17x the bookcases they did in 1985 but with the same number of staff. But even in our technical and development niche, look at s…

Some might say it's a "Brave New World"

:)

The real question is what happens to the 90%.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#35

Post by frandroid »

adventured wrote: post #15
pdog wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investors are willing to accept much lower long-term returns for safe haven assets. If you're going to "just own the damn robots" at any price, you're essentially paying for this sort of insurance.

I agree investors will continue to own these companies in a very big way. They won't continue to maintain much less inflate the premium that presently exists. Microsoft for example has barely grown its income in a decade. On what planet should they have a 28 pe ratio? The stock has tripled (!) in five years on the back of zero income growth. It's massive value destruction just waiting to happen. Shareholders will not…

You forget that Microsoft's stock stagnated for 10 years before that. A 28 PE ratio is the new normal for tech companies. With Ballmer out of the picture, investors are speculating on a brighter future for MS. It's not here yet but they're making lots of smart moves.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#36

Post by notahacker »

taberiand wrote: post #24
arichard123 wrote: post #21

I just don't buy it. I understand I'm in a minority, so let me indulge myself and explain, for a moment, why I think AI / Robots are nothing to worry about. My claim is: Robots will not replace humans in all jobs. Further, it's more than because of Human preference, I think that Robots will lack cognitive abilities that we have. My expectation is that in each area where they are deficient then they may well become a…

Humans aren't so complicated that an AI won't be able to model those things you've listed.

Alternate view: humans are so fucking simple they'll pay extra for a machine-made coffee if it comes with a human attendant.

Humans might be so bad at figuring out whether Alice can work with Bob or whether we should bomb Iran that a magic 8 ball could do a better job, never mind the anthropomorphised superintelligent computers which exist only in the imaginations of futurists past and present. But humanity is going to continue to insist on getting people to sort that sort of thing out.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#37

Post by paulpauper »

In Kurt Vonnegut’s 1952 novel, Player Piano, we are introduced to a future in which only engineers and managers have gainful employment and meaningful lives. If you’re not one of the engineers and managers, then you’re in the army of nameless people fixing roads and bridges. You live in Homestead, far from the machines that do everything, and are treated throughout your life like a helpless baby. The world no longer has a use for you. Anything you can do a machine can do better, and you are reminded of this all day, every day by society and the single omnipotent industrial corporation that oversees it all.

He wrote this 65 years ago. It couldn’t have been more apropos to what we’re witnessing now than if had he written it this morning, right down to the nostalgia-selling demagogue who seizes the opportunity to foment rebellion amongst the displaced and disgruntled. When millions of people start seeing their purpose begin to erode and their dignity being stolen from them, the idea that there’s nothing left to lose starts to creep in.

The fact he wrote this 65 years ago yet the labor force and population have grown in lockstep, augers against this. https://staticseekingalpha.a.ssl.fastly.net/uploads/2011/12/... Why would companies, especially in an economic environment that is so competitive, keep employees that serve no purpose.

Buying and holding shares of Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft ,which are are not only leading this techno revolution but profiting immensely from it, is one the best ways to capitalize on this trend, which is what I have been doing for the past few years (along with owning Bitcoin). I don't however agree that automation will mean the 'end of jobs'. It's not that robots will take all the jobs, but rather the labor market will become increasingly bifurcated, with a 'creative class' at the top and the low-income service sector jobs at the bottom, without much in between. There is significant demand for service sectors jobs, of all skill levels, including skilled technical jobs such as coding, teaching, consulting, and engineering. But also huge demand for hospitality jobs; however, many of these jobs may not pay as much as the jobs they replaced, or bring much personal fulfillment.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#38

Post by ben_w »

anigbrowl wrote: post #31
taberiand wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because you'll be shot, probably by a robot.

That works OK as a deterrent against (some) individuals, but there are numerous historical examples of its failure to scale.

One of the stories of WW1 was a soldier explaining that a machine gun could kill enemy soldiers indefinitely if it had ammo, but the gunner had to stop for the sight of human dead.

KillBot doesn’t need to stop. KillBot can read your body language. KillBot knows if you’re loyal to Supreme Leader. KillBot doesn’t care if your death makes you a martyr, all that does is add a few dozen more targets to KillBot’s naughty list.

Let’s not have KillBot.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#39

Post by white-flame »

anigbrowl wrote: post #22

Why not just seize the means of production? Private (real) property is ultimately rooted in the theft of the commons. This has historically been justified using two assertions: that people don't value what they don't own, and that nobody does anything except for profit. Both are highly questionable, yet when counterexamples are offered they are generally dismissed as 'the exception that proves the rule' or some equal…

> capitalism is arguably restraining the creative forces of (socialism, participativism, something we haven't got a good name for yet)

I think the term would broadly be "post-scarcity society".

Re: Just own the damn robots

#40

Post by paulpauper »

pdog wrote: post #12
adventured wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The largest market cap companies in a given decade, overwhelmingly tend to be under-performers in the following decade. It's a trend that has repeated decade after decade. Many of these types of companies - AMZN, NFLX, GOOGL, FB - have pulled a massive share of their future returns forward (which is what happened to Microsoft, stagnating its stock for ~15 years). In 2007 the largest companies were: Exxon, GE, Microso…

Investors are willing to accept much lower long-term returns for safe haven assets. If you're going to "just own the damn robots" at any price, you're essentially paying for this sort of insurance.

but Facebook, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft are software, not hardware, so you're not owning the robots.
Post reply on HN