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

211–220 of 356 posts

Re: Just own the damn robots

#211

Post by grive »

aorloff wrote: post #144
Iv wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but it will also create new jobs managing the automation No, that's bullshit. New jobs will be created that way but far less: there would be no incentive to automation otherwise. This month I visited a warehouse with a team tasked to automate it. If we succeed, phase I should put ~10 people out of job and we don't expect to have to do more than occasional monthly interventions (and that's assuming that we have a hi…

> At this point, there will be a genuine question: why do we need to work to benefit from the goods of these industries? For the same reason you can't look over to your neighbor's driveway and say, since he doesn't use his truck all day while he's at work, why can't I drive it ? The people who built those automated industries expended capital, and likely, borrowed against future revenue to do so. What you are free to…

> For the same reason you can't look over to your neighbor's driveway and say, since he doesn't use his truck all day while he's at work, why can't I drive it ?

Now.

This sense of ownership will be far more diluted once the truck is entirely automated and only needs ressources to run, while the knowledge that it could be far more efficiently allocated to be used by you at this time is made clear by our connected environment.

Then the same question will arise for your neighbor's truck: "why do we need to reserve ownership of these goods for the benefit of a limited portion of society?"

Starting from the fruit of labor, whole industries, to the minutiaes such as these. A connected world means that such micro-optimization would become possible.

So don't dismiss this on the basis that right now, this is not how we operate.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#212

Post by speleding »

wiz21c wrote: post #201
Aeolun wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's a big difference in being replaced by a 'robot' from overseas or a robot that was built in the US. Either way it means your value to society is gone.

>> Either way it means your value to society is gone. Your value to society is much more than that. You have value for friends, relatives. You also bring some idea that may be used by others. You may fix or build things that will be of value to someone else. Etc. This is very important. The other argument is that if you reduce yourself to work, then you'll give credits to the argument that work is everything and that…

I agree that "Value to society" != "Value to the economy". But the value to the economy is what determines your wages in large part.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#213

Post by explainplease »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #165
bmomb wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The revolution aspect will still be relevant when we consider autonomous war machines? What power the 90% have when its opposed to drones, or some other hi-tech weapon?

It worked for Gandhi fighting (or rather, not fighting) the British. Superior weaponry doesn't necessarily lead to victory in this kind of conflict.

If you haven't already, I highly recommend playing the Paperclips game that was posted recently. When your enemies are merely numbers on a screen, what does it matter who or what they are? Your machines are tasked to eliminate them, and if your machines are better than their machines--or, in this case, if the enemy don't have any machines--you win, and they disappear. Then you task your machines to clean up the mess, and in a short time, it's as if your enemies never existed.

We hope that there would be enough good people among the wealthy and powerful to avoid such a scenario--but would there? Do we know that for certain? I don't think we do. Look at how the wealthy and powerful already exploit people on both small and large scales, from Hollywood execs satisfying their sexual desires one victim at a time, to corporate execs exploiting cheap overseas labor that, to them, are merely numbers on a screen, helping them increase margins.

It all boils down to the same problem in the end, that of evil, and it's not going away, merely taking different forms throughout the ages.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#214

Post by fastball »

lsiebert wrote: post #123
nradov wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very few people would "thrive" on a basic income. Look at communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid. People need a reason to exist and meaningful work to do. Very few have the drive and discipline to become artists/inventors/philosophers/musicians/actors. Plus the majority of those who do become artists are unlikely to create anything that the rest of society would value. Have you be…

Communities today where a large percentage of people live on government aid are not the equivalent to the country as a whole on basic income, and government aid now imposes multiple work and reporting requirements that help prevent people on government aid from pursuing creative endeavors. No, if you want to look at basic income, look at the children of the wealthy, who never have to work. Most still pursue education…

The difference between basic income and the children of the wealthy is the spectre of the money disappearing.

Only the most short-sighted of the wealthy do not realize that there are many ways in which their wealth could dry up. This provides an impetus to use the money constructively while you have it, because it might not be around forever.

Basic income does not give the same drive. You can watch TV all day, doing nothing to better yourself, doing nothing to manage your money, and you know that there will always be more where that came from.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#215

Post by fastball »

lsiebert wrote: post #125
germinalphrase wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, do the 10% believe that they are a static group deserving of persistent participation in the "working class" - or is this a competitive and fluid group in which the children of the 90% may move into/out of as their skills/ability apply? Which is to ask - is it worth maintaining a 90% at all or should we 'solve that problem'?

I think you are assuming equal opportunity for the children of the wealthy vs the children of the poor. It doesn't take any particular smarts to live off of family money though. Investment income doesn't require work to support oneself, properly diversified it will continue to grow. Income from jobs however, does require work. Study after study indicates that wealth provides opportunities, and that most people don't…

But where did the wealthy parents come from?

You're setting up a chicken and egg problem for yourself. Wealth had to start somewhere, as I doubt you'd argue that it was handed down to certain families by a deity.

Heritage is important. A person does not just have more opportunity because of the wealth of an ancestor - they exist because of that ancestor. Does everyone not deserve to have whatever their ancestors chose to give them?

The only argument that can be made is if you can show that someone's ancestors only had wealth because they unjustly stole it from others. But that's a tall order.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#216

Post by humanrebar »

wiz21c wrote: post #201
Aeolun wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's a big difference in being replaced by a 'robot' from overseas or a robot that was built in the US. Either way it means your value to society is gone.

>> Either way it means your value to society is gone. Your value to society is much more than that. You have value for friends, relatives. You also bring some idea that may be used by others. You may fix or build things that will be of value to someone else. Etc. This is very important. The other argument is that if you reduce yourself to work, then you'll give credits to the argument that work is everything and that…

> Your value to society is much more than that.

That may be true, but it's more of a statement of faith than an objective truth.

Since all the things you bring up are performance-based (socially successful, successful inventor, etc.), it's also a bit of a sideways move from "how important is your job". It also leaves open the possibility that people can be net negatives to society, so it doesn't really help individuals feel actualized.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#217

Post by lmm »

graeme wrote: post #132
bufordsharkley wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's no surprise that we're seeing more and more anxiety coalesce around land: this is the classical economic expectation of what would happen as automated output starts to outperform labor, and capital can be automatically produced. When this happens, scarce natural resources (such as location) increase in value. Henry George saw this nearly 140 years ago, with his "Fool's Paradise" thought experiment.[0] As efficie…

Please don’t encourage the Toronto housing bubble. (Or Vancouver, OP is surely in one of the two) I’m sure Georgianism has its merits, but housing generally hasn’t been a great investment in most of north america, especially once maintenance costs are factored in. Meanwhile, Toronto and Vancouver are in the midst of a speculative housing mania. House prices have far outpaced rents. OP is correct not to buy. (Especial…

> I’m sure Georgianism has its merits, but housing generally hasn’t been a great investment in most of north america, especially once maintenance costs are factored in.

Georgists would expect housing (or rather, land) prices to rise in places where productivity is increasing, and not in places where productivity isn't increasing, which seems to align with what we're seeing - economic growth is largely happening in the cities, and much less in the suburbs or countryside.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#218

Post by heavenlyblue »

jacobush wrote: post #205
hectorlorenzo wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Slightly off-topic, but that is the main reason I do not want to have kids: I am not sure I would like the kind of person I would become. Sometimes I am already paralysed by fear when thoughts about my future take a dark turn (relatively often), but at the end of the day it is my well-being (and my wife's) we are talking about, and we are economically independent adults. We could take a hit or two. Throwing little de…

OTOH is you get kids you will be so busy you can't think about these things as often. I tend to think we humans have an agony ratio we tend to maximise, pretty independently of circumstances. :) With kids you will worry as much, but over different things. And also the old things, when you get time over to mull over those...

"Idiocracy" has captured this idea well enough.

It's funny how smart people tend to forget their upper-middle-class ancestors _probably_ thought absolutely the same way.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#219

Post by wiz21c »

speleding wrote: post #212
wiz21c wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Either way it means your value to society is gone. Your value to society is much more than that. You have value for friends, relatives. You also bring some idea that may be used by others. You may fix or build things that will be of value to someone else. Etc. This is very important. The other argument is that if you reduce yourself to work, then you'll give credits to the argument that work is everything and that…

I agree that "Value to society" != "Value to the economy". But the value to the economy is what determines your wages in large part.

Yep, my answer was specifically against what you say :

>>> what determines your wages in large part.

The wages should not be that important anymore. That would prevent capital from being predatory. How we achieve that, I dunno, universal income ? maybe... maybe not. But IMHO, if we continue to think wages == beginning of everything, it certainly won't change.

Re: Just own the damn robots

#220

Post by ucontrol »

Apocryphon wrote: post #30
leggomylibro wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What will that tech need to survive? Lithium, for batteries. Heavy metals, for processing. Energy, most of all. I wonder how long it'll be until we replace fiat currencies with a balance of kilowatt-hours.

Energy is the currency of the future. - CEO Nwabudike Morgan, "The Centauri Monopoly"

That game man... It's really a piece of art.
Post reply on HN