41–50 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you have brainwashed the tank crews (which admittedly does happen in the military).
In this scenario, I'd imagine the tank crews to be automated too.
I guess we have to hope that when the ability to completely automate warfare that the people in power aren't genocidal sociopaths.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Automation. Does NOT. Destroy. Jobs. Is the economy smaller today than in 1911? Are there fewer jobs today? Are there less worthwhile jobs today? Exactly the opposite in every case. Automation may eliminate A job in the near-term but in the long-term it creates and enhances wealth. Ultimately every dollar spent makes its way from one person to another person. Robots don't have bank accounts.
Well, there is one fix to that: Automation does not destroy skilled jobs. Unskilled jobs, however, are hit by automation. For theUS, the problem is how off-track our education system has gotten in terms of job preparedness. We have lots of people who worked hard, got lots of student debt, and have no jobs. Which is actually still small (the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is what, 4-5%?). We have lo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you have brainwashed the tank crews (which admittedly does happen in the military).
In this situation a tank crew would be attacking their fellow country men, so one would hope hope they would be questioning their orders to fire on civilians. If they didn't question the orders you would have to question whether they were brainwashed into thinking the fellow country men were deserving of attack. A lot of militaries train their soldiers to not question the orders of their superiors. I believe the US m…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, there is one fix to that: Automation does not destroy skilled jobs. Unskilled jobs, however, are hit by automation. For theUS, the problem is how off-track our education system has gotten in terms of job preparedness. We have lots of people who worked hard, got lots of student debt, and have no jobs. Which is actually still small (the unemployment rate for people with college degrees is what, 4-5%?). We have lo…
How does one define "skilled"? I suspect that the definition is something like "A job is skilled if it can't be automated". If we go with that definition then yes, by definition automation destroys unskilled jobs.
This debate isn't about jobs. The question is this: will the powerful still value human life when robots are better than manual workers? Wealth keeps concentrating in the hands of a small minority. Unskilled workers increasingly look like nothing but a drain on resources, unable to produce anything valuable or afford education. Many many billionaires have little respect for unskilled human life and libertarians do no…
Which billionaires do not value unskilled human life? How many billionaires are their in the world? Are there really many, many of them that feel that way? Are they really all that selfish that they would happily destroy millions of lives? What does that benefit them?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When it eventually happens, society will have to change. viva la revolution baby!
This is the classic view, but things have changed. Robots do not just make better workers, they are also better warriors. How many Chinese peasants does it take to kill a single UAV? How many protestors can modern riot police crowd control using sophisticated psychological warfare combined with advanced nonlethal weaponry? Once the violent, unskilled, uneducated, unmoneyed lawbreakers are rounded up by the riot polic…
Also, if 50% of people are unemployed there will be a lot of people who are employed who sympathise with them, so we are really talking about 80% plus.
I know that the suggestion that these are going to eliminate human positions is an unpopular sentiment here at HN because economics. However, are we really so sure that there will always be a human labor demand to effectively meet the human labor supply? What do we do when there is an excess of human labor? Everyone here is opposed to make work for good reason. But a suggestion that solves the moral issue of what to…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only if you have brainwashed the tank crews (which admittedly does happen in the military).
In this situation a tank crew would be attacking their fellow country men, so one would hope hope they would be questioning their orders to fire on civilians. If they didn't question the orders you would have to question whether they were brainwashed into thinking the fellow country men were deserving of attack. A lot of militaries train their soldiers to not question the orders of their superiors. I believe the US m…
I think we are in agreement. I was just trying to clarify my comment above because I was confused as to why my previous comment had been down voted. +1 for you :-)
I know that the suggestion that these are going to eliminate human positions is an unpopular sentiment here at HN because economics. However, are we really so sure that there will always be a human labor demand to effectively meet the human labor supply? What do we do when there is an excess of human labor? Everyone here is opposed to make work for good reason. But a suggestion that solves the moral issue of what to…
I'm sure there are several other examples of new types of low level employment that will arise as automation increases. In a world where everything is automated, there is no such thing as "too much training data".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When they have no marketable skills, they'd better learn some. In the absence of mental or physical handicaps, I don't see any reason why people would be incapable of doing this.
It seems like the mental/physical floor required to get a job is getting higher.