231–240 of 400 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not saying whether it’s good or bad, just the obvious bit left out. Does really show that UBI discussion needs to be had sooner rather than later …
I'm coming to think that the wages that would have been paid to people who robots have replaced should now go into a sovereign fund to help fund UBI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The chain of logic is falsified by the Whitney cotton gin: it was a labour saving device, which saved enough labour to make cotton much more profitable, which led to the growth of the cotton plantations in southern USA, which led to increased slavery, and those slavers actively prevented their slaves from learning to read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotton_gin https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-literacy_laws_in_th…
The assumption here is that an AI with IQ 100 could do anything a human with an IQ of 100 could do, only cheaper. But that's just averages. Really it would do half the things better and half worse, and then people have jobs doing the things that it does worse. That would continue until it doesn't do anything worse, which may or may not ever happen, but if it did and we're all still alive then the result would be post…
Anytime someone in power has no need for someone - what have they done? Provided for them for the rest of their life? Or discarded them?
The results generally lie with emotional attachment or sentiment. Take care of your aging parents as they become productively useless - sure.
Take care of the abstract thousands of people who made [thing] but are out of work now? Somebody else's problem.
It's clear that technological development creates a shift in jobs, i.e some jobs are lost, but new ones are created as a result. Whether the total #jobs increases or decreases is debatable. The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. (You wouldn't displace 100 manual labor workers with a machine that requires 105 workers to maintain). So by definition, the…
Universal basic income of some kind.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The 1000 Indians story was completely incorrect though. They has 1000 people in India tagging the videos after the fact for improvements to the machine learning algorithms. They weren't watching in real time.
I have a question: was the customer billed based on whatever the machine learning algorithm determined, or based on what humans decided after the fact? In other words, was the humans' job to just provide training data for future versions of the machine learning algorithm, or to manually fix the algorithm's errors and prevent over-billing?
I used to joke with others that shoplifted items should be retroactively free - as long as you self report after the fact. (Extra useful training data...)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe robots should pay taxes like humans since they are taking the jobs and the tax base that goes along with them.
That’s too hard to do. What is “a robot” and “a job?” Replacing workers is easy enough to calculate that with, but what if I start a brand new factory that only ever used robots? The solution is wealth tax and UBI. Get rid of regular income tax, then do a progressive wealth tax, which is enough to pay for a progressive UBI. This way, it’s no problem if you lay off all your workers to replace them with robots. In fact…
> The biggest problem really is people just hoarding wealth
That is a pretty substantial problem and doesn’t seem close to the biggest one.
It's clear that technological development creates a shift in jobs, i.e some jobs are lost, but new ones are created as a result. Whether the total #jobs increases or decreases is debatable. The issue that I see addressed less often is that the new jobs require by definition, a higher skill set. (You wouldn't displace 100 manual labor workers with a machine that requires 105 workers to maintain). So by definition, the…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Neither computers nor cars, nor office nor photoshop decreased the amount of available jobs...
You do realize that most governments run massive jobs programs to ensure this number of available jobs stays high, right? In the US we give massive tax breaks in exchange for hiring numbers. Computers may have very well reduced job numbers but we're running a contrived system at this point.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are reports that 70% of the sales had to be manually reviewed by the team in India ( https://www.businessinsider.com/amazons-just-walk-out-actual... ), so no, they weren't just training algorithms.
That article in particular was the one that was debunked. It was based on a false rumor.
This is self-reported: remember the 1000 Indians that were watching people shop at the Amazon Go stores? Amazon told us it was all "sensors" because it fit their company narrative to do so. I am not saying that Amazon doesn't have 750k robots and hasn't laid off 100k people... but they usually have some seasonality, plus, the quoted number is from 2021, the height of at-home shopping. "The world's second-largest priv…
> remember the 1000 Indians that were watching people shop at the Amazon Go stores? > Amazon told us it was all "sensors" because it fit their company narrative to do so. I think you, like many others, fell into the trap of just looking at the headline. The 1k people were labeling training data, not watching you shop like a puppet master..