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

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#131

Post by throwaway-0001 »

reactordev wrote: post #109
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

Robots will do stuff for rich people ecosystem.

The rest you know what’s going to happen

Re: Replacement.ai

#132

Post by garganzol »

a3w wrote: post #125
garganzol wrote: post #118

It seems that some tech people are prone to ludditism. No wonders here, AI is sharper and brighter than most tech workers usually are. Instead of facing the new reality, some people start to talk about the bubbles, AI being sloppy, etc. Which is not generally true; mostly it's the users' psychological projection of their own traits and the resulting fear-induced smear campaigns. The phenomenon is well described in ps…

At least us Luddites are not losing their jobs to AGI, yet.

Rickshaws protesting against motorized vehicles instead of learning to drive them.

Re: Replacement.ai

#133

Post by candiddevmike »

skybrian wrote: post #117
reactordev wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

That’s one scenario, but there are others. There are lots of open-weight models. Why wouldn’t ownership of AI end up being widely distributed? Mabybe it's more like solar panels than nuclear power plants?

If we're in fantasy land about AI, why do we keep thinking anyone will actually _own_ AI? Human hubris alone cannot contain a super intelligent AI.

Re: Replacement.ai

#134

Post by johnwheeler »

darthoctopus wrote: post #18
sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

that is the point of Luddism! the original Luddite movement was not ipso facto opposed to progress, but rather to the societal harm caused by society-scale economic obsolescence. the entire history of technology is also powerful business interests smearing this movement as being intrinsically anti-progress, rather than directly addressing these concerns…

There’s a difference between something and everything though

Re: Replacement.ai

#135

Post by risyachka »

overfeed wrote: post #123
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

You need income to: - buy house - get food - buy clothes - medical care - buy nice things

if robots are that advanced that can do most of the jobs - the cost of goods will be close to zero.

government will product and distribute most of the things above and you mostly won't need any money, but if you want extra to travel etc there will always be a bunch of work to do - and not 8 hours per day

Re: Replacement.ai

#136

Post by Gepsens »

leobg wrote: post #113
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

Is it just income that’s the issue? I’d rather say it’s purpose. Even more: What will happen to democracy in a world where 100% of the population are 27/7 consumers?

Smaller cities, human size, humans closer to nature, robots bring stuff from factories by driving. Done

Re: Replacement.ai

#137

Post by lateforwork »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #124
lateforwork wrote: post #111

You don't need money. What you need is wealth. I am going to leave it to PG to explain the difference [1]: Wealth is not money. Wealth is stuff we want: food, clothes, houses, cars, gadgets, travel to interesting places, and so on. You can have wealth without having money. If you had a magic machine that could on command make you a car or cook you dinner or do your laundry, or do anything else you wanted, you wouldn'…

My main concerns: 1. When such wealth is possible through autonomous means, how can the earth survive such unprecedented demands on its natural resources? 2. Should I believe that someone with more wealth (and as such, more power) than I have would not use that power to overwhelm me? Isn't my demand on resources only going to get in their way? Why would they allow me to draw on resources as well? 3. It seems like the…

> someone with more wealth

Well in trekonomics [1], citizens are equal in terms of material wealth because scarcity has been eliminated. Wealth, in the conventional sense, does not exist; instead, the "wealth" that matters is human capital—skills, abilities, reputation, and status. The reward in this society comes not from accumulation of material goods but from intangible rewards such as honor, glory, intellectual achievement, and social esteem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trekonomics

Re: Replacement.ai

#138

Post by Tepix »

merth wrote: post #26
sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

We invent machines to free ourselves from labour, yet we’ve built an economy where freedom from labour means losing your livelihood.

„We“? A few billionaires do. They won‘t free themselves from labour, they will „free“ you from it. Involuntarily.

Re: Replacement.ai

#139

Post by beeflet »

TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

Firstly, they are not coming for my job, they're coming for all jobs.

Secondly, you assume in the first place that we can somehow build a stable post-scarcity society in which people with no leverage can control the super-intelligent agents with all of the power. The idea that "government will just fix it" is totally ignorant of what the government is or how it emerges. In the long run, you cannot have a ruling class that is removed from the keys to power.

Lastly, Who says we should all support this future? What if I disagree with the AI revolution and it's consequences?

It is kind of amazing how your path of reasoning is so dangerously misoriented and wrong. This is what happens when people grow up watching star trek, they just assume that once we live in a post scarcity future everything will be perfect, and that this is the natural endpoint for humanity.

Re: Replacement.ai

#140

Post by iwontberude »

yoyohello13 wrote: post #100
TechSquidTV wrote: post #86

Personal belief, but robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. If robots can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the jobs. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI company's problem to fix either. This is what government is for, and n…

I also agree with this, but I think there is a need to slow the replacement, by a bit, to reduce the short term societal harm and allow society to catch up. Robots can’t do the jobs if society collapses due to unrest. Progress is great obviously, but progress as fast as possible with no care about the consequences is more motivated by money, not the common good.

What you mean you don’t want to take a Great Leap Forward?
Post reply on HN