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

181–190 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#181

Post by suddenlybananas »

Filligree wrote: post #71
happytoexplain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pls don't replace us Yeah, how dare they not want to lose their careers. Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe. Also, this is dishonest - nobody is confused about why people don't like AI replacing/reducing some jobs and forms of art, no matter what words they use to describe their feelings (or how you choose to paraphrase those words).

That’s false. It’s very easy to become confused about the point, when anti-AI folks in general don’t spend their time attacking companies… What I typically see is: - Open source programmers attacking other open source programmers, for any of half a dozen reasons. They rarely sound entirely honest. - Artists attacking hobbyists who like to generate a couple pictures for memes, because it’s cool, or to illustrate stori…

They'll replace you too you know

Re: Replacement.ai

#182

Post by beeflet »

serf wrote: post #156
happytoexplain wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>pls don't replace us Yeah, how dare they not want to lose their careers. Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe. Also, this is dishonest - nobody is confused about why people don't like AI replacing/reducing some jobs and forms of art, no matter what words they use to describe their feelings (or how you choose to paraphrase those words).

>Losing a bunch of jobs in a short period is terrible. Losing a bunch of careers in a short period is a catastrophe. 'careers' is so ambiguous as to be useless as a metric. what kind of careers? scamming call centers? heavy petrochem production? drug smuggling? cigarette marketing? There are plenty of career paths that the world would be better off without, let's be clear about that.

>what kind of careers? scamming call centers? heavy petrochem production? drug smuggling? cigarette marketing?

All careers. All information work, and all physical work.

Yes. It is better for someone to be a criminal than to be unemployed. They will at least have some minimal amount of leverage and power to destroy the system which creates them.

A human soldier or drug dealer or something at least has the ability to consider whether what they are doing is wrong. A robot will be totally obedient and efficient at doing whatever job it's supposed to.

I disagree totally. There are no career paths which would be better off automated. Even if you disagree with what the jobs do, automation would just make them more efficient.

Re: Replacement.ai

#183

Post by throwaway0123_5 »

philipkglass wrote: post #161
throwaway-0001 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Robots will do stuff for rich people ecosystem. The rest you know what’s going to happen

If robots can do all industrial labor, including making duplicate robots, keeping robots the exclusive property of a few rich people is like trying to prevent poor people from copying Hollywood movies. Most of the world doesn't live under the laws of the Anglosphere. The BRICS won't care about American laws regarding robots and AI if it proves more advantageous to just clone the technology without regard for rights/p…

I don't see how owning a robot helps me with obtaining the essentials of life in this scenario. There's no reason for a corporation to hire my robot if it has its own robots and can make/power them more efficiently with economy of scale. I can't rent it out to other people if they also have their own robots. If I already own a farm/house (and solar panels to recharge the robots) I guess it can keep me alive. But for most people a robot isn't going to be able to manufacture food and shelter for them out of nothing.

Re: Replacement.ai

#184

Post by gmerc »

risyachka wrote: post #135
overfeed wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

No. You become worthless to the government and will be treated accordingly

Re: Replacement.ai

#185

Post by everforward »

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…

> This is what government is for, and not to stifle innovation by banning AI but by preparing society to move forward.

This requires faith that the government will actually step in to do something, which many people lack (at least in the US, can't speak for globally).

That's the sticking point for many of the people I've talked to about it. Some are diametrically opposed to AI, but most think there's a realistic chance AI takes jobs away and an unrealistic chance the government opposes the whims of capital causing people displaced from their jobs to dip into poverty.

I can't say I have a good counter-argument either. At least in the US, the government has largely sided with capital for my entire life. I wouldn't take a bet that government does the kind of wealth redistribution required if AI really takes off, and I would eat my hat if it happens in a timely manner that doesn't require an absolute crisis of ruined lives before something happens.

See the accumulation of wealth at the top income brackets while the middle and lower classes get left behind.

TLDR this is more of a crisis of faith in the government than opposition to AI taking over crap jobs that people don't want anyways.

Re: Replacement.ai

#186

Post by citizenpaul »

Loughla wrote: post #102
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…

The problem is that AI and advanced robotics (and matter synthesis and all that future stuff) must come with a post scarcity mindset. Maybe that mindset needs to happen before. Either way, without that social pattern, I'm afraid all this does is enshrine a type of futuristic serfdom that is completely insurmountable.

> post scarcity mindset

A total shift of human mentality. Humans have shown time and again there is only one way we ever get there. A long winding road paved with bodies.

Re: Replacement.ai

#188

Post by yoyohello13 »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #159
iwontberude wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you mean you don’t want to take a Great Leap Forward?

A Great Leap Forward is what you get when you give a few fanatical ideologues too much power. I don't see anything in my history book about robots or AI being connected with that. They seem like different topics altogether.

> give a few fanatical ideologues too much power.

Uh, have you seen the US lately? I think that ship has sailed.

Post reply on HN