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

221–230 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#221

Post by strogonoff »

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…

“Robots coming for your jobs” is a valid argument against robots even if they can do those jobs better and faster, under two assumptions: 1) humans benefit from having jobs and 2) human benefit is the end goal.

Both are fairly uncontroversial: many humans not only benefit from jobs but in fact often depend on jobs for their livelihoods, and (2) should be self-evident.

This can change if the socioeconomic system is quickly enough and quite substantially restructured to make humans not depend on being compensated for work that is now being done by robots (not only financially but also psychologically—feeling fulfilled—socially, etc.), but I don’t see that happening.

Re: Replacement.ai

#222

Post by brap »

ivape wrote: post #193
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…

it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income 1. We don’t need everyone in society to be involved in trade. 2. We made it so that if you do not take part in trade (trade labor for income), you cannot live. 3. Thus, people will fear losing their ability to trade in society. The question is, when did we make this shift? It used to just be slavery, and you would be able to survive so long as you slaved. Th…

>We made it so that if you do not take part in trade (trade labor for income), you cannot live.

We did not make it so, this has been the natural state for as long as humans have existed, and in fact, it’s been this way for every other life form on Earth.

Maybe with post-scarcity (if it ever happens) there could be other ways of living. We can dream. But let’s not pretend that “life requires effort” is some sort of temporary unnatural abomination made by capitalists. It’s really just a fact.

Re: Replacement.ai

#223

Post by dtauzell »

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…

The rich will be the people who control the finite resources. If you have land that can be mined you will be rich if you can protect it and sell the thing that is actually limited.

Re: Replacement.ai

#225

Post by newsclues »

Ray20 wrote: post #143
newsclues wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing dirty, dangerous jobs, and allowing people to upskill and work better jobs is one thing. Firing educated workers en mass for software that isn’t as good but cheaper, doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. What is the goal of replacing humans with robots? More money for the ownership class, or freeing workers from terrible jobs so they can contribute to society in a greater way?

> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice. But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives…

I don’t think you are considering the negative consequences.

When you fire massive amounts of educated works to replace them with AI you make a mess of the economy and all those workers are in a worse situation.

Farming got more productive and farmers became factory workers, and then factory workers became office workers.

The people replaced by AI don’t have a similar path.

Re: Replacement.ai

#226

Post by yujzgzc »

qgin wrote: post #92
yujzgzc wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AGI does not replace "everything". It might replace most of the work that someone can do behind a desk, but there are a lot of jobs that involve going out there and working with reality outside of the computer.

There will most likely be period where robotics lags AGI, but how long will that really last? Especially with essentially unlimited AGI robotics engineers to work on the problem?

There are already plenty of supply chain problems in the AI industry, but the supply chain limitations to robotics are even higher. You can't snap your fingers and increase robotics production tenfold or a hundredfold without a lot of supply chain improvements that will take a long time. I'd say anywhere between twenty and fifty years.

Re: Replacement.ai

#227

Post by Supernaut »

Ray20 wrote: post #143
newsclues wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Replacing dirty, dangerous jobs, and allowing people to upskill and work better jobs is one thing. Firing educated workers en mass for software that isn’t as good but cheaper, doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. What is the goal of replacing humans with robots? More money for the ownership class, or freeing workers from terrible jobs so they can contribute to society in a greater way?

> doesn’t have the same benefits to society at large. The benefits to society will be larger. Just think about it: when you replace a dirty dangerous jobs, the workers simply have nowhere to go, and they begin to generate losses for society in one form or another. Because initially, they took this dirty, dangerous jobs because they had no choice. But when you firing educated workers en mass, society not only receives…

> these educated workers are taking on other jobs [...] that are understaffed because they are too dirty or too dangerous.

Just so we're clear here, are you personally going to be happy when you're forced to leave your desk to eke out a living doing something dirty and/or dangerous?

Re: Replacement.ai

#230

Post by derektank »

beeflet wrote: post #139
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…

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

They're not coming for all jobs. There are many jobs that exist today that could be replaced by automation but haven't been because people will pay a premium for it to be done by a human. There are a lot of artisan products out there which are technically inferior to manufactured goods but people still buy them. Separately, there are many jobs which are entirely about physical and social engagement with a flesh and blood human being, sex work being the most obvious, but live performances (how has Broadway survived in an era of mass adoption of film and television), and personal care work like home health aids, nannies, and doulas are all at least partially about providing an emotional connection on top of their actual physical labor.

And there's also a question of things that can literally only be done by human beings, because by definition they can only be done by human beings. I imagine in the future, many people will be paid full time to be part of scientific studies that can't easily be done today, such as extended, large cohort diet and exercise studies of people in metabolic chambers.

Post reply on HN