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

261–270 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#261

Post by Loughla »

citizenpaul wrote: post #186
Loughla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's valid, but I can still hope for better and dread that result.

I genuinely believe we'll see technological world war 3 in my child's lifetime. And I'm not a super supporter of that.

Re: Replacement.ai

#262

Post by 1970-01-01 »

I have still not seen, firsthand, someone lose their job to "AI". Parts and pieces, sure. But when the entire Venn diagram of 'this job' is laid out, it requires a cerebellum connection at some point. A vivid picture of someone's job being totally dissolved to AI is missing.

Re: Replacement.ai

#263

Post by ryandrake »

IHLayman wrote: post #127
leobg wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

“ What will happen to democracy in a world where 100% of the population are 27/7 consumers?” …we’ll add three hours to our day? Bu seriously, I support what you are saying. This is why the entire consumer system needs to change, because in a world with no jobs it is by definition unsustainable.

Not if it's ends up a literal utopia where robots do all the work and all humans share equally in the benefits, and get to live their lives with a purpose other than toiling for N hours a week to earn M survival tokens, which is what we have today. Good luck coming up with the political will to actually implement that utopia, though.

Re: Replacement.ai

#264

Post by 1dom »

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.

What if the issue isn't government failing to prepare society to move forward, but instead, AI businesses moving us in a direction that more and more people don't consider to be forward?

Re: Replacement.ai

#265

Post by pessimizer »

everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

Extremely weird comment. But no, you don't own your job or your wife. If robots are better than you, she should leave you and we should all be happy for her.

The problem is a culture that doesn't think the profit from productivity gains should be distributed to labor (or consumers), and doesn't think that wives deserve to be happy.

Re: Replacement.ai

#266

Post by beeflet »

thekevan wrote: post #194
everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

Your marriage is a decision between you and your spouse and is a mutual decision. A job is a decision that your boss(es) made and can be taken without your consent. You don't have the ownership of your job that you do of your marriage.

Impressive word games at play here, I almost didn't notice that you fail to explain what the actual difference is here.

A job is also a mutual decision between the employee and the employer.

A marriage can also be taken without your consent through divorce (unless you are orthodox jewish or something I think?).

Re: Replacement.ai

#267

Post by marnett »

wizardforhire wrote: post #110
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…

Gonna just play a little mad libs here with your argument… Personal belief, but AI coming for your children is not a valid argument against AI. If AI can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the parenting. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't AI, it's the structure of how we humans rely on parenting for their children. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI compa…

The artist behind replacement.ai chose a very relevant first use case — everyone thinks of AI replacement in terms of labor, but the example in terms of parenting and child rearing, which is arguably the only true reason for humans to exist, is genius.

Procreation and progeny is our only true purpose — and one could make the argument AI would make better parents and teachers. Should we all capitulate our sole purpose in the name of efficiency?

Re: Replacement.ai

#268

Post by scotty79 »

happytoexplain wrote: post #55
scotty79 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow modern Luddite messaging doesn't communicate that clearly either. Instead of "where's my fair share of AI benefits?" we hear "AI is evil, pls don't replace us".

>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).

I would love to lose my job if I got 50% of the value it brings the corp that replaced me.

Re: Replacement.ai

#269

Post by throwaway0123_5 »

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'…

Lets say I have a robot or two with a genius-level intellect. In theory it could manufacture a car for me or cook my dinner or harvest the crops needed for my dinner. But I don't own the mine where the metals needed to make a car come from. I don't own a farm where the food for my dinner comes from. Unless the distribution of resources changes significantly, it doesn't really help me that I have a genius robot. It needs actual physical resources to create wealth.

Right now the people that own those resources also depend on human labor to create wealth for them. You can't go from owning a mine and a farm to having a mega-yacht without people. You have to give at least some wealth to them to get your wealth. But if suddenly you can go from zero to yacht without people, because you're rich enough to have early access to lots of robots and advanced AI, and you still own the mine/farm, you don't need to pay people anymore.

Now you don't need to share resources at all. Human labor no longer has any leverage. To the extent most people get to benefit from the "magic machine," it seems to me like it depends almost entirely on the benevolence of the already wealthy. And it isn't zero cost for them to provide resources to everyone else either. Mining materials to give everyone a robot and a car means less yachts/spaceships/mansions/moon-bases for them.

Tldr: I don't think we get wealth automatically because of advanced AI/robotics. Social/economic systems also need to change.

Re: Replacement.ai

#270

Post by layer8 »

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'…

Username checks out. ;)
Post reply on HN