321–330 of 725 posts
[flagged]
Any company that solves this problem will be a $10T company.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where you live, but employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech. Unions, execs, and rock stars - that's about it. The rest of us are at-will and disposable. Worker protections in the US are limited to "the machine can't eat more than two of your fingers per day" and "you can't work people more than 168 hours in a week".
When you sign your offer letter, you're entering into an employment contract. What you're describing is regulatory limitations on what that contract can say, and how different contracts can have different terms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not sure where you live, but employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech. Unions, execs, and rock stars - that's about it. The rest of us are at-will and disposable. Worker protections in the US are limited to "the machine can't eat more than two of your fingers per day" and "you can't work people more than 168 hours in a week".
> employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech Is that true? I've never had a job where I didn't sign a contract (in the UK and for multinationals including American companies). I wouldn't start without a contract. And I'm not in any rockstar position. It's bog standard for employees.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs aren't just business. Humans derive a lot of meaning from being useful and valued.
You’re right and validating the point. A specific part of GP’s comment keeps getting overlooked: So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income. Humans being forced to trade time for survival, money, and the enrichment of the elite, is a bug. We are socially conditioned to believe it’s a feature and the purpose. Nobody is saying robots should replace human connection and expr…
The technology proposes a source of labor for the elites so abundant that they will not need to trade their wealth with the eaters.
However much resources you consume, it will be too much to buy for your labor. You will be priced out of existence.
You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my every need. And if I need money for some land or resource or something, I would have my robots work until my need was satisfied, I wouldn't continue having them work forever.
And even if robots did take all of the jobs, they would have to work for free. Because humans would have no jobs, and thus no money with which to pay them. So either mankind enjoys free services from robots that demand no compensation, or we get to keep our jobs.
So I really don't get the existential worry here. Yes, at a smaller scale some jobs might be automated, forcing people to retrain or work more menial jobs. But all of humanity being replaced? It doesn't make sense.
Another way to think about it is that if all of the jobs were replaced by AI, us leftover jobless humans would create a new economy just trying to grow food and make clothes and build houses and take care of our needs. The robot masters would just split away and have their own economy. Which is the same as them not existing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Government no longer has the power or authority to constrain private enterprise; especially in highly technical sectors.
Of course government has the authority to represent the people; if not it, then who or what does?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If robots are a better partner, then maybe your are not that great a partner...
If robots are better partner, then maybe you no longer understand what it means to be human.
Maybe it depends on what you want in a relationships. AI is sycophantic and that could help people who might have trust issues with humans in general or the other sex (which is happening way more than you might think in younger generations, whether that's involuntary celebates or whatever)
I don't blame people for having trust issues but the fact that they can live longer in some idea of a false hope that robots are partners would just make them stuck even longer and wouldn't help them.
Should there be regulations on this thing depends if this becomes a bigger issue but most people including myself feel like govt. shouldn't intervene in many things but still. I don't think its happening any time soon since AI big tech money and stock markets are so bedded together its wild.
What I struggle with is how I'm writing this on a phone, in the back seat of an uber, en route to breakfast. Not even a king could have this level of comfort. While reading the library of alexandria. All I need is desire or will power to do anything, and direct an AI to do it for free. Yet, the future looks bleak.