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

401–410 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#401

Post by creer »

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?

> What will happen to democracy in a world where 100% of the population are 27/7 consumers?

What does the one have to do with the other?

But even then, currently plenty of people find their fun in creating - when it's not their job. And they struggle with finding the time for that. Sometimes the materials and training and machines for that also. Meanwhile a majority of current jobs involve zero personal creativity or making or creating. Driving or staffing a retail outlet or even most cooking jobs can't really be what you are looking for on your argument?

Is the road to post-scarcity more likely with or without robots?

Re: Replacement.ai

#403

Post by brainwad »

beeflet wrote: post #201
AviationAtom wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always compare it to the age of the industrial revolution. I have no doubt you had stubborn old people saying: "Why would I need a machine to do what I can do just fine by hand??" Those people quickly found themselves at a disadvantage to those who choose not to fight change, but to embrace it and harness technological leaps to improve their productivity and output.

The difference is that in the industrial revolution there was a migration from hard physical labor to cushy information work. Now that information work is being automated, there will be nothing left! This "embrace or die" strategy obviously doesn't work on a societal scale, it is an individual strategy.

Most people are not doing "information" work. They provide interpersonal services, such as health/aged/childcare or retail/hospitality/leisure.

Techies are angsty because they are the small minority who will be disrupted. But let's not pretend most of the economy is even amenable to this technology.

Re: Replacement.ai

#404

Post by grafmax »

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…

Problem is billionaires have co-opted our government. Their interest is in channeling money from the working class into their hands through rentier capitalism. That is contrary to widely structuring income.

Rent extraction hurts them in the long run. Because working class income gets absorbed by various forms of rent, they are more expensive to employ. Thus we fail to compete with, say, China, which socializes many costs and invests in productive industry. We are left with a top heavy society that as we can see is already starting to crumble.

Re: Replacement.ai

#405

Post by eli_gottlieb »

igor47 wrote: post #259
warent wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Equating “business” to “profound human intimacy” might be one of the most HackerNews comments of all time

Jobs aren't just business. Humans derive a lot of meaning from being useful and valued.

For most people, most of the time, jobs are a lot closer to "just business" than "marital intimacy".

Re: Replacement.ai

#406

Post by yoz-y »

Gepsens wrote: post #136
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?

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

Seeing how the humans behave when an extreme minority is able to control the production and the army…

Re: Replacement.ai

#407

Post by boogieknite »

amarant wrote: post #220
everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

I mean, she already has 3 tiny pink little robots designed specifically for the purpose. This isn't exactly news

"this guy fucks" - Russ Hannamen, HBO's Silicon Valley

surprised to see this so far down. if a robot can fuck better, then we would probably both have fun fucking robots together

Re: Replacement.ai

#408

Post by arwhatever »

devolving-dev wrote: post #326

I've never really been convinced that robots or AI replacing humans is a real problem. Because why would they do that? If I had an army of super intelligent robots, I would have them waiting on me and fulfilling my every whim. I wouldn't send them off to silicon valley to take all of the programming jobs or something like that. You might say: "but you'll need money!". Why would I need money? The robots can provide my…

how would you acquire the robot

Re: Replacement.ai

#409

Post by serial_dev »

Kiro wrote: post #144
darthoctopus wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I think we should be careful attributing too much idealism to it. The Luddites were not a unified movement and people had much more urgent concerns than thinking about technological progress from a sociocentric perspective. Considering the time period with the Napoleonic Wars as backdrop I don't think anyone can blame them for simply being angry and wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job.

And an important note: history is written by the victors. Additionally, just like how today some people have a caricatured understanding of the “other” side (whatever that might be), understanding what Luddites thoughts and motivations were through the lens of their victor opponents will inevitably create a biased, harsh picture of them.

Re: Replacement.ai

#410

Post by majkinetor »

lwhi wrote: post #334
Imustaskforhelp wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another interesting point: If someone think that robots can be a better partner, then you also 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…

I really don't buy the idea of AI helping with 'X' issue, by becoming a surrogate, because at it's root this is still avoidance. It's not solving the problem, it's diverging away from it.

Diverging away from is one way to solve it since it no longer affects you, no ? You can't remove the context. There are no problems in vacuum.
Post reply on HN