51–60 of 60 posts
There will have to be a shift to more creative work which can not be done by computers.
Is there enough demand for that much creative work? Who will consume it, if this trend widens the income inequality gap?
Are you serious? All we do outside of work is consume others' creativity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People aren't thinking enough about what life would be like with no responsibilities. The sort of internal reward you're describing would be hollow because people would still see others' work that was better than theirs, and they would feel jealous. And ultimately everyone would know that it was all a sham, and that humanity was unnecessary and living in a zoo of its own creation. Most of my sense of self comes from…
Why do you think people wouldn't/couldn't challenge themselves in ways they care about (rather than arbitrary bullshit they have to do for someone else)? Why do you think challenge or accomplishment only comes from your 9-5 job? Have you ever done anything but work?
The work we do is not arbitrary bullshit. Civilization takes work to maintain and grow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people find farming, construction, housing, etc interesting. Something like cleaning toilets... the robots can have that. :) Though, I must say that I subscribe to the notion that creating AI will very likely be the last big impact we will have on history. We will just live while AI will thrive.
>We will just live while AI will thrive. Why let them thrive uncontested? What's stopping us from using our own resources for self improvement of our mental facilities. I don't necessarily want to be a Jupiter Brain, I'd be willing to settle for a intergalactic iron man suit with brain enhancement, interfaces, or reworks.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programmer will be the last job, but most programming jobs will be a part of the first wave to go. I can't tell you how many days I've felt like my job (wire up this API by googling then massaging a code sample) was such an obviously mechanical process than the AI needed to do it was not significantly more advanced than where we are now. I do not expect most of these jobs to last another two decades (at least by then…
I wonder how many programmers shouted doom and gloom when the first assembly language was created, when the first compilers came to take their jobs, or when the first framework stole their work? Don't complain about boring, tedious boilerplate being removed, the removal just frees up our time for more interesting work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is there enough demand for that much creative work? Who will consume it, if this trend widens the income inequality gap?
> Is there enough demand for that much creative work? Are you serious? All we do outside of work is consume others' creativity.
And if income inequality increase, there will be less consumers able to consume that increased supply, further lowering the value of the supply of music. The "winners" of the situation who end up with more income do not have additional time to consume ever more greater quantities of music, while the losers have less money and potentially also less time (if they need to work more to make ends meet).
Edit: Also, given your wording of the question it seems like you aren't a producer of creative content yourself, so perhaps you aren't as directly aware of the trend I'm describing above, which has already had a serious effect upon an already difficult-to-pursue profession.
Eventually technology should kill pretty much all of the jobs. Human time and energy should be spent on what they find interesting, not on mundane stuff such as farming, housing, construction, database plumbing - all of which could be easily automated. No human should have to work to pay bills because there should be no bills. That should be the promise of technology. Only jobs left for humans should be things that r…
But if we have to go through intermediate point where 50% of humanity needs to be on the job to keep the lights on and the other 50% can live the life of leisure, how do we decide who's in which 50% without dangerous social upheavals?
[1] Assuming we don't kill ourselves or get sent back to the stone age with nuclear weapons or AI run amok.
Wonder if human made could become the next organic, at least among certain hipster types...
I also wonder whether a certain amount of this 'technology will kill jobs' stuff overlooks a small business issue that a certain few people don't seem to get. Namely, that the businesses that do well aren't always the fastest producing ones or the ones that make the 'best' products in some statistical sense. After all, about 90% of sites online are simply made obsolete by other, usually more popular ones. But many of them still gain an audience, even without being the 'best' at something or posting about it the quickest. All these talks and articles seem to assume the equivalents to Walmart and McDonalds will win in all markets because 'robots do things better/cheaper' and completely overlook such things as customer loyalty, branding, location or anything else.
AI is going to be an issue, but I think it's a tad premature to say all businesses will turn to it, or that businesses that aim for a more niche audience and care about the service more than the price will somehow stop being able to do well.
Eventually technology should kill pretty much all of the jobs. Human time and energy should be spent on what they find interesting, not on mundane stuff such as farming, housing, construction, database plumbing - all of which could be easily automated. No human should have to work to pay bills because there should be no bills. That should be the promise of technology. Only jobs left for humans should be things that r…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why do you think people wouldn't/couldn't challenge themselves in ways they care about (rather than arbitrary bullshit they have to do for someone else)? Why do you think challenge or accomplishment only comes from your 9-5 job? Have you ever done anything but work?
Lots of assumptions in your post. The work we do is not arbitrary bullshit. Civilization takes work to maintain and grow.
I don't think there will be robots to do all the housework for everyone. And there are many areas in the world where it will just not be worth it to automate many things unless you have robots that are as cheap to make and run as humans, and want to exist there by their own right, and also behave like biological beings in the face of environmental influences (sea spray, I'm looking at you).
So take away the hard work in large-scale agriculture, production, research, medical care..., and you are still left with a large amount of things to do. Also, there is a lot that just gives satisfaction from doing it yourself, like making clothes, a house, or cooking. I don't have to make the best meal ever to find it worth it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Is there enough demand for that much creative work? Are you serious? All we do outside of work is consume others' creativity.
Let's consider just music for now. Go to Soundcloud, Bandcamp, etc. and see how much music is already freely available. What percentage of those artists are able to make a living as full-time musicians? (especially when the trend is now to pay $X/mo to consume all you want) And if income inequality increase, there will be less consumers able to consume that increased supply, further lowering the value of the supply o…