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

511–520 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#511

Post by rpcope1 »

YZF wrote: post #464
erichocean wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

We've replaced human jobs in the past not just made them more efficient. Horses (and all the jobs to do with them) were completely displaced by cars. Those jobs aren't more efficient, they're gone. Similar with many other jobs during the industrial revolution. This is not a zero sum game. For an economy to exist we need consumers. For consumers to exist we need people to have jobs and be paid. So the equilibrium is t…

> This is not a zero sum game. For an economy to exist we need consumers.

I think that's really unimaginative and not thinking about it right. If you control the basic resources and own the tools needed to convert those into whatever you want, why does the "economy" even matter? If you can get anything you want without needing anything from the other 95% of people, having "consumers" in the sense you're thinking doesn't matter any more.

Re: Replacement.ai

#513

Post by rpcope1 »

didibus wrote: post #363
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…

> Once men turned their thinking over to machines in the hope that this would set them free. But that only permitted other men with machines to enslave them. -- Frank Herbert, Dune The "government" is just the set of people who hold power over others. Those who will own machines that can match humans will have unprecedented power over others. In effect they'll grow more and more to be the government. Even now, compan…

Butlerian Jihad fucking when? I'm ready.

Re: Replacement.ai

#514

Post by jvanderbot »

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 one thing to be fired and completely replaced by a robot, never to work again. It's another to have your industry change and embrace automation, but to remain in with higher productivity and a new role. You might not initially like the new industry or role, but ....

That's noble. The first is dystopian

Re: Replacement.ai

#515

Post by BrenBarn »

nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

The question is what is different about equitably distributing the wealth of AI vs. equitably distributing wealth in general. It seems that the main difference is that, with AI wealth specifically, there is a lot of it being generated right now at a breakneck pace (although its long-term stability is in question). Given that, I don't think it's unreasonable to propose "stop AI immediately while we figure out how to distribute wealth".

The problem is that the longer you refrain from equitably distributing wealth, the harder it becomes to do it, because the people who have benefited from their inequitably distributed wealth will use it to oppose any more equitable distribution.

Re: Replacement.ai

#516

Post by perlgeek »

nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

In theory, we know how to do wealth redistribution, AI or no AI: tax value creation and wealth transfer, such as inheritance. Then use the money to support the poor, or even everyone.

The problem really is political systems. In most developed countries, wealth inequality has been steadily increasing, even though if you ask people if they want larger or smaller inequality, most prefer smaller. So the political systems aren't achieving what the majority wants.

It also seems to me that most elections are won on current political topics (the latest war, the latest scandal, the current state of the economy), not on long-term values such as decreasing wealth inequality.

Re: Replacement.ai

#517

Post by vanviegen »

franga2000 wrote: post #302
brap wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So your government should pump the brakes, while other governments rush towards ASI. And you believe this will benefit you, long term? Or do you believe in “global cooperation”?

This is exactly why I put "the government" in quotes. The parent post was saying "the government" should just fix the underlying problem instead of showing AI progress. This has the same problem - no government can do that alone. So it's either "we all science ourselves out of a job and die from uncontrolled capitalism" or "we try to do something about the uncontrolled capitalism and in the meantime, everyone else ke…

Not necessarily. You can also attempt to disconnect your economy from AI-driven economies. Yes, tariffs. :-)

That path is hard and risky (are AI countries eclipsing us in military power?), but probably more realistic than hoping for global cooperation.

Re: Replacement.ai

#518

Post by dfilppi »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #99
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 also what organized labor is for. Workers can't wait on government to offer aid without leverage. We would not have weekends off or other protections we now take for granted if we waited on government to govern for us as if it was a caring parent. So that would mean it is in fact the responsibility of the people at robot/AI companies (and across industries). It's not something we can just delegate to role-based…

[dead]

Re: Replacement.ai

#519

Post by Ghexor »

klipt wrote: post #453
raincole wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually an extremely good analogy (but in the opposite way of what you imply), as you don't own your job or your wife. Banning AI for job security is like banning dildos because they make men feel insecure.

It's not limited to men. A lot of feminists are also vocally against the idea of female sex bots because it makes them feel insecure.

I see female sexrobots as a symptom, a manifestation of the male gaze. I've heard personal histories of being courted and finding the guy was out for sexual gratification and didn't much care for her life-perspective. A justified anger there, I think, at a culture that perpetuates and celebrates this form of relating. Insecurity, I suspect, befalls more prominently the indoctrinated women that are catering to male expectations of beauty and ease. The successful feminists don't care if you're only screwing sexbots. If you are, it'll be great to have you off the market anyway. A filter for the men who won’t meaningfully connect.

Re: Replacement.ai

#520

Post by starik36 »

idreyn wrote: post #488
nharada wrote: post #419

How come I never see any concrete proposals for how to equitably distribute the wealth of AI? It's always either "stop AI immediately for the sake of our labor" or "don't worry sometime in the future everyone will live in utopia probably". Here's a starter example: any company whose main business is training AI models needs must give up 10% of their company to a fund whose charter is long-term establishing basic care…

This sounds a lot like a sovereign wealth fund. The government obtains fractional ownership over large enterprises (this can happen through market mechanisms or populist strongarming — choose your own adventure) and pours the profits on these investments into the social safety net or even citizens' dividends. For this to work at scale domestically, the fund would need to be a double-digit percentage of the market cap…

> The government obtains fractional ownership over large enterprises (this can happen through market mechanisms or populist strongarming...)

Isn't that what happened in the Soviet Union? Except it wasn't fractional. It ushered 50 years of misery.

Post reply on HN