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

551–560 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#551

Post by birktj »

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…

I strongly disagree and I am having trouble understanding what kind of world you envision, what will it look like?

The problem as I see it is not robots coming for my job and taking away my ability to earn a salary. That can be solved by societal structures like you are saying, even though I am somewhat pessimistic of our ability to do so in our current political climate.

The problem I see is robots coming for my mind and taking away any stakes and my ability to do anything that matters. If the robot is an expert in all fields why would you bother to learn anything? The fact that it takes time and energy to learn new skills and knowledge is what makes the world interesting. And this is exactly what happened before when machines took over a lot of human labour, luckily there were still plenty of things they couldn't do and thus ways to keep the world interesting. But if the machines start to think for us, what then is left for us to do?

Re: Replacement.ai

#552

Post by mchusma »

A couple of thoughts: 1. A lot of replacement concerns are macro vs micro concerns. 1.a. Micro, automation pretty much always makes sense. E.g. port automation - consumers, businesses, basically everyone loses by opposing port automation, except a handful of workers. 1.b. Macro, if you apply this to everything, things do start to look a bit strange. Like if humans can't really do much economic activity, this is unfamiliar territory.

However, in the US, the labor-force participation rate is 60%. There are a LOT of adults out there who don't work now. While I do think people find value in work, I would guess that number is less than 50% (potentially much lower). Which makes me think that 30% or fewer of adults are deriving significant value from their work.

On the one hand, something that effects 30% is pretty massive. But it feels less apocolyptic/overwhelming than it may seem.

Re: Replacement.ai

#553

Post by skeaker »

mlyle wrote: post #355
warent wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> > Humans derive a lot of meaning from being useful and valued. Sure, humans relying on jobs for income is a problem with transitions. But people finding purpose in jobs is a problem, too. Right now how we get there is being "forced to' -- and indeed that's a bug. But if we transition to a future where it's pretty hard to find useful work, that's a problem, even if the basic needs for survival are still being met. I…

Not to sound harsh but this is a personal flaw. It's hard to find a better way to phrase it than "you need to get a life outside of work." Many, many people would kill to have not needed to work for the last 25 years because they have better things to use their time on outside of it.

Re: Replacement.ai

#555

Post by socalgal2 »

everdrive wrote: post #171

[flagged]

Sorry to inform you this but there are plenty of people in the world who could "do your wife better". She "chooses" at all times to be with you instead of those other people as those other people are just a choice away. She did not need some regulation to prevent her from doing so.

Re: Replacement.ai

#556

Post by ares623 »

kwar13 wrote: post #502
KaiserPro wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now it's barely 2%. Ever wondered why? Mechanisation But did you ever wonder what happened to the displaced workers? I'm not an expert on the agricultural changes in the USA, but in the UK, huge amount of tumult can be directly attributed to agricultural changes.

The displaced workers went on to do other things. In the last 100 years for those very workers who "lost" their jobs to mechanization the overall standard of life for ALL american no matter how you measure it it better. There's fewer people living in poverty, people live longer lives, better infrastructure, and no widespread famine in the US I am aware of.

Is this the Sillicon Valley version of “they went to a farm upstate”?

Re: Replacement.ai

#557

Post by monooso »

arisAlexis wrote: post #541
layer8 wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could illuminate us and elucidate the correct understanding.

Its just the reality. Ai has a big existential risk but also can drive innovation and the economy. Not very complicated. If you want to demonize Sam you can have 1000 other interpretations

Such as "I'm actively contributing to something which I think will bring about the end of all human life but it's okay because we're making bank." That sort of thing?

Re: Replacement.ai

#558

Post by klipt »

lazyfanatic42 wrote: post #503
klipt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"a lot of feminists", source?

Just search for feminist opinions on sex bots, there are tons.

Re: Replacement.ai

#559

Post by falcor84 »

Ghexor wrote: post #519
klipt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

> 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.

Personal belief: if a woman finds that she isn't pleased with the type of man courting her, then maybe she should take the initiative and put in the effort to approach and court the men that she does want. Just as you likely wouldn't get the best job if you just wait for recruiters to reach out to you.

Re: Replacement.ai

#560

Post by fennecbutt »

Ghexor wrote: post #519
klipt wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ex…

Shouldn't we ban dildos for the same reason then?

Or does it only work one way?

Post reply on HN