Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 78 posts

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#61

Post by cousin_it »

zo1 wrote: post #52
cousin_it wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the entities that control the machines and give their products away will be outcompeted by entities that keep the products to fuel their own growth. Over time, the former kind of entities will die out. This is a general argument, the "entities" could be rich people, companies, governments, AIs, etc.

Some of those general "entities" you speak of are composed of smaller entities. Trade (e.g. of labor) will occur between those smaller entities. Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with. But I'd argue that everyone has something to trade, it just might be of very low relative value. Even in su…

Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with.

You can have something of value, but still be unable to find a trading partner, if that thing can be had for a cheaper price somewhere else. For example, if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#62

Post by owenmarshall »

zo1 wrote: post #55
owenmarshall wrote: post #5

Once again sethf hits the nail on the head. The response is entirely up to us. I'm not personally optimistic: this country has a deeply held Puritanical work ethic, and even if we get past that we have a real nasty habit of not liking to give any government benefits to " those people ". But if we can get past that...

We're not going to get past that because not everyone agrees with you. At least, not until you realize that forcing people to do what you believe is right is fundamentally immoral. No matter how noble your ideals, and how rainbow-colored your utopian future is "if we can get past that". It's sad that you can both simultaneously hold noble ideals of taking care of the needy, while thinking that the only way to do it i…

> At least, not until you realize that forcing people to do what you believe is right is fundamentally immoral.

That's the funny thing about "moral foundations" - what's fundamentally immoral in yours may be a cornerstone of mine, what I find barbaric is a cost of doing business in someone else's...

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#63

Post by throwaway9812 »

seren wrote: post #53
throwaway9812 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? People work currently, because that's the way _society_ works, currently. We have convinced ourselves that everyone either works or reaps the benefits of having worked (which is why he "justly" owns the means of production). However, your question is meaningless _if_ everything is produced by robots. Nobody will be able to charge for anything, because the justification for the current way wealth is d…

Until now revolution have pitched humans against other humans. And in most successful revolution, at one point, the police/army refuses to shoot on the protestors anymore. (or oust themselves the current head of state) I don't necessary have a really bleak view of the future, but I wonder what would a revolution would looked like with a robotized police. You could hope that at one point someone on the loyalist side w…

My point was not really that the revolution actually has to happen. Political pressure will build up long before and things will get sorted out peacefully.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#64

Post by gutnor »

superuser2 wrote: post #36
gutnor wrote: post #22

IMO it depends a lot on the timescale. Give it 100-200 years and all the positive scenario are the likely outcome. In 200 years, people will only have hobby because that will be all they have to do and most of their needs have been automated. The problem is the transition to there and that's the annoying thing in all those discussions, nobody ever talk about it. For example, Industrial Revolution and the 2 World Wars…

>In 200 years, people will only have hobby because that will be all they have to do and most of their needs have been automated. How will their living expenses be paid, then?

Well that's the transition period still. Either you own your share of means of production that sustains you or you don't and you starve to death because there is literally nothing you can do.

I enjoy a good distopian novel as the next man, but it would take a really unlikely set of circumstances so that technology has improved enough to enslave the population durably, yet not enough so that this enslaved population still has some use and, added to that, a ruling class or at least a culture motivated enough to maintain that kind of status quo.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#65

Post by zo1 »

cousin_it wrote: post #61
zo1 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some of those general "entities" you speak of are composed of smaller entities. Trade (e.g. of labor) will occur between those smaller entities. Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with. But I'd argue that everyone has something to trade, it just might be of very low relative value. Even in su…

Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with. You can have something of value, but still be unable to find a trading partner, if that thing can be had for a cheaper price somewhere else. For example, if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor.

Their labor has value to themselves. So they can always go farm/forage for food.

But to actually rebut your comment:

"if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor." If machines reduce labor cost, then the cost of goods reduces as well, making goods more affordable for poorer individuals. And consequently, reducing the amount of money required to be able to survive. You have to understand that none of these things function in isolation, but as a balanced equilibrium.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#66

Post by superuser2 »

throwaway9812 wrote: post #46
superuser2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 200 years, people will only have hobby because that will be all they have to do and most of their needs have been automated. How will their living expenses be paid, then?

Are you serious? People work currently, because that's the way _society_ works, currently. We have convinced ourselves that everyone either works or reaps the benefits of having worked (which is why he "justly" owns the means of production). However, your question is meaningless _if_ everything is produced by robots. Nobody will be able to charge for anything, because the justification for the current way wealth is d…

In a world where property rights exist, you don't need a justification to charge for something, you just can.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#67

Post by JoeAltmaier »

throwaway9812 wrote: post #46
superuser2 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In 200 years, people will only have hobby because that will be all they have to do and most of their needs have been automated. How will their living expenses be paid, then?

Are you serious? People work currently, because that's the way _society_ works, currently. We have convinced ourselves that everyone either works or reaps the benefits of having worked (which is why he "justly" owns the means of production). However, your question is meaningless _if_ everything is produced by robots. Nobody will be able to charge for anything, because the justification for the current way wealth is d…

...or some other rationing of goods will occur. When things are free, people waste them. When they cost even a nickel, they don't. So some credit system (basic income?) and some cost function will be necessary, because people are people.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#68

Post by cousin_it »

zo1 wrote: post #65
cousin_it wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where there exists scarcity and a differential in value, trade will occur. Now, of course, that says nothing about the people that have nothing of value to trade with. You can have something of value, but still be unable to find a trading partner, if that thing can be had for a cheaper price somewhere else. For example, if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor.

Their labor has value to themselves. So they can always go farm/forage for food. But to actually rebut your comment: "if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor." If machines reduce labor cost, then the cost of goods reduces as well, making goods more affordable for poorer individuals. And consequently, reducing the amount of money required to be able to survive. You…

Powerful entities can extract more value from a piece of land than weak entities. That means powerful entities will outbid weak entities, and in the long run all land will belong to powerful entities. There will be no land for you to farm or forage.

Labor isn't the only thing needed for survival. You also need things like living space, air and water. If these resources can be more profitably used by someone else, they will outbid you.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#69

Post by shenanigoat »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #20
pacala wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is: who needs the jobless people? http://www.humanesociety.org/assets/pdfs/hsp/soaiv_07_ch10.p... Table 1 U.S. Equine Population During Mechanization of Agriculture and Transportation Year Number of Horses and Mules 1900 21,531,635 1905 22,077,000 1910 24,042,882 1915 26,493,000 1920 25,199,552 1925 22,081,520 1930 18,885,856 1935 16,676,000 1940 13,931,531 1945 11,629,000 1950 7,604,000 1955 4,309,000 1…

> The question is: who needs the jobless people? If we ever end up really asking ourselves this question it means that capitalism has been running for too long; that it grew into an entity that serves its own goals rather than ours. By that time it might be too hard to slay that particular beast though.

Thanks. You've posted my favourite comment on the subject so far.

Re: Will You Lose Your Job to a Robot? Silicon Valley Is Split

#70

Post by zo1 »

cousin_it wrote: post #68
zo1 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their labor has value to themselves. So they can always go farm/forage for food. But to actually rebut your comment: "if machines make labor cost less than a living wage, then you can't survive by selling labor." If machines reduce labor cost, then the cost of goods reduces as well, making goods more affordable for poorer individuals. And consequently, reducing the amount of money required to be able to survive. You…

Powerful entities can extract more value from a piece of land than weak entities. That means powerful entities will outbid weak entities, and in the long run all land will belong to powerful entities. There will be no land for you to farm or forage. Labor isn't the only thing needed for survival. You also need things like living space, air and water. If these resources can be more profitably used by someone else, the…

Like I said, these things don't happen in isolation. Nor do they just manifest into existence out of thin air. It's a slow progression, and a slow co-evolution of different elements.

"If these resources can be more profitably used by someone else, they will outbid you." You use the word profit as a motive for "entities" consuming all resources. But you fail to elaborate on where this profit comes from? Well, other entities, and there you go, trade. But that's not really what you're getting at. You want to draw a false dichotomy between the two extremes of "powerful entities" and "weak entities".

Either way, all you need is the non-aggression principle and respect for property rights. And these "powerful entities" will never be able to coerce their way into the full market dominance that you describe. It's a self-correcting system, and it can only perpetuate itself if you don't respect property rights and the non-aggression principle.

Post reply on HN