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

641–650 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#641

Post by vinyl7 »

throw81239821 wrote: post #599
materielle wrote: post #580

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually think this is a pretty good argument against AI dooming that I don’t here that often. Sam Altman doesn’t own AI. His investors actually own most of the actual assets. Eventually there is going to be pressure for open ai to deliver returns to investors. Given that the majority of the US economy is consumer spending, the incentive is going to be for open ai to increase consumer spending in some way. That’s e…

I'd agree. The logical fallacy I always observe in (what I call) the marxist-nihilist AI doom scenario is that it assumes that the top N% of people perfectly cooperate in a way that the remaining 100-N% cannot. Even stratified social structure is far too muddled for a "mass-replacement" scenario to not cause the elites to factionalize across different plans that would be best for them, which in turn prevents the kind…

When every industry is dominated by 1 or 2 players, collusion becomes a lot easier. This concentration has been slowly happening for decades now, and we're pretty much at the end. Every industry is dominated by what is essentially a monopoly, but because they keep at least 1 competitor alive, the public and the FTC are fine with it.

Re: Replacement.ai

#642

Post by array_key_first »

sincerely wrote: post #9

I kind of get it, but at the same time...isn't "we made a machine to do something that people used to do" basically the entire history of of technology? It feels like somehow we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

You eventually run out of jobs.

Every time we progress with new tech and eliminate jobs, the new jobs are more complicated. Eventually people can't do them because they're not smart enough or precise enough or unique enough.

Each little step, we leave people behind. Usually we don't care much. Sure some people are destined to a life of poverty, but at least most people aren't.

Eventually though even the best of the humans can't keep up, and there's just nothing left.

Re: Replacement.ai

#643

Post by ipaddr »

overfeed wrote: post #123
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…

Where would governments find the money to expand safety nets by 2-3 orders of magnitude, while losing most income tax inflows?

Wealth tax.

Re: Replacement.ai

#644

Post by mbac32768 »

latexr wrote: post #629
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm just shocked YC hasn't nuked the link from the front page. I'm not. People dump on VCs and YC all the time here and it's frequently on the front page.

Indeed. dang has even stated multiple times that when a story is critical of a YC company on HN, the policy is to moderate less , not more.

You believe that shit?

Re: Replacement.ai

#645

Post by insane_dreamer »

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…

> So the problem isn't robots, it's the structure of how we humans rely on jobs for income.

Humans have depended on their own labor for income since we stopped being hunters and gatherers or living in small tribes.

So it's not just a matter of "the gov will find a way", but it's basically destroying the way humanity as a whole has operated for the past 5000 years.

So yes, it's a huge problem. Everything done under the banner of "innovation" isn't necessarily a good thing. Slavery was pretty "innovative" as well, for those who were the slave owners.

Re: Replacement.ai

#646

Post by insane_dreamer »

JimDabell wrote: post #336
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…

> robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular! What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed b…

> What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant,

The entire promise of AI is to negate that statement. So if AI is truly successful, then that will no longer be true.

Re: Replacement.ai

#647

Post by insane_dreamer »

lamename wrote: post #340
JimDabell wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> robots coming for your jobs is not a valid argument against robots. Taking work away from people is practically the definition of technology. We invent things to reduce the effort needed to do things. Eliminating work is a good thing, that’s why inventing things is so popular! What ends up happening is the amount of work remains relatively constant, meaning we get more done for the same amount of effort performed b…

I agree with most everything you said. The problem has always been the short-term job loss, particularly today where society as a whole has resources for safety nets, but hasnt implemented them. Anger at companies who hold power in multiple places to prevent and worsen this situation for people is valid anger.

> The problem has always been the short-term job loss

Does anyone have any idea of the new jobs that will be created to replace the ones that are being lost? If it's not possible to at least foresee it, then it's not likely to happen. In which case the job loss will be long-term not short-term.

Re: Replacement.ai

#648

Post by insane_dreamer »

Loughla wrote: post #102
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…

The problem is that AI and advanced robotics (and matter synthesis and all that future stuff) must come with a post scarcity mindset. Maybe that mindset needs to happen before. Either way, without that social pattern, I'm afraid all this does is enshrine a type of futuristic serfdom that is completely insurmountable.

We're already in a post-scarcity world. The only reason there is still scarcity is entirely because it is created by humans to acquire more wealth.

You think that's going to change just because many more people find themselves without?

Re: Replacement.ai

#649

Post by [deleted] »

insane_dreamer wrote: post #648
Loughla wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is that AI and advanced robotics (and matter synthesis and all that future stuff) must come with a post scarcity mindset. Maybe that mindset needs to happen before. Either way, without that social pattern, I'm afraid all this does is enshrine a type of futuristic serfdom that is completely insurmountable.

We're already in a post-scarcity world. The only reason there is still scarcity is entirely because it is created by humans to acquire more wealth. You think that's going to change just because many more people find themselves without?

[deleted]

Re: Replacement.ai

#650

Post by marnett »

unscaled wrote: post #627
marnett wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Amish seem to be doing fine — and I don’t know if their way of life is under as much existential risk of upheaval and change as everyone else’s

The Amish approach to technology is completely different from the Luddites, and it doesn't teach us anything about whether we, as a society, should accept or reject a certain technology. To be more exact, there is no evidence that historical Luddites were ideologically opposed to machine use in the textile industry. The Luddites seemed to have been primarily concerned with wages and labor conditions, but used machine…

I somewhat reference the technicalities on Luddite vs the selective rejection of technology that the Amish represent (although arguably they are the closest we have to neo-Luddites, mentioning obviously Luddites anti-progress for all was too radical a stand, not on ideological grounds, but in its anti-capital stance).

I think the broader point I am trying to push is every critique of these technologies is not necessarily demanding their complete destruction and non-proliferation.

And the lesson of the Amish is that, in capitalist democracy, certain technologies are inevitable once the capital class demands them, and the only alternative to their proliferation and societal impact is complete isolation from the greater culture. That is a tough reality.

Post reply on HN