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

651–660 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#651

Post by Windchaser »

fluoridation wrote: post #624
tuatoru wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This time actually is different, though. If everything that a human can do, a robot can do better and cheaper, then humans are completely shut out of the production function. Humans have a minimum level of consumption that they need to stay alive whether or not they earn a wage; robots do not. Since most humans live off wages which they get from work, they are then shut out of life. The only humans left alive are tho…

If humans who don't own robots are not producing and therefore not earning, then they're also not buying. Who are the robot owners selling their products to?

Other robot owners?

See: "build me a bigger yacht", building moon bases, researching immortality medicine, and building higher walls and better killbots to manage any peasant attacks

Re: Replacement.ai

#652

Post by Windchaser »

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?

Oh, nah, we're definitely not post-scarcity. If the whole world's population used resources at the rate that the US population does, we'd need 4.9 Earths.

So: getting the whole world up to US standards of living is going to take a lot of changes to lifestyle or technological advances. Both of these are scarcity issues.

Re: Replacement.ai

#653

Post by ssss11 »

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…

But we all know what will happen, it’s the human condition of greed. The wealthy will control everything, governments will be no help, and all the newly unemployed will be in dire situations.

So while you’ve identified the real problem we need to identify a realistic solution.

Re: Replacement.ai

#654

Post by zwnow »

beeflet wrote: post #299
derektank wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Firstly, they are not coming for my job, they're coming for all jobs. They're not coming for all jobs. There are many jobs that exist today that could be replaced by automation but haven't been because people will pay a premium for it to be done by a human. There are a lot of artisan products out there which are technically inferior to manufactured goods but people still buy them. Separately, there are many jobs whi…

>They're not coming for all jobs. So we are all going to just do useless bullcrap like sell artisan clay pots to each other and pimp each other out? Wow, some future! I just don't know how this goofball economy is going to work out when a handful elites/AI overlords control everything you need to eat and survive and everyone else is weaving them artisan wicker baskets and busking (jobs which are totally automated and…

These AI apologists are also totally ignorant about the actual usefulness of these models. The tech billionaires have been building bunkers while pumping up the bubble. Tell me, why would one need a bunker if AI brings us that utopia? Non rich humans are just consumers to them, they will exploit the planet until it's uninhabitable for their own "gain". We are a waste product for those who hold power. They are showing this to us openly and all the time... how can people be so blind?

Re: Replacement.ai

#655

Post by lwhi »

xpe wrote: post #578
lwhi wrote: post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Conceptually, yes. But I'd argue the legal framework necessary to carry this out doesn't exist. The strength of private lobbists, keeps power in the hands of private enterprise.

Ok, to synthesize: there is a difference between the legislative branch having some authority (e.g. granted by the Constitution) versus the administrative branch having some legal authority (e.g. based on legislation).

I'm in the UK, but do you feel either is likely to exercise authority to constrain private enterprise for the good of the people underthe current US administration?

Re: Replacement.ai

#656

Post by thekevan »

recursivegirth wrote: post #214
thekevan wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your marriage is a decision between you and your spouse and is a mutual decision. A job is a decision that your boss(es) made and can be taken without your consent. You don't have the ownership of your job that you do of your marriage.

Both marriage and job contracts are mutually binding legal agreements. You have the agency within those dynamics that the law gives you, which varies by region/jurisdiction respectively. Your partner in some (most?) cases can absolutely make an executive decision that ends your marriage, with you having no options but to accept the outcome. Your argument falls a little flat.

>...job contracts are mutually binding legal agreements.

That is not true far more often than it is true.

Re: Replacement.ai

#657

Post by thekevan »

EgregiousCube wrote: post #274
great_wubwub wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure where you live, but employee contracts in the US are very rare in tech. Unions, execs, and rock stars - that's about it. The rest of us are at-will and disposable. Worker protections in the US are limited to "the machine can't eat more than two of your fingers per day" and "you can't work people more than 168 hours in a week".

When you sign your offer letter, you're entering into an employment contract. What you're describing is regulatory limitations on what that contract can say, and how different contracts can have different terms.

Most states in the US have at will employment. That means from the moment you sign the contract, they can fire you at will. So it's like a contract that ends straight away after it starts.

Re: Replacement.ai

#659

Post by classified »

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

> we should have figured out how to cope with the "but what about the old jobs" problem

We did figure that out. The ingenious cope we came up with is to entirely ignore said problem.

Post reply on HN