Live data from Hacker News

Replacement.ai

replacement.ai

671–680 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#671

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…

a democracy would be neat; we have a representative democracy here, so I can only vote for one of two candidates with a plausible chance of being elected, neither of who(m, if you must) have a coherent policy on AI or general disbursement of product, and even if they did, would be unable to convince the existing power structures in legislature to do something bold. probably better for mental health to accept a lot of these things (progression of AI or regulation of it, healthcare, etc) as variables in the environment we just live with, and focus on local/personal things.

we do actually have real democracy in this state, where we have binding referendums, but legislature is able to act faster than we're allowed to, to work around and nullify the policy we vote for. -so voting is fine; nothing wrong with it; but I guess I just worry, oftentimes, people get too involved in it and attached to movements which can accomplish something one day only for it to be reversed by the end of the decade. feels like the two sides are getting angrier and angrier, spinning their wheels in dysfunctional politics, and we can't have a functional government in this environment; one side guts government to replace with loyalists, then the other guts it again in a few years to replace the partisans, to replace with their own partisans. meanwhile, national debt just keeps climbing as people swarm into gold.

my compost piles, though -- not directly, but I can eat that; I can feed people with that. you know, you want to solve hunger -- you can contribute directly to food pantries. it's more work than voting, but something actually happens. -and almost all the regulation government cares about relates to capitalism; they don't care about my carrots because my carrots don't engage in capitalism. -and for some people in some circumstances, it doesn't take too much engagement with capitalism to be able to get $100k or whatever you need for a plot of land with electricity in a rural area if you plan out for it.

Herbert, as an aside, expressed a kind of appreciation for Nixon. His son wrote in a foreword to some edition of a Dune book I read mentioning this. He was glad the corruption was exposed and so blatant, because now, surely, voters would see how bad things became and will not let it happen again. Optimistic guy.

Re: Replacement.ai

#672

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…

What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing, resulting in the robots not doing anything because no one is buying anything, resulting in a complete collapse of the economic system the world uses to operate. Mass riots, hunger wars, political upheaval, world war 3. Nuke the opposition before they nuke you.

> What you end up with is a dozen people owning all the wealth and everyone else owning nothing

Only if the socialists win. Capitalism operates on a completely different principle: people CREATE wealth and own everything they have created. Therefore, AI cannot reduce their wealth in any way, because AI does not impair people's ability to create wealth.

Re: Replacement.ai

#673

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…

This is not a personal belief this is a regurgitation of the most standard neoliberal orthodoxy.

Re: Replacement.ai

#674

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why would other robot owners need to buy anything? They can just get their AIs to figure out how to make the things they're buying so they can not buy them anymore.

Re: Replacement.ai

#675
post #670
post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Switzerland. America isnt really a democracy it's a plutocracy.

Just for example. When the elite drives all their opponents into poverty and sends them to rot in prison for the slightest outcry, that's anything but democracy. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/swiss-lgbtq-groups-...

That's the paradox of tolerance for you; we must be intolerant of those that are intolerant... but you probably already know that Karl Popper theorized that [0]. Just looking around globally, we seem to be at that inflection point where this isn't mere hypothesis, but theory or law:

"Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices."

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Re: Replacement.ai

#676
post #574

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

I stopped reading past the first sentence, because that is not the logical limit. The logical limit is an unparalleled super intelligence that's akin to a god. What you state as the limit in the extrema is incorrect. Therefore with a faulty premise, all consequential propositions are inherently flawed.

Nonsense. If we give ourselves over to a super intelligence that we ourselves cannot fathom, there is no point in trying to argue about what that will look like. An ant cannot understand how a Saturn V rocket works no matter how hard it tries or how much time it has. But you do you :)

Re: Replacement.ai

#677

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

They are never going to just lift everyone up. We could have done that for world hunger, we didn't. They gutted USAID because 38 billion, but sent 40 billion to Argentina because 'business'. They don't care if our living standards become the same as the third worlds. Just like we didn't care all that much that the third world had really rough lives. How do you currently think about the third world? That is about as m…

I think the difference is scale. When for every person with a 9-5 job and a living wage you have 5-10 able bodied adults who live next door and are starving and have nothing to lose, not much can physically protect you. It becomes economically cheaper to share than to protect your assets.

Re: Replacement.ai

#678
post #579

Let’s take this to its logical limit: imagine that AI gets so good that it can replace a lot of jobs en masse. The most popular job in about half of the US is truck drivers, and in the states where it is teachers, truck drivers are number 2. Let’s say we do get to not only self-driving trucks but self-driving trucks loaded by robotic warehouse workers. Let’s postulate that this becomes the norm and let’s say that alo…

You underestimate how creative are people with finding things to do. Society didn't collapse because we automated stuff that was done in the past almost exclusively by humans, such as agriculture. It won't if robots start driving trucks.

The difference I see is that when we automated car factories, etc. there were still loads of jobs that (a) were better done by a human AND (b) most humans could perform them. The issue is that if you eliminate all jobs that don’t require a PhD or equivalent, what happens to the people who are just not cut out to be nuclear physicists or biochemists, etc?

Re: Replacement.ai

#679
post #670

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just for example. When the elite drives all their opponents into poverty and sends them to rot in prison for the slightest outcry, that's anything but democracy. https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-news/swiss-lgbtq-groups-...

That's the paradox of tolerance for you; we must be intolerant of those that are intolerant... but you probably already know that Karl Popper theorized that [0]. Just looking around globally, we seem to be at that inflection point where this isn't mere hypothesis, but theory or law: "Popper posited that if intolerant ideologies are allowed unchecked expression, they could exploit open society values to erode or destr…

> That's the paradox of tolerance for you

That's not a paradox of tolerance, it is the anti-democratic practice of fascism.

> they could exploit open society values to erode or destroy tolerance itself through authoritarian or oppressive practices.

This is exactly my point: an emerging fascist government through authoritarian or oppressive practices destroys tolerance by silencing people for any words that go against their agenda. There is no paradox here.

Post reply on HN