701–710 of 725 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not necessarily. You can also attempt to disconnect your economy from AI-driven economies. Yes, tariffs. :-) That path is hard and risky (are AI countries eclipsing us in military power?), but probably more realistic than hoping for global cooperation.
So basically being Amish
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We invent machines to free ourselves from labour, yet we’ve built an economy where freedom from labour means losing your livelihood.
Average hours worked is more or less monotonically decreasing since the start of the industrial revolution, so in the long run we are slowly freeing ourselves. But in the short run, people keep working because a) machines usually are complementary to labour (there are still coal miners today, they are just way more productive) and b) even if some jobs are completely eliminated by machines (ice making, for example), t…
Although that is true when comparing the start of the Industrial revolution and now, people worked less hours before the Industrial revolution [1]. Comparing the hours of work per year in England between the 17th century and the 19th century, there has been an increase of 80%. Most interestingly, the real average weekly wages over the same time period have slightly decreased, while the GDP has increased by 50%.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Average hours worked is more or less monotonically decreasing since the start of the industrial revolution, so in the long run we are slowly freeing ourselves. But in the short run, people keep working because a) machines usually are complementary to labour (there are still coal miners today, they are just way more productive) and b) even if some jobs are completely eliminated by machines (ice making, for example), t…
> Average hours worked is more or less monotonically decreasing since the start of the industrial revolution Although that is true when comparing the start of the Industrial revolution and now, people worked less hours before the Industrial revolution [1]. Comparing the hours of work per year in England between the 17th century and the 19th century, there has been an increase of 80%. Most interestingly, the real aver…
Also most labour was not wage labour in the 17th century, so you need to be careful looking at wages. Especially comparing the the 19th century since there was a vast expansion of wage labour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having to pay bills is part of current socioeconomic reality. Deriving satisfaction from being a useful member of society and social ties is part of human psychological nature. Working on replacing human jobs with robots has two concrete outcomes, 1) impacting people’s ability to have jobs that pay bills and often create a meaning their lives and 2) concentrating wealth in technological elites (who run those robots),…
> Having to pay bills is part of current socioeconomic reality. This is a man-made reality though, and we have as much power to change it as we did to create it. > Deriving satisfaction from being a useful member of society and social ties is part of human psychological nature. I can't get behind this idea that "work" is the only way that a person can feel like a useful member of society. This is just the result of o…
Does it really need to be stated that “some technology would not be harmful if only the reality in which the technology was used was different”? The challenge is that reality is what it is, and even if we have a degree of control over some aspects of reality we are not at all trying to change it.
If we were the people in charge of job-subsuming robots, and we acted in good faith and common interest, we would be dedicating at least as much resources to changing that reality (in a peaceful, non-violent way) as to introducing a technology that harms a lot of people (even if we get paid for working on that technology).
> I can't get behind this idea that "work" is the only way that a person can feel like a useful member of society. This is just the result of our (man-made) programming that makes it seem like the only way. We've essentially been brainwashed into accepting the backwards idea that we need work even if work doesn't need us.
Even if what you said was true, this is a reality and for robots taking jobs to not be harmful this has to not be a reality. Are we dedicating resources to working on making that not a reality?
However, I don’t even believe this is true. Humans are inherently social. Self-awareness requires other people to exist (“self” cannot be defined without “other”); you can’t become a human without other humans because you need to be surrounded by others for something that we call “consciousness” to develop in you. We are much more ants in an anthill than solitary individuals occasionally in touch with others that we like to imagine ourselves as. For as long as humans existed, we depended on each other, and being in the void, unneeded, is subconsciously a death sentence.
There are the lucky few who find themselves needed by others without much effort, but work is a mechanism that makes the rest of us feel needed. Sure, some work isn’t the best for that, but a lot of work is, be it cancer research or opening doors for people entering a shopping mall.
> I agree, but i don't think the right answer is to stop the tech and keep digging holes and filling them in just to get a paycheck.
False dichotomy. The tech does not need to be stopped and has plenty of very useful applications outside of digging holes (e.g., cancer research mentioned by the other commenter). However, if you have XX% of population digging holes, firing them without any concern is an absolutely bad move, regardless of how good your hole-digging robots are. If you do that, all you are doing is a wealth transfer from people digging holes to people running hole-digging robots. (Remember, people digging holes also participated in the economy, paying their local butcher and baker who in turn could pay their bills, etc.)
> The solution is to fix the humans. Unfortunately our government is trash so yeah we're probably screwed unless we first figure out how to get govt to actually represent the people.
We can work on robots replacing everybody’s jobs: robotics is very challenging, but we found a way. However, to work on making a reality where everybody’s jobs are taken by robots a tenable reality? No way sir, it is way too challenging for our small brains.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Having to pay bills is part of current socioeconomic reality. This is a man-made reality though, and we have as much power to change it as we did to create it. > Deriving satisfaction from being a useful member of society and social ties is part of human psychological nature. I can't get behind this idea that "work" is the only way that a person can feel like a useful member of society. This is just the result of o…
> This is a man-made reality though, and we have as much power to change it as we did to create it. Does it really need to be stated that “some technology would not be harmful if only the reality in which the technology was used was different”? The challenge is that reality is what it is, and even if we have a degree of control over some aspects of reality we are not at all trying to change it. If we were the people…
If someone is arguing to limit that technology, then yes.
> but work is a mechanism that makes the rest of us feel needed
I'm guessing that you say that because you enjoy your job and it's part of your identity, which is great. But that's a luxury that not everyone has. Some people are ashamed of their jobs, or just simply hate them. But they're stuck because they can't find anything better.
I'm also sure there are tons of people in well-paying BS jobs that are glad to have a paycheck but absolutely do not feel their jobs are necessary or fullfilling. Upon realizing that their job is unecessary they are also left with the feeling that they are in fact wasting their time on this earth. So they're also stuck.
And it is surely possible to be social and to find fullfillment outside of work. I would even say that work is one of the lowest forms of socializing, one step up from sharing an elevator with a stranger and commenting on the weather. That's why most of the time (not all the time), when someone moves on to another job they lose contact with their old collegues. Because they were put together by chance, and while they made the best of being forced to spend the majority of their waking lives together, they missed out on the opportunity to develop real lasting connections with people.
> However, to work on making a reality where everybody’s jobs are taken by robots a tenable reality? No way sir, it is way too challenging for our small brains.
It's happening, so we had better figure out how to wrap our small brains around it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gonna just play a little mad libs here with your argument… Personal belief, but AI coming for your children is not a valid argument against AI. If AI can do a job better and/or faster, they should be the ones doing the parenting. Specialization is how we got to the future. So the problem isn't AI, it's the structure of how we humans rely on parenting for their children. I don't necessarily feel like it's the AI compa…
The artist behind replacement.ai chose a very relevant first use case — everyone thinks of AI replacement in terms of labor, but the example in terms of parenting and child rearing, which is arguably the only true reason for humans to exist, is genius. Procreation and progeny is our only true purpose — and one could make the argument AI would make better parents and teachers. Should we all capitulate our sole purpose…
We use tools all the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>wanting to smash the machines that made them lose their job. Wondering how long before people start setting datacenters on fire.
And how well those attempts fare. Data centers aren't exactly fortified, but they have a lot of focus on access control and redundancy, and usually have good fire suppression (except OVH apparently). Maybe ChatGPT has some ideas on how to best attack data centers /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What you call "some little team" others might call grassroots politics. And it's the alternative to top-down partisan politics. Ideas are nice, and important, but there needs to be an action vector for those ideas to have practical value.
Grassroots politics is a superset of what I'm objecting to which is a (premature) drive to have the problem taken care of by someone in government. Before we get there, we want a healthy public dialogue where people can organize themselves into camps, using good old fashioned social media. Bring your memes, your satire, stuff like this. What's the position to take to a politician? It's unclear yet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> This is a man-made reality though, and we have as much power to change it as we did to create it. Does it really need to be stated that “some technology would not be harmful if only the reality in which the technology was used was different”? The challenge is that reality is what it is, and even if we have a degree of control over some aspects of reality we are not at all trying to change it. If we were the people…
> Does it really need to be stated that “some technology would not be harmful if only the reality in which the technology was used was different”? If someone is arguing to limit that technology, then yes. > but work is a mechanism that makes the rest of us feel needed I'm guessing that you say that because you enjoy your job and it's part of your identity, which is great. But that's a luxury that not everyone has. So…
This was a rhetorical question to highlight the ridiculousness of using this statement as justification for anything. You can state it however many times you want, it does not change reality.
Just as well, we would not need legs if only the reality was that we live in the water. Turns out, the reality is that we live on land and we need legs. The right way is to adapt humans to living in water first, and then legs would have been gone away through evolution. The wrong way is to cut off people’s legs[0].
> I'm guessing that you say that because you enjoy your job
Let’s stick to the point, not to what you imagine about me.
If somebody hates their job, taking away their source of income is extremely harmful (clearly they would have quit already if they didn’t absolutely need money). If somebody loves their job, taking away what gives their life meaning is extremely harmful.
> It's happening, so we had better figure out how to wrap our small brains around it.
Not at all. For it to start happening, those who are in charge of robot job replacement would have to stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes.
I feel like we are talking past each other, I am done trying to rephrase my point.
[0] To make things obvious… Making sure jobs are not vital for human existence is evolving humans to live in water. Replacing jobs with robots is cutting off people’s legs.