Replacement.ai

> Not at all

What I'm saying is that the automation is happening, so we need to deal with that reality.

> stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes

Exactly.

> Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain people, heavily featured on this forum, are working on something that causes harm to many

No that's not at all what I mean to say.

I see technological advancement as inevitible and good. A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress. People working towards progress aren't evil. I assume that they, like me, believe that our society can and should evolve with the technology. If it can't, that's our fault, not the fault of the tech. If our government is so embarrisingly bad that it exploits the people that it represents rather than helping them (which I agree it is), well that's also our fault and not the tech's. The government is us. We better get our shit together.

The wealthy already own and control everything. So your status quo goal of a fair society where we all work all day and feel needed and appreciated and have a nice comfortable life is already dead. You're defending a dead body.

"Arguing against robots" is an oversimplification. They're arguing against misery and harm, and against the unprepared nature of our government and businesses to account for the impact of large jumps in automation, which, of course, also means arguing against robots. The distinction is pointless. And yes actually, it is in fact the responsibility of everybody to decline to inflict misery, whether a law has been made to control your behavior yet or not. It would be dishonest to imply there is a binary where your business can't ever use any automation based on this principle.

The over-application of objective phrases like "valid" vs "invalid" when talking about non-formal arguments is a sickness a lot of technical people tend to share. In this case, it's dismissive of harm to humans, which is the worst thing you can be dismissive about. "Please don't make me and my family miserable" is not an "invalid argument" - that's inhuman. That person isn't arguing their thesis.

"The problem". Another common oversimplifying phrase used by us thinkers, who believe there is "the answer", as if either of those two things exist as physical objects. "The problem" is that humans are harmed. Everything else just exists within that problem domain, not as "part of the problem" or "not part of the problem".

But most importantly:

Yes, you're absolutely correct (and I hate to use this word, but I'm angry): Obviously the ideal state is that robots do all the work we don't want to do and we do whatever we want and our society is structured in a way to support that. You've omitted the part where that level of social support is very hard to make physically feasible, very hard to convince people of depending on their politics, and, most importantly: It's usually only enough to spare people from death and homelessness, not from misery and unrest. Of course it would be ridiculous to outright ban for-profit use of automation, but even more ridiculous to write a bill that enforces it, e.g. by banning any form of regulation.

Short and medium term, automating technologies are good for the profit of businesses and bad for the affected humans. Long term, automating technologies are good for everybody, but only if society actually organizes that transition in a way that doesn't make those affected miserable/angry. It isn't, and I don't think it's pessimistic to say that it probably won't.

I'd love to live in Star Trek! We don't. We won't for hundreds of years if ever. Technology isn't the limiting factor, the immutable nature of human society and resources are the limiting factors. Nothing else is interesting to even talk about until we clear the bar of simply giving a shit about what actually, in concrete reality, happens to our countrymen.

In the US, given the current trajectory, I see a frightening and bleak future.* Due to the Trump administration and the people who enable it, the United States is highly degraded and getting worse every day. I'll list what comes to mind...

[x] Authoritarianism. [x] Civil rights abuses. [x] Blatant defiance of the law. [x] Unrepentant selfishness and lack of character. [x] Weaponization of the courts. [x] Loyalty tests at government agencies and in the military. [x] Political prosecutions. [x] Politicization of the Department of Justice. [x] Rampant presidential overreach. [x] The Supreme Court's endorsement and flimsy justification of presidential overreach. [x] Self-destructive trade policy. [x] Ineffective economic policy. [x] Erosion of norms. [x] Concerning presidential cognitive decline. [x] Institutional hollowing-out. [x] Defunding of science. [x] Destruction of USAID. [x] Blatant corruption. [x] Nepotism. [x] Use of the military for domestic purposes. [x] Firing of qualified military leaders. [x] Blatantly self-serving presidential pardons. [x] Firing of qualified civil servants. [x] Deliberately trying to traumatize civil servants. [x] Unnecessary tax breaks for the wealthy. [x] Intimidation of universities. [x] Rollback of environmental protections. [x] Unconstitutional and economically damaging immigration policies. [x] Top-down gerrymandering. [x] Firing of ~19 Inspectors General. [x] Unqualified cabinet members. [x] Relentless lying. [x] Implicit endorsement of conspiracy theories. [x] Public health policies that will lead to unnecessary deaths. [x] A president who 'models' immorality. [x] Tolerance of illegal and immoral behavior of political allies. [x] Prioritization of appearance over substance. [x] Opulent and disgusting displays of wealth. [x] Trampling on independent journalist access. [x] A foreign policy that undermines key alliances. [x] Dismantling of the Department of Education. [x] Undoing key healthcare provisions from the ACA. [x] Negligent inaction regarding AI catastrophic risks. [x] Motive and capability to manipulate voting machines [x] And more.

Positives? It looks like some durable peace deals are in the works.

Overall, things are dark.

* All the more reason to organize and act. No single person (or even group) can solve any of these problems alone. No person or group can afford to wait for other people to act.

We simply cannot afford to let our shock, anger, or fear get the better of us. We have to build coalitions to turn things around -- including coalitions with people that may vote in ways we don't like or believe things that we think don't make sense. We have to find coalitions that work. We have to persuade and build a movement that can outcompete and outlast Trumpism and whatever comes after it.

> The benefit is simply that machines do work so humans don't have to.

Why is it a benefit? Because not having to work the ultimate ideal? Why would that be the case?

To me it seems like it’s only an ideal for those who wield the robots who do the work and profit from that, not to people who wouldn’t be able to do compensated work if they wanted to. (Ultimately, it’s a means of control: if there are no jobs, the people in power get to decide how to distribute sustenance to jobless population. Rest assured, that population will not dare to bite the hand that feeds them.)

The ideal is to be able to choose to do work you enjoy doing, feel pride in it, get fairly compensated for it. To not be able to do this seems like a strongly negative outcome.

> making our lives easier has become a problem

Is “easier life” the ultimate ideal? Why? There’s many other, more compelling things it could be (e.g., “fulfilled”, “happy”, “meaningful”, “satisfying”) and many of them are not exactly aligned with “easy”.

Even if easier life was your ideal, the precedent has been that automation does not lead to that—we are doing more work (and more challenging, a.k.a. the opposite of “easy”, work) instead[0]. As jobs go away, whoever is still lucky to have one gets getting paid less to do more work (that’s just market forces at work), while a small minority profits and benefits from more accumulated power. Is that what you want to happen? If yes, we don’t have anything to discuss further. If not, you have the power to be part of the change.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45656916