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

721–725 of 725 posts

Re: Replacement.ai

#721

Post by strogonoff »

thunky wrote: post #720
strogonoff wrote: post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 peop…

> 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. I think I've been pretty consistent that I think the change necessary is a social/political one, not a tech one. Whether or not we're capable of this change is another question.

I have not seen a description of what this “target reality” should even look like. It sounds like either you have not thought about what it would be, or you did but you would rather keep it to yourself.

It is not even a question that it would be strongly unethical (like evil addictive social media/crypto scams/online casino times a thousand level of unethical) to proceed on working on job-replacing robots without considering what a tenable no-job reality would like like, or after deciding it is probably not achievable.

Re: Replacement.ai

#722

Post by thunky »

strogonoff wrote: post #721
thunky wrote: post #720

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I think I've been pretty consistent that I think the change necessary is a social/political one, not a tech one. Whether or not we're capable of this change is another question.

I have not seen a description of what this “target reality” should even look like. It sounds like either you have not thought about what it would be, or you did but you would rather keep it to yourself. It is not even a question that it would be strongly unethical (like evil addictive social media/crypto scams/online casino times a thousand level of unethical) to proceed on working on job-replacing robots without con…

I mentioned Andrew Yang way up thread. He proposed a "freedom dividend". Something like that is a start.

https://2020.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/

Re: Replacement.ai

#723

Post by zurfer »

tomp wrote: post #592
IgorPartola wrote: post #564

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…

> If robots produce so much value that it is actively not even viable for humans to work, the only real logical solution is to distribute the profits You don't understand. Almost nobody actually thinks about this in the right way, but it's actually basic economics. Salt. We used to fight wars for salt, but now it's literally given away for free (in restaurants). If "robots produce so much value" then all that value w…

Regulation might be one part of the equation, but I would like to understand a bit deeper on how much of cost driver it is.

Healthcare is heavily regulated in some countries and less in others. It should be possible to get some comparisons.

I somehow feel that making many humans healthy is fundamentally a really hard problem that gets harder every year because the population ages and expectations rise. It feels to easy of a talking point to put it all on regulation.

Re: Replacement.ai

#724

Post by achierius »

lateforwork wrote: post #367
achierius wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have systems that create unprecedented wealth: industrial economies. And yet we let billions live and die without proper healthcare, nutrition, housing, and so on. The promise you make -- that with increases in productive capacity will clearly come an end to want -- has already been shown to be a lie. Please stop peddling it.

Quality of life has greatly improved since the 1970s. Consumer goods have generally fallen in price (adjusted for inflation) while improving in quality relative to the 1970s, so we have become wealthier (using PG's definition of wealth): Televisions, computers, smartphones, clothing (mass-produced apparel is cheaper due to global supply chains and automation), household appliances (items like refrigerators, washing m…

Great, but what about the people who still starve to death? The ones who are left to die on the streets? Yes, those homeless now have phones, but I imagine that does little to mask the hunger pains. And unlike housing, food has not gotten significantly more expensive -- so what gives? The fact that we let this happen, even in the very heart of the richest nation on Earth, the richest nation in history, is proof positive that regardless of how rich the world gets, there's no guarantee that those riches will be used equitably. I agree that we've made massive strides; as such, making more massive strides is unlikely to change this dynamic.

Re: Replacement.ai

#725

Post by NaomiLehman »

dlt713705 wrote: post #576
IgorPartola wrote: post #564

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…

Unfortunately there is a very affordable alternative solution: 1. Massive population reduction (war is a very efficient way to achieve this) 2. Birth control, to slow down population growth to a stable rate near 0 3. Eugenics, to ensure only people with needed capabilities are born (brave new world) In this scenario, 500,000 people (less ?) in charge of millions of robots and a minority of semi-enslaved humans would…

what a disturbing comment.

and war is not a great way to reduce population at all

Post reply on HN