undefined | Better HN

0 pointshnfong2y ago0 comments

I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who isn't anti-technology per your definition.

Are you sure you're not an AI advocating for a world ruled by AI capitalists where us primitive humans have no role whatsoever? :P

0 comments

bloody-crow2y ago

The moment technology can do my job better/cheaper than I do, I don't see a moral argument to continue being employed and costing my employer more money for less productivity. Obviously, it'd be non-ideal for me to lose income, but I'm not conceited enough to insist to continue being paid by providing sub-par performance.

My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my employer would be responsible for solving it for me.

supertimor2y ago

Ok, but say 50% of jobs become replaced by AI, then what?Even 10% or 20% of jobs replaced would have huge implications for our current society. We don’t have any solutions in place for that inevitability, especially at the rate AI technology is increasing. And it will eventually become a problem for your employer as well when a large portion of the population can no longer afford your employer’s products or services.

AstralStorm2y ago

Standard equilibrium analysis proves that the efficiency gain is supposed to cut the prices to material cost, including cutting the material cost.

Of course actual capital fights tooth and nail to prevent this, even if this means literally getting people to starve and unable to earn with a job, even agricultural.

There are known fixes, starting from making basic services and items free (eating the material cost which is pennies actually), employing more people running these as they're currently all understaffed.

Abundance is the expected outcome of the technology. Including abundance of leisure time. Capitalism however requires scarcity for profit and oppression to keep the rich special.

We have an abundance of housing, so why are some unhoused? We have an overabundance of food but some people are hungry and malnourished. Things might get more dicey with water soon.

bloody-crow2y ago

Right, but I don't feel like it's the employers responsibility to be my economic safety net. There's a million ways to approach this problem without having workers keep pretending they're still relevant and collecting a paycheck for something technology can do better.

At some 90% of human labor would become obsolete and we as a society should spend some time planning how to handle this situation. UBI is one such solution.

I think that continue paying people doing meaningless work just to preserve their dignity is stupid and counterproductive.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

bloody-crow2y ago

My job market relevance plummeting would be my personal problem and I don't see a reason why my employer would be responsible for solving it for me.

supertimor2y ago

AstralStorm2y ago

Standard equilibrium analysis proves that the efficiency gain is supposed to cut the prices to material cost, including cutting the material cost.

Of course actual capital fights tooth and nail to prevent this, even if this means literally getting people to starve and unable to earn with a job, even agricultural.

Abundance is the expected outcome of the technology. Including abundance of leisure time. Capitalism however requires scarcity for profit and oppression to keep the rich special.

We have an abundance of housing, so why are some unhoused? We have an overabundance of food but some people are hungry and malnourished. Things might get more dicey with water soon.

bloody-crow2y ago

At some 90% of human labor would become obsolete and we as a society should spend some time planning how to handle this situation. UBI is one such solution.

I think that continue paying people doing meaningless work just to preserve their dignity is stupid and counterproductive.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse