3 ms·

Yes, I chose the word "wants" instead of "wanted" for that reason when talking about people in 1799 :) That said, did they actually need those jobs? Or was it

Yes, I chose the word "wants" instead of "wanted" for that reason when talking about people in 1799 :) That said, did they actually need those jobs? Or was it that they wanted to do the same thing? It might just seem like semantics but when comparing it to our current future, believing that certain jobs are needed vs. wanted is the core of whether or not we should fight or embrace additional A.I.

marcosdumay 11y ago
Well, I'm not sure I understand your question. Answering the question I think you made here... People were starving, with no job available to them. The jobs that existed suddenly become extremely demanding (to the point that lots of people died executing them), and salaries went to the floor all over around. They didn't need those same jobs they lost, any other would do. But there weren't many others. That said, I expect the next cycle of joblessness, powered by AI, to be much worse. Not only will things get bad, but they won't ever get good again (a century is peanuts). That's because machines can improve at least as fast as humans. I think it's very important that we act differently on the next cycle, once it really starts.
- Practicality 11y ago
  That's a fairly bleak perspective! Of course, I can't prognosticate that you aren't correct. However, I think that hasn't been decided yet. I fully think IA will allow us to out-compete AI in time. We might not be fully human anymore, but not completely synthetic either. But similar to our 1799 analogy, those who try to just "keep things the way they are" will suffer. Not that I want them to or anything, it's just the way it will probably go. There were many people who were made quite rich in the industrial revolution, but as in all things where humans are involved it's generally the few rather than the majority (sadly).
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  If nobody has jobs, who will buy all the cruft the AI produce? A ... Hunger Games equilibrium seems unlikely.

marcosdumay 11y ago

Well, I'm not sure I understand your question. Answering the question I think you made here... People were starving, with no job available to them. The jobs that existed suddenly become extremely demanding (to the point that lots of people died executing them), and salaries went to the floor all over around. They didn't need those same jobs they lost, any other would do. But there weren't many others. That said, I expect the next cycle of joblessness, powered by AI, to be much worse. Not only will things get bad, but they won't ever get good again (a century is peanuts). That's because machines can improve at least as fast as humans. I think it's very important that we act differently on the next cycle, once it really starts.

Practicality 11y ago
That's a fairly bleak perspective! Of course, I can't prognosticate that you aren't correct. However, I think that hasn't been decided yet. I fully think IA will allow us to out-compete AI in time. We might not be fully human anymore, but not completely synthetic either. But similar to our 1799 analogy, those who try to just "keep things the way they are" will suffer. Not that I want them to or anything, it's just the way it will probably go. There were many people who were made quite rich in the industrial revolution, but as in all things where humans are involved it's generally the few rather than the majority (sadly).
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
If nobody has jobs, who will buy all the cruft the AI produce? A ... Hunger Games equilibrium seems unlikely.