4 ms·

Don't be obtuse, and address the point. How are you going to retrain an entire generation of people that will experience the effects of joblessness immediately;

Don't be obtuse, and address the point. How are you going to retrain an entire generation of people that will experience the effects of joblessness immediately; essentially overnight. Cars took at least a generation to become mainstream. This time around it seems technology will destroy jobs almost at the flick of a switch. Unless you're arguing that the adoption rate will not be significantly quick, which I think most would disagree with.

gnopgnip 10y ago
What about the cotton gin or the sewing machine or the steam engine?
- thevardanian 10y ago
  Those are incremental inventions within an overarching paradigm; that being the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is what produced those inventions, and many others that lead to the countless wars, and newer ways of thinking, which resulted in significant changes in society. Undoubted it has produced great positive changes, but in the short term it was really quite awful.The question is how great of change are we really looking at this time around. Heck is it even a revolution in the first place, or merely an incremental progress. I personally don't think it's incremental and that we're at a point where we just had the idea of collecting seeds and planting them in the ground. The resulting aftermath of that simple idea produced civilization. The resulting aftermath of computation is yet to be seen.
35bge57dtjku 10y ago
No one is, just like we never do. What have all the people who have been losing their factory jobs for the past 2 decades done? > that might hitherto have happened over the course of 1-2 generations may soon be happening in the space of 5-10 years It's been happening in that shorter timespan for a while now, so really, what have those people who have already lost their jobs done?
- thevardanian 10y ago
  You have two options 1) Either technology is truly revolutionary, which means that it has a revolutionary change on society by producing an entirely different dimension of techniques and ideas that make everything in the past irrelevant. or 2) The technology is incremental and will only make tasks more efficient, and only has a marginal change on society by producing newer linear techniques. If it's (1) then in the long term there is definitely a huge benefit, but in the short term there's bound to be a great social upheaval. Ones that change the shape of governments, and throw society in chaos. Just look at the industrial revolution, or agriculture.If it's (2) then really it's merely a gradual process that almost goes unnoticed, save for in retrospect. Which makes it very straightforward to change and redirect people through education. So pick either case. You can't have both revolutionary technology, and gradual social change. Either the tech is truly revolutionary which in that case will result in social revolution, or it's incremental and will result in merely incremental changes.
  - aninhumer 10y ago
    Well sure, if you define "revolutionary technology" as something that causes a social revolution, then something has to be both or neither, but that's a tautology. And besides, no one was arguing that the technology was "truly revolutionary", so I'm not sure what point you're making?

gnopgnip 10y ago

What about the cotton gin or the sewing machine or the steam engine?

thevardanian 10y ago
Those are incremental inventions within an overarching paradigm; that being the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution is what produced those inventions, and many others that lead to the countless wars, and newer ways of thinking, which resulted in significant changes in society. Undoubted it has produced great positive changes, but in the short term it was really quite awful.The question is how great of change are we really looking at this time around. Heck is it even a revolution in the first place, or merely an incremental progress. I personally don't think it's incremental and that we're at a point where we just had the idea of collecting seeds and planting them in the ground. The resulting aftermath of that simple idea produced civilization. The resulting aftermath of computation is yet to be seen.

35bge57dtjku 10y ago

No one is, just like we never do. What have all the people who have been losing their factory jobs for the past 2 decades done? > that might hitherto have happened over the course of 1-2 generations may soon be happening in the space of 5-10 years It's been happening in that shorter timespan for a while now, so really, what have those people who have already lost their jobs done?

thevardanian 10y ago
You have two options 1) Either technology is truly revolutionary, which means that it has a revolutionary change on society by producing an entirely different dimension of techniques and ideas that make everything in the past irrelevant. or 2) The technology is incremental and will only make tasks more efficient, and only has a marginal change on society by producing newer linear techniques. If it's (1) then in the long term there is definitely a huge benefit, but in the short term there's bound to be a great social upheaval. Ones that change the shape of governments, and throw society in chaos. Just look at the industrial revolution, or agriculture.If it's (2) then really it's merely a gradual process that almost goes unnoticed, save for in retrospect. Which makes it very straightforward to change and redirect people through education. So pick either case. You can't have both revolutionary technology, and gradual social change. Either the tech is truly revolutionary which in that case will result in social revolution, or it's incremental and will result in merely incremental changes.
- aninhumer 10y ago
  Well sure, if you define "revolutionary technology" as something that causes a social revolution, then something has to be both or neither, but that's a tautology. And besides, no one was arguing that the technology was "truly revolutionary", so I'm not sure what point you're making?