4 ms·

I think Gates meant this more as a thought experiment, since he can't seriously think we can define a "robot." We need to find ways to cope with the speed of

by nshelly 10y ago

I think Gates meant this more as a thought experiment, since he can't seriously think we can define a "robot." We need to find ways to cope with the speed of automation, by finding more revenue for putting displaced people back to work. How can we get the labor participation rate (62% and dropping) back to the pre-recession levels, as we fight both aging and automation.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> How can we get the labor participation rate (62% and dropping) back to the pre-recession levels, as we fight both aging and automation. You don't? You use automation to deliver consumer excess so people don't have to work anymore. The problem is not the automation and job loss; its who is capturing the benefits (ie corporations and shareholders). Slavery is wrong (communism). Not allowing the patenting or copyright of automation or algorithms is just fine (socialism). Note: In my scenario, I'm not taking your ability to operate you own automation or code away; I'm simply removing artificial government restrictions on its use and distribution. What the patent and copyright office giveth, they taketh away. Also, creators are going to create even if they're not permitted to reap outsized rewards from their creations. EDIT: Since HN throttling has kicked in and I can't reply directly: > Limiting the returns means limiting the risks people are willing to take. @skookumchuck: If your basic needs are met, what risks are you taking? How is it different than founders who come from rich families so a startup has no risk? The more people we can meet the basic needs of (again, with automation), the more people who can take "shoot the moon" risks safely.
- skookumchuck 10y ago
  > creators are going to create even if they're not permitted to reap outsized rewards from their creations. Limiting the returns means limiting the risks people are willing to take.
awqrre 10y ago
maybe thats why he had these odd chuckles at the end... he cant be serious.

by nshelly 10y ago

toomuchtodo 10y ago

> How can we get the labor participation rate (62% and dropping) back to the pre-recession levels, as we fight both aging and automation. You don't? You use automation to deliver consumer excess so people don't have to work anymore. The problem is not the automation and job loss; its who is capturing the benefits (ie corporations and shareholders). Slavery is wrong (communism). Not allowing the patenting or copyright of automation or algorithms is just fine (socialism). Note: In my scenario, I'm not taking your ability to operate you own automation or code away; I'm simply removing artificial government restrictions on its use and distribution. What the patent and copyright office giveth, they taketh away. Also, creators are going to create even if they're not permitted to reap outsized rewards from their creations. EDIT: Since HN throttling has kicked in and I can't reply directly: > Limiting the returns means limiting the risks people are willing to take. @skookumchuck: If your basic needs are met, what risks are you taking? How is it different than founders who come from rich families so a startup has no risk? The more people we can meet the basic needs of (again, with automation), the more people who can take "shoot the moon" risks safely.

skookumchuck 10y ago
> creators are going to create even if they're not permitted to reap outsized rewards from their creations. Limiting the returns means limiting the risks people are willing to take.

awqrre 10y ago

maybe thats why he had these odd chuckles at the end... he cant be serious.