3 ms·
Surely YC isn't to blame for the 'vulnerable employees' you speak of? Why attack YC instead of the ones exploiting those employees, or even the systems that al
by wildrhythms 10y ago
Surely YC isn't to blame for the 'vulnerable employees' you speak of?
Why attack YC instead of the ones exploiting those employees, or even the systems that allow exploitation to occur in the first place?
But no, by all means, lock those 'vulnerable employees' into a job that they will be treated as sub-human for the rest of their lives, all in the name of 'job security' (or whatever you think you're preserving).
- GavinMcG 10y agoBecause YC is both the one advancing AI work and proposing this "solution".
- wildrhythms 10y agoIf the problem is truly exploitation, then let's attack exploitation.
- GavinMcG 10y agoBecause aside from exploitation, there is another very real problem of replacement. Who said there's only one problem to be attacked at a time?
- petra 10y agoThe point wasn't that this employees have terrible jobs. Some sure do, some doesn't. The point is that if factory work is automated - they'll have no other possible job, and no safety net, unlike the west. Thus they are vulnerable.
- wildrhythms 10y ago>if factory work is automated - they'll have no other possible job, and no safety net I know, and it's morally disgusting and I wish systems like this didn't exist in the first place. What I'm saying is that there is no future in which automation does not replace (most) human labor, so if the goal is ROI, then why would YC ever invest in something other than that? It would be delaying the inevitable, would it not? Let's say YC provides a UBI to all of those displaced workers; now what? A bunch of unemployed are (still) surviving in the same fucked up system as before and the problem still exists. To somehow pin the problems of the system on YC's investments is ignoring the larger, more pressing problems of socioeconomic inequality and exploitation as a whole.