3 ms·
Assume that the logical conclusion of robots doing people's job is that nobody will have a job. Since that means that nobody will eat (or buy the things that th
by pbiggar 16y ago
Assume that the logical conclusion of robots doing people's job is that nobody will have a job. Since that means that nobody will eat (or buy the things that the robots are making), we will need to at some point separate the acts of earning money from doing work.
Put another way, we should aim for a world in which nobody works, as the robots are doing all the work.
- cmelbye 16y agoThat's not what this is, though. This is just factory workers that put a box on a cart for 70 hours a week losing their jobs because a robot can do it more efficiently. We're far off from robots creating robots that do things like that, so there are always going to be other jobs until then. They can find other jobs that are actually productive and worthwhile. This is why I find redistribution of wealth so ridiculous; there has to be someone working to generate wealth for himself, so why can't others just work like he is so they can generate their own wealth rather than stealing his?
- pbiggar 16y agoThis is the start of people being moved out of jobs to be replaced by robots. Think 50 years into the future. > This is why I find redistribution of wealth so ridiculous I don't think HN is the place for socialist vs capitalist debates. The loaded language you are using, such as 'stealing', completely ignores a massively complex debate. The correct balance of 'stealing' vs 'starving in the street' has eluded the world's smartest people for decades; I wouldn't expect to solve it in this comment box.