3 ms·

> But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. After the limited time I've spent in my life paying atten

> But that destroys your argument, because these things are not automated and won't be any time soon. After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation. > Historically, farm laborers whose jobs disappeared went to the cities and started working in factories or learned a trade. And that is the difference, except this time the cities jobs are being automated and there's no where left to go, as even the farms don't need nearly so many people. And yes there's certainly an argument to be made for the trades which I'm sure are (mostly) safe from automation for awhile, but not forever, and there's a limited pool of people who are skilled enough to do those jobs, and even past that is a limited availability of those jobs, AND AFTER THAT is the fact that as more and more former factory workers, truck drivers, and coal miners all sign on to be plumbers, electricians, etc. all of which are needed that the supply of those workers will explode and the wage they make will therefore shrink. > Agreed, but my argument is that if those are the only two choices, we're doomed. Basically, you're saying society will, in the fairly near future, end up stagnant--all important jobs will be automated and all of the humans will just sit around watching soap operas (except, perhaps, for the small number of humans who oversee the automation). That't not at all what I said: I said we should have a system in place for that certain group of people who have nothing to contribute, because there's nothing wrong with that. The alternative to feeding and clothing them in their homes is to feed and clothe them in prison, and the former doesn't enrich private prisons and we don't need to pay for guards, not to mention the ethical cost involved in the current situation which is mass incarceration. I'm saying, by virtue of being born, you should be fed, clothed, and sheltered because we can do that and the notion that we simply shouldn't so Mark Zuckerburg can have a fifth house is I'm sorry, a DISGUSTING idea to me. > I would put this differently. I would say that the idea that someone could receive a basic living without producing anything that improves anyone's lives is offensive to huge numbers of people. And it should be. Why is that offensive? With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. Why is it so important that we not? And if you cannot answer without citing tradition or work ethic or something equally arbitrary and archaic, then I'm sorry but I'm not convinced.

pdonis 9y ago
> After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation. So you think things like artistic creativity, service work, craftsmanship, etc. are going to be automated soon? That there will literally be no productive things that humans can do, sometime in the not too distant future? If that is indeed what you think, then I can see why you want some rule put in place that ensures that all humans get a basic living, uncoupled from work. But I still think that, if that's the case, humanity is doomed. See below. > With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. But that's not what you're talking about. You're not just talking about homeless people. You're talking about, eventually, all people. You're saying that there will come a time in the not too distant future where every single human on the planet has effectively zero productivity. And your way of preparing for this is to put a rule in place that says that humans don't have to produce anything in order to get a basic living. One problem with this is, as I said before, change. If you haven't automated dealing with change, then any state where, for the moment, humans don't have to produce anything won't be stable. But if you have automated dealing with change, then you're up against a bigger problem: you have basically invented AI, and there is no guarantee that the AI will care about humans. We will be at the mercy of the AI, just as other life forms on Earth today are at the mercy of humans. We will basically be zoo animals, preserved only at the sufferance of the AI. And in that situation, humanity is doomed.
- FussyZeus 9y ago
  You're making several deep errors regarding what I'm saying. Firstly you're responding as though, at some mysterious date in the future, all people are getting fired and replaced with a robot. It's not going to happen that way, it's going to be a gradual process but I think not as gradual as a lot of people want to think, and I think once it begins it will accelerate exponentially as the technology matures. Not to mention: > So you think things like artistic creativity, service work, craftsmanship, etc. are going to be automated soon? That there will literally be no productive things that humans can do, sometime in the not too distant future? You're still hung up on this idea that productive things are all people can do. The whole point as pointed out by another poster is that people were supposed to not work anymore, at least in the traditional sense: that humans would give the work to the robots, and then go find other, more enriching things to do, maybe something with art or just really learning a shitload about medieval poetry. The fact that someone chooses something that isn't necessarily productive doesn't matter in the world I'm envisioning, where scarcity is no longer a thing. > But that's not what you're talking about. You're not just talking about homeless people. You're talking about, eventually, all people. You're saying that there will come a time in the not too distant future where every single human on the planet has effectively zero productivity. And your way of preparing for this is to put a rule in place that says that humans don't have to produce anything in order to get a basic living. I wouldn't say it's going to hit zero. There will always be something for us to do, even if it's just to hit the stars and go find new things (ala Star Trek's utopian future). What I am saying is: We already are seeing the beginnings of a population that can't really produce anything, and we're seeing a new phenomenon; we don't really need them to. How much of the population will end up like that isn't the point; the point is that some of them are, and some are already, and we have no mechanisms to deal with that other than starving people to death which I think is not a long term solution. > But if you have automated dealing with change, then you're up against a bigger problem: you have basically invented AI, and there is no guarantee that the AI will care about humans. We will be at the mercy of the AI, just as other life forms on Earth today are at the mercy of humans. We will basically be zoo animals, preserved only at the sufferance of the AI. And in that situation, humanity is doomed. This is a whole different discussion but this doomsday view also relies on the AI being entirely unaware of empathy, which as a core component of humanity, would likely make its way into the artificial minds humanity creates. It's a base function of animal and human brains, it's what stops us from killing each other over basic impulses.

pdonis 9y ago

> After the limited time I've spent in my life paying attention to this, I'm not assuming any job, including my own, is safe from automation. So you think things like artistic creativity, service work, craftsmanship, etc. are going to be automated soon? That there will literally be no productive things that humans can do, sometime in the not too distant future? If that is indeed what you think, then I can see why you want some rule put in place that ensures that all humans get a basic living, uncoupled from work. But I still think that, if that's the case, humanity is doomed. See below. > With what we currently spend on defense, we could feed, house, and clothe every homeless person in the United States with Gucci bags, mansions and caviar. But that's not what you're talking about. You're not just talking about homeless people. You're talking about, eventually, all people. You're saying that there will come a time in the not too distant future where every single human on the planet has effectively zero productivity. And your way of preparing for this is to put a rule in place that says that humans don't have to produce anything in order to get a basic living. One problem with this is, as I said before, change. If you haven't automated dealing with change, then any state where, for the moment, humans don't have to produce anything won't be stable. But if you have automated dealing with change, then you're up against a bigger problem: you have basically invented AI, and there is no guarantee that the AI will care about humans. We will be at the mercy of the AI, just as other life forms on Earth today are at the mercy of humans. We will basically be zoo animals, preserved only at the sufferance of the AI. And in that situation, humanity is doomed.

FussyZeus 9y ago
You're making several deep errors regarding what I'm saying. Firstly you're responding as though, at some mysterious date in the future, all people are getting fired and replaced with a robot. It's not going to happen that way, it's going to be a gradual process but I think not as gradual as a lot of people want to think, and I think once it begins it will accelerate exponentially as the technology matures. Not to mention: > So you think things like artistic creativity, service work, craftsmanship, etc. are going to be automated soon? That there will literally be no productive things that humans can do, sometime in the not too distant future? You're still hung up on this idea that productive things are all people can do. The whole point as pointed out by another poster is that people were supposed to not work anymore, at least in the traditional sense: that humans would give the work to the robots, and then go find other, more enriching things to do, maybe something with art or just really learning a shitload about medieval poetry. The fact that someone chooses something that isn't necessarily productive doesn't matter in the world I'm envisioning, where scarcity is no longer a thing. > But that's not what you're talking about. You're not just talking about homeless people. You're talking about, eventually, all people. You're saying that there will come a time in the not too distant future where every single human on the planet has effectively zero productivity. And your way of preparing for this is to put a rule in place that says that humans don't have to produce anything in order to get a basic living. I wouldn't say it's going to hit zero. There will always be something for us to do, even if it's just to hit the stars and go find new things (ala Star Trek's utopian future). What I am saying is: We already are seeing the beginnings of a population that can't really produce anything, and we're seeing a new phenomenon; we don't really need them to. How much of the population will end up like that isn't the point; the point is that some of them are, and some are already, and we have no mechanisms to deal with that other than starving people to death which I think is not a long term solution. > But if you have automated dealing with change, then you're up against a bigger problem: you have basically invented AI, and there is no guarantee that the AI will care about humans. We will be at the mercy of the AI, just as other life forms on Earth today are at the mercy of humans. We will basically be zoo animals, preserved only at the sufferance of the AI. And in that situation, humanity is doomed. This is a whole different discussion but this doomsday view also relies on the AI being entirely unaware of empathy, which as a core component of humanity, would likely make its way into the artificial minds humanity creates. It's a base function of animal and human brains, it's what stops us from killing each other over basic impulses.