4 ms·
"[...] a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you." You're right of course, but you're not addressing an actual argument. No one is saying that
by edanm 9y ago
"[...] a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you."
You're right of course, but you're not addressing an actual argument. No one is saying that.
What people are talking about are AI's replacing doctor's and other health care professionals, replacing Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry, etc.
We as consumers could still be consuming all of these things, but that says nothing about who is producing it.
- snowwrestler 9y agoYou can't replace Hollywood with AI because the whole point of entertainment is that it is about humans. You have to have humans making entertainment or it is not entertaining. I'll give you an example: people still watch bicycle racing. We all know a motorcycle is more advanced technology that could easily beat any human on a bike. So what did we do? We invented rules out of thin air that exclude motorcycles, just so that we can keep watching humans agonizingly grind their way up a mountain on a bike. Because we find that entertaining. There's motorcycle racing too of course but again--who's on the back of the motorcycle? A long-held concern is that we'll get rid of all the old jobs, but no new jobs will be created. My point is that even in an economy in which all physical needs are provided for free, there will still be plenty of reasons to create new jobs.
- ThomPete 9y agoYou are mixing two things together. Entertainment is not a job its largely based on its ability to entertain and fewer and fewer make money in the industry.Already today large parts of hollywood has been and is being replaced. The bicycle sport is there because humans like to compete but it has nothing to do with a job, people will do it for free.