3 ms·

>Surely the one substitutes for the other. If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. >I'm generally struggling to understand what your

>Surely the one substitutes for the other. If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. >I'm generally struggling to understand what your model is here. Are you saying people make the decision about whether to hire a cleaner when they're born and then never change it? No, I'm saying that: A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to make. You've just tried to make about four assumptions in order to build your model and they weren't just poor assumptions, they were cringeworthy assumptions. B) the total number of people who actually own roombas or roomba like devices suggests to me that the effect on cleaner employment is likely, in any case, to be < noise.

lmm 9y ago
> If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. It fulfils some of the same functions, some of what some buyers are buying for. A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin, but McDonalds found that they did substitute for each other in terms of what people bought for breakfast. > A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to make. You've just tried to make about four assumptions in order to build your model and they weren't just poor assumptions, they were cringeworthy assumptions. You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world", to which I can only respond "no" (compare the opening quote on http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/24/probabilities-without-models/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/24/probabilities-without-m... ). I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong I will listen, but just dismissing them is not constructive.
- crdoconnor 9y ago
  >A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. >You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world" ...and now you're using a cringeworthy straw man. I'm saying "if you're going to make a claim like "roombas are killing jobs", it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong. Oh, but the New York Times and a few economists thinks robot kills jobs, so this fits in with everybody's groupthink, so that's ok, right? >I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart. >just dismissing them is not constructive. I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced.
  - lmm 9y ago
    > I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. Exactly - they're superficially very different, but what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. > it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong So put up or shut up: which assumption do you think is wrong, and what do you think the appropriate replacement is? > This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart. It's reminding me of the tortoise who denies modus ponens - if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there? > I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced. Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword isn't constructive either. Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative; science doesn't advance by people introducing a question like "but what if effects didn't follow causes" and then just stopping there.
    - crdoconnor 9y ago
      >what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. Roombas do not deep clean carpets, cannot traverse stairs, can't clean bathrooms at all, are blocked by clothing and other heavy objects, closed doors, etc. and cannot clean anything that is not on a floor. That is not what I would qualify as "similar to a person". >So put up or shut up Why? I am not the one trying to advance an agenda of "roombas are clearly putting maids out of business". I'm the skeptic. I think it's entirely possible that all of your assumptions are wrong and probable that at least half of them are. >if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there? I might start with questionnaires asking roomba owners about their cleaner hiring practices in order to confirm or deny one of the key assumptions underpinning your thesis. It'd be a good topic for research, but not one I have seen pursued. >Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword It is not a meaningless buzzword. The idea that robots destroy jobs is commonly accepted because it is popular. I could find 20 or so articles in a couple of minutes advancing the idea, whereas the skeptic's view - that it doesn't, is barely represented in the media. Most of what appears in the media advancing this agenda is unsourced and the little that is sourced comes from things like that junk study from Ball State U. I mean, does that not sound like groupthink to you? It does to me. >Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative Well, if you're really interested in proving your point - why not fire off some questionnaires to roomba owners - did they have a cleaner before they bought the roomba? did they fire the cleaner after? did they cut the cleaner's hours? This seems like a more productive line of enquiry - reality is usually more accurate than shit models.

lmm 9y ago

> If a roomba approximated a maid, perhaps. It very much does not. It fulfils some of the same functions, some of what some buyers are buying for. A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin, but McDonalds found that they did substitute for each other in terms of what people bought for breakfast. > A) building a neoclassical economic model on this at all is pointless because of the assumptions you'd have to make. You've just tried to make about four assumptions in order to build your model and they weren't just poor assumptions, they were cringeworthy assumptions. You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world", to which I can only respond "no" (compare the opening quote on http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/24/probabilities-without-models/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2015/08/24/probabilities-without-m... ). I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong I will listen, but just dismissing them is not constructive.

crdoconnor 9y ago
>A milkshake is not a close approximation to a muffin I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. >You're essentially saying "give up trying to understand the world" ...and now you're using a cringeworthy straw man. I'm saying "if you're going to make a claim like "roombas are killing jobs", it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong. Oh, but the New York Times and a few economists thinks robot kills jobs, so this fits in with everybody's groupthink, so that's ok, right? >I think all the assumptions I gave were true and reasonable; if you can actually make a case for why any of them is wrong This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart. >just dismissing them is not constructive. I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced.
- lmm 9y ago
  > I would say it is. They have similar calorific content, they are similarly portable and they are similarly stuffed full of sugar. Exactly - they're superficially very different, but what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. > it probably shouldn't be based on a model that makes 4 really reaching assumptions, each of which are completely unproven and quite likely wrong So put up or shut up: which assumption do you think is wrong, and what do you think the appropriate replacement is? > This is reminding me of the conversation I had with my vicar who asked me to disprove god's existence if I thought I was so smart. It's reminding me of the tortoise who denies modus ponens - if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there? > I disagree. I think it's very constructive to dismiss unproven assumptions that are probably wrong, but neatly fit into some kind of groupthink. It's how a lot of science is advanced. Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword isn't constructive either. Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative; science doesn't advance by people introducing a question like "but what if effects didn't follow causes" and then just stopping there.
  - crdoconnor 9y ago
    >what they provide to the buyer is very similar. Just as with Roombas and cleaners. Roombas do not deep clean carpets, cannot traverse stairs, can't clean bathrooms at all, are blocked by clothing and other heavy objects, closed doors, etc. and cannot clean anything that is not on a floor. That is not what I would qualify as "similar to a person". >So put up or shut up Why? I am not the one trying to advance an agenda of "roombas are clearly putting maids out of business". I'm the skeptic. I think it's entirely possible that all of your assumptions are wrong and probable that at least half of them are. >if you deny the ability to make inferences then where do we even go from there? I might start with questionnaires asking roomba owners about their cleaner hiring practices in order to confirm or deny one of the key assumptions underpinning your thesis. It'd be a good topic for research, but not one I have seen pursued. >Saying "groupthink" as a meaningless buzzword It is not a meaningless buzzword. The idea that robots destroy jobs is commonly accepted because it is popular. I could find 20 or so articles in a couple of minutes advancing the idea, whereas the skeptic's view - that it doesn't, is barely represented in the media. Most of what appears in the media advancing this agenda is unsourced and the little that is sourced comes from things like that junk study from Ball State U. I mean, does that not sound like groupthink to you? It does to me. >Science advances by questioning assumptions but you have to actually do the work of considering an alternative Well, if you're really interested in proving your point - why not fire off some questionnaires to roomba owners - did they have a cleaner before they bought the roomba? did they fire the cleaner after? did they cut the cleaner's hours? This seems like a more productive line of enquiry - reality is usually more accurate than shit models.