4 ms·
In the very limit, at full, 100% automation, this might hold true. But right up until that point, there will still be some jobs that need to be done by humans.
by black_puppydog 7y ago
In the very limit, at full, 100% automation, this might hold true. But right up until that point, there will still be some jobs that need to be done by humans.
And if we don't fundamentally change our understanding/social contract of what it means to be a Valuable (TM) human being and member of a society, there will be huge conflicts arising from this.
Think of all the anti-welfare rhetoric around people just being "too lazy to work."
If this continues to be a socially-accepted way of thinking about people without jobs, then automating away significant portions of the required workforce will be very painful for the victims of the process.
- zizee 7y agoInterestingly the three responses to my comment are quite similar, which makes me wonder that I misunderstood what the grandparent was writing. > That logic assumes humans want to share equitably the ownership of robots and their benefits. I read that as the robot ownders not wanting to share, but now I see that perhaps the grandparent was talking about society as a whole. I suspect the difference here is one of context. I live in a country that has a fairly strong social safety net when compared to the popular conception of the safety net in the United States of America.