4 ms·

Programmers have, for the most part, been immune to the negative effects of the way capitalism applies technology. Indeed, we're responsible at times as enabler

by vertis 6y ago

Programmers have, for the most part, been immune to the negative effects of the way capitalism applies technology. Indeed, we're responsible at times as enablers. If I do an exercise where I pretend that one of the FANG has managed to create an AI that can program, it's easier to feel the way other people feel about technology. Would the FANG use the AI to replace programmers? Absolutely. And what then? I can't possibly compete with a software program. One that can work 24hrs a day. One where adding more resources to a project is spinning up another instance. We need to stop pretending that everyone is going to be able to work themselves to success and stop making villains out of people who are on welfare. Disclaimer: I'm not from the US. I'm already a citizen of a country with a stronger safety net (Australia). Even here though, we have a concept of "dole bludger". It really has to go.

chii 6y ago
What is needed for the person being displaced by technology, is to have an ownership stake in assets, such that they no longer need to earn a wage to survive. That is the ultimate solution, if there is no way a human can provide value. And this ownership stake needs to be acquired while the human still has value to exchange for that ownership stake. Expecting society to carry people who no longer can provide economic value to others is not going to be sustainable.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Lets run a mental experiment - tens of millions of people are going to be out of jobs when driverless cars arrive. Are they meant to get ownership stake in the conpany to replace them, lets say Uber and Waymo? Is that realistically possible? Lets imagine it happens - how is having 30 million rent -seekers sustainable? If all the actual work is done by machines, whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute?
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    > what's the point of their owners, what do they contribute? Same applies to the existing owners of Uber and Waymo. If self-driving cars do take over the world, it makes no sense for this technology to be controlled by a handful of wealthy investment corporations, simply because they had the cash available to fund some of it at the start.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Thats a fair point, in an automation utopia current economic model makes no sence
  - smhost 6y ago
    > If all the actual work is done by machines, whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute? they philosophize and participate in statecraft. you know, the end game of human civilization. or they play lots of video games, masturbate, and then die (hopefully happily).
  - chii 6y ago
    > whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute? they contribute to the creation of the asset via supplying capital in the first place. And for taking on the risk of this contribution, they get to own their portion of the future output of said asset.
    - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
      Thats a geneeric argument, you cant just apply it to any debate without scruitiny. It does not work for many assets: land, mineral rights, etc. are risk free themselves and weren't crated.
roenxi 6y ago
Someone who is relying on the government to fund their lifestyle is going to have lower status than someone who is contributing to the maintenance of their country. I don't know of a way to justify an alternative to that. Someone choosing to be on welfare when they can handle themselves should be ashamed.
- crumbshot 6y ago
  > relying on the government to fund their lifestyle This sort of rhetoric needs to stop as well. Public funding of someone's basic needs of food and shelter isn't a lifestyle. And anyway, a person receiving such funds probably paid for it already in taxes - usually, they're just taking out a bit from what they've already contributed to.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    People raising 5 kids on gov support in Switzerland getting CHF 6500 a month for unemployment. Playing video games all day, smoking weed and nothing to return back to the society. I’ve stayed in one of these low income housing communities in the outskirts of Zurich. These were Italian immigrants that had trouble finding a job. The wife couldn’t speak German and had no education. Decided to fuck it and go along with raising kids anyways. If this is not lifestyle, I don’t know what is.
    - crumbshot 6y ago
      Raising kids is a significant contribution to society. Though sadly, as your comment demonstrates, it's a form of labour that is very often undervalued.
      - systemvoltage 6y ago
        You’re not wrong. I wonder what their future would be if the society squanders their productivity. Switzerland would turn into Somalia eventually.

by vertis 6y ago

chii 6y ago

What is needed for the person being displaced by technology, is to have an ownership stake in assets, such that they no longer need to earn a wage to survive. That is the ultimate solution, if there is no way a human can provide value. And this ownership stake needs to be acquired while the human still has value to exchange for that ownership stake. Expecting society to carry people who no longer can provide economic value to others is not going to be sustainable.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Lets run a mental experiment - tens of millions of people are going to be out of jobs when driverless cars arrive. Are they meant to get ownership stake in the conpany to replace them, lets say Uber and Waymo? Is that realistically possible? Lets imagine it happens - how is having 30 million rent -seekers sustainable? If all the actual work is done by machines, whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute?
- crumbshot 6y ago
  > what's the point of their owners, what do they contribute? Same applies to the existing owners of Uber and Waymo. If self-driving cars do take over the world, it makes no sense for this technology to be controlled by a handful of wealthy investment corporations, simply because they had the cash available to fund some of it at the start.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Thats a fair point, in an automation utopia current economic model makes no sence
- smhost 6y ago
  > If all the actual work is done by machines, whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute? they philosophize and participate in statecraft. you know, the end game of human civilization. or they play lots of video games, masturbate, and then die (hopefully happily).
- chii 6y ago
  > whats the point of their owners, what do they contribute? they contribute to the creation of the asset via supplying capital in the first place. And for taking on the risk of this contribution, they get to own their portion of the future output of said asset.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Thats a geneeric argument, you cant just apply it to any debate without scruitiny. It does not work for many assets: land, mineral rights, etc. are risk free themselves and weren't crated.

roenxi 6y ago

Someone who is relying on the government to fund their lifestyle is going to have lower status than someone who is contributing to the maintenance of their country. I don't know of a way to justify an alternative to that. Someone choosing to be on welfare when they can handle themselves should be ashamed.

crumbshot 6y ago
> relying on the government to fund their lifestyle This sort of rhetoric needs to stop as well. Public funding of someone's basic needs of food and shelter isn't a lifestyle. And anyway, a person receiving such funds probably paid for it already in taxes - usually, they're just taking out a bit from what they've already contributed to.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  People raising 5 kids on gov support in Switzerland getting CHF 6500 a month for unemployment. Playing video games all day, smoking weed and nothing to return back to the society. I’ve stayed in one of these low income housing communities in the outskirts of Zurich. These were Italian immigrants that had trouble finding a job. The wife couldn’t speak German and had no education. Decided to fuck it and go along with raising kids anyways. If this is not lifestyle, I don’t know what is.
  - crumbshot 6y ago
    Raising kids is a significant contribution to society. Though sadly, as your comment demonstrates, it's a form of labour that is very often undervalued.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      You’re not wrong. I wonder what their future would be if the society squanders their productivity. Switzerland would turn into Somalia eventually.