6 ms·

What role exactly is it going to take? The role we currently have, where the vast majority of people do work not because they particularly enjoy it but because

What role exactly is it going to take? The role we currently have, where the vast majority of people do work not because they particularly enjoy it but because they’re forced to in order to survive? That’s really what we’re protecting here? I’d rather live in the future where automation does practically everything not for the benefit of some billionaire born into wealth but because the automation is supposed to. Similar to the economy in Factorio. Then people can derive meaning from themselves rather that whatever this dystopian nightmare we’re currently living in. It’s absurdly depressing that some people want to stifle this progress only because it’s going to remove this god awful and completely made up idea that work is freedom or work is what life is about.

exceptione 4y ago
I am happy to write code for a hobby. Who is going to pay for that? The oligarchs of our time pay their tax to their own 'charities'. Companies with insane profits buy their own shares. AI powered surveillance and the ongoing destruction of public institutions will make it hard to stand up for the collective interest. We are not in hell, but the road to it has not been closed.
- lovehashbrowns 4y ago
  The ideal situation is that nobody pays for it. Picture a scenario where the vast majority of resource gathering, manufacturing, and production are all automated. Programmers are out of a job, factory workers are out of a job, miners are out of a job, etc. Basically the current argument of artists being out of a job but taken to its extreme. Why would these robots get paid? They wouldn’t. They’d just mine, manufacture, and produce on request. Imagine a world where chatgpt version 3000 is connected to that swarm of robots and you can type “produce a 7 inch phone with an OLED screen, removable battery, 5 physical buttons, a physical shutter, and removable storage” and X days later arrives that phone, delivered by automation, of course. Same would work with food, where automation plants the seeds, waters the crops, removes pests, harvests the food, and delivers it to your home. All of these are simply artists going out of a job, except it’s not artists it’s practically every job humans are forced to do today. There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth. Then I could happily spend all day taking shitty photographs that AI can easily replicate today far better than I could photograph in real life but I don’t have to feel like a waste of life because I enjoy doing it for fun and not because I’m forced to in order to survive.
  - exceptione 4y ago
    Look, I like the paradise you created. You only forgot about who we are. > There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth. When mankind made a pact with the devil, the burden we got was that we had to earn our bread though sweat and hard labor. This story has survived millennia, there is something to it. Why is the bottom layer in society not automated by robots? No need to if they are cheaper than robots. If you don't care about humans, you can get quite some labor for a little bit of sugar. If you can work one job to pay your rent, you can possibly do two or three even. If you don't have those social hobbies like universal healthcare and public education, people will be competitive for a very long time with robots. If people are less valuable, they will be treated as such. Hell is nearer than paradise.
    - lovehashbrowns 4y ago
      Humans have existed for close to 200,000 years. Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today. What humans actually are is an invasive species capable of subjugating nature to fit its needs. I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us. Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic. I don’t know where you got all that from, but it certainly wasn’t my previous comment. I also don’t know what pact you’re on about. The idea of working for survival is used to exploit people for their labor. I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food?
      - exceptione 4y ago
        > Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today. I am wondering why you define being in terms of having. Is that a slip, or is that related to this: > I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us. Because I can hear sadness in these words. I think we can feel thankful for having the opportunity to observe beauty and the universe and feel belonging to where we are and with who we are. Those free smartphones are not going to substitute that. I do not mean we have to work because it is our fate or something like that. > Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic. A pity you feel that way. Maybe you interpreted "If you don't care about humans" as literally you, whereas I meant is as "If one doesn't care". What I meant was is the assumption you seem to make that when a few have plenty of production means without needing the other 'human resources' anymore, those few will not spontaneously share their wealth with the world, so the others can have free smart phones and a life of consumption. Instead, those others will have to double down and start to compete with increasingly cheaper robots. ---- The pact in that old story I was talking about deals with the idea that we as humans know how to be evil. In the story, the consequence is that those first people had to leave paradise and from then on have to work for their survival. I just mentioned it because the fact that we exploit not only nature, but other humans too if we are evil enough. People that end up controlling the largest amounts of wealth are usually the most ruthless. That's why we need rules. ---- > I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food? On the contrary, I think I have been misunderstood.:)
stcroixx 4y ago
Every other living thing on the planet spends most of it's time just fighting to survive. I think that's evidence it's not a 'made up idea' and likely may be what life is actually about.
- lovehashbrowns 4y ago
  What’re you doing on the internet? No other living thing on this planet spends time on the internet. Or maybe we shouldn’t be copying things from nature just because. Also kinda curious how you deal with people that have disabilities and can’t exactly fight to survive. Me, I’m practically blind without glasses/contacts, so I’ll not be taking life lessons from the local mountain lion, thanks.
  - stcroixx 4y ago
    Taking a break from my struggle just like a lion takes a nap. I wouldn't agree we are copying nature, rather, we are an inseparable part of it. The fact that we do some things other members don't isn't a convincing argument for me that we're not part of nature. If you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you rely on others to do that work on your behalf. Social animals, wolves for example, try to provide for their sick and handicapped, but that's only after their own needs are met first.
- deathgripsss 4y ago
  This is the dictionary definition of appeal to nature fallacy.
  - stcroixx 4y ago
    That fallacy asserts a judgement that natural=good. I'm not claiming that. We have physical needs just like other members of the natural world - food for example, if we can't provide food for ourselves, we'll starve to death just like an animal. Why bother judging this situation as good or bad when it's not something that can be changed.
melagonster 4y ago
I hope this will happen, but don't you think result just no one can get food, rich watch people dying?
- lovehashbrowns 4y ago
  Food will be automated. A lot of it is automated even today. Robots that will till the soil, manage nutrients, plant the seeds, water the plants, and pick the crops. It’ll even be done without pesticides, as robots with vision and plant detection can work 24/7 to remove weeds and pests. Or we’ll switch to hydroponics, still fully automated and done on a mass scale. In this world, there’s no purchasing food. You would just request it and that’s it. Now imagine that automation in food and expand it to everything. A table factory wouldn’t purchase wood from another company. There’s automation to extract wood from trees and the table factory just requests it and automation produces a table. With robots at every step of the process, there are no labor costs. There’s no shift manager, there’s no CEO with a CEO salary, there’s no table factory worker spending 12+ hours a day drilling a table leg to a table for $3 an hour in China. That former factory worker in China is instead pursuing their passions in life.
  - melagonster 4y ago
    yes, I hope this will happen.

exceptione 4y ago

I am happy to write code for a hobby. Who is going to pay for that? The oligarchs of our time pay their tax to their own 'charities'. Companies with insane profits buy their own shares. AI powered surveillance and the ongoing destruction of public institutions will make it hard to stand up for the collective interest. We are not in hell, but the road to it has not been closed.

lovehashbrowns 4y ago
The ideal situation is that nobody pays for it. Picture a scenario where the vast majority of resource gathering, manufacturing, and production are all automated. Programmers are out of a job, factory workers are out of a job, miners are out of a job, etc. Basically the current argument of artists being out of a job but taken to its extreme. Why would these robots get paid? They wouldn’t. They’d just mine, manufacture, and produce on request. Imagine a world where chatgpt version 3000 is connected to that swarm of robots and you can type “produce a 7 inch phone with an OLED screen, removable battery, 5 physical buttons, a physical shutter, and removable storage” and X days later arrives that phone, delivered by automation, of course. Same would work with food, where automation plants the seeds, waters the crops, removes pests, harvests the food, and delivers it to your home. All of these are simply artists going out of a job, except it’s not artists it’s practically every job humans are forced to do today. There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth. Then I could happily spend all day taking shitty photographs that AI can easily replicate today far better than I could photograph in real life but I don’t have to feel like a waste of life because I enjoy doing it for fun and not because I’m forced to in order to survive.
- exceptione 4y ago
  Look, I like the paradise you created. You only forgot about who we are. > There’d be very little need to work for almost every human on earth. When mankind made a pact with the devil, the burden we got was that we had to earn our bread though sweat and hard labor. This story has survived millennia, there is something to it. Why is the bottom layer in society not automated by robots? No need to if they are cheaper than robots. If you don't care about humans, you can get quite some labor for a little bit of sugar. If you can work one job to pay your rent, you can possibly do two or three even. If you don't have those social hobbies like universal healthcare and public education, people will be competitive for a very long time with robots. If people are less valuable, they will be treated as such. Hell is nearer than paradise.
  - lovehashbrowns 4y ago
    Humans have existed for close to 200,000 years. Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today. What humans actually are is an invasive species capable of subjugating nature to fit its needs. I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us. Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic. I don’t know where you got all that from, but it certainly wasn’t my previous comment. I also don’t know what pact you’re on about. The idea of working for survival is used to exploit people for their labor. I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food?
    - exceptione 4y ago
      > Who we ‘are’ is nothing close to what we have today. I am wondering why you define being in terms of having. Is that a slip, or is that related to this: > I want to just push that further and subjugate nature with automation that can feed us and manufacture worthless plastic and metal media consumption devices for us. Because I can hear sadness in these words. I think we can feel thankful for having the opportunity to observe beauty and the universe and feel belonging to where we are and with who we are. Those free smartphones are not going to substitute that. I do not mean we have to work because it is our fate or something like that. > Your diatribe about not caring about humans is ironic. A pity you feel that way. Maybe you interpreted "If you don't care about humans" as literally you, whereas I meant is as "If one doesn't care". What I meant was is the assumption you seem to make that when a few have plenty of production means without needing the other 'human resources' anymore, those few will not spontaneously share their wealth with the world, so the others can have free smart phones and a life of consumption. Instead, those others will have to double down and start to compete with increasingly cheaper robots. ---- The pact in that old story I was talking about deals with the idea that we as humans know how to be evil. In the story, the consequence is that those first people had to leave paradise and from then on have to work for their survival. I just mentioned it because the fact that we exploit not only nature, but other humans too if we are evil enough. People that end up controlling the largest amounts of wealth are usually the most ruthless. That's why we need rules. ---- > I guess people with disabilities that aren’t able to work just aren’t human? Should we let them starve to death since they can’t work a 9-5 and work for their food? On the contrary, I think I have been misunderstood.:)

stcroixx 4y ago

Every other living thing on the planet spends most of it's time just fighting to survive. I think that's evidence it's not a 'made up idea' and likely may be what life is actually about.

lovehashbrowns 4y ago
What’re you doing on the internet? No other living thing on this planet spends time on the internet. Or maybe we shouldn’t be copying things from nature just because. Also kinda curious how you deal with people that have disabilities and can’t exactly fight to survive. Me, I’m practically blind without glasses/contacts, so I’ll not be taking life lessons from the local mountain lion, thanks.
- stcroixx 4y ago
  Taking a break from my struggle just like a lion takes a nap. I wouldn't agree we are copying nature, rather, we are an inseparable part of it. The fact that we do some things other members don't isn't a convincing argument for me that we're not part of nature. If you can't support yourself for whatever reason, you rely on others to do that work on your behalf. Social animals, wolves for example, try to provide for their sick and handicapped, but that's only after their own needs are met first.
deathgripsss 4y ago
This is the dictionary definition of appeal to nature fallacy.
- stcroixx 4y ago
  That fallacy asserts a judgement that natural=good. I'm not claiming that. We have physical needs just like other members of the natural world - food for example, if we can't provide food for ourselves, we'll starve to death just like an animal. Why bother judging this situation as good or bad when it's not something that can be changed.

melagonster 4y ago

I hope this will happen, but don't you think result just no one can get food, rich watch people dying?

lovehashbrowns 4y ago
Food will be automated. A lot of it is automated even today. Robots that will till the soil, manage nutrients, plant the seeds, water the plants, and pick the crops. It’ll even be done without pesticides, as robots with vision and plant detection can work 24/7 to remove weeds and pests. Or we’ll switch to hydroponics, still fully automated and done on a mass scale. In this world, there’s no purchasing food. You would just request it and that’s it. Now imagine that automation in food and expand it to everything. A table factory wouldn’t purchase wood from another company. There’s automation to extract wood from trees and the table factory just requests it and automation produces a table. With robots at every step of the process, there are no labor costs. There’s no shift manager, there’s no CEO with a CEO salary, there’s no table factory worker spending 12+ hours a day drilling a table leg to a table for $3 an hour in China. That former factory worker in China is instead pursuing their passions in life.
- melagonster 4y ago
  yes, I hope this will happen.