4 ms·

Why are the concerns always 'will this fire people?' instead of 'how much of a multiplier will this be for a person?' Should maintaining the status quo of work

Why are the concerns always 'will this fire people?' instead of 'how much of a multiplier will this be for a person?' Should maintaining the status quo of work be our first concern?

idontwantthis 4y ago
The Luddites did not want to ban progress - they wanted to be compensated with a portion of the increased revenues from automation. They weren't crazy, the world is.
dccoolgai 4y ago
We are concerned with it precisely because when the concern is "how much more productive one person can be", the wealth created by that production is invariably captured by the global elite and used to inflict misery and ruin on everyone else. Rise up and be manipulated and crucified by people like Stalin. Stay your hand and have it chewed off by people like Musk, or have toxic chemicals dumped in your back yard like in East Palestine. It's been that way since the industrial revolution.
weard_beard 4y ago
Given how they mock monopoly, If the tallow makers of France saw what we had done to capitalism they might fear our barons of industry would charge for sunlight or blot it out. Universal human good appears on no financial report nor ballot sheet or any other objective of the mass of human work on the face of the earth (except perhaps a byline in a shrinking church or fraternal order). If new suns are in store, how exactly are we to organize its distribution and protect its fertility? What commons has not been spoiled? What resource has not been extracted and hoarded? The black gold of AI will be pumped from ground to mingle with the water of art and truth and community and education and as sure as such extraction has polluted the land it will sully our minds and squeeze our wallets.
InvaderFizz 4y ago
Because the losses are concentrated and the gains are dispersed. The total economy will be drastically better off with AI and robots to do more work for us, but a small overall fraction will see the greatest losses in employment and employability. It's the illegal immigration debate all over again. Economically, they are a boon to the US economy over the long term. If you are low skilled or in other industries where you are competing with those migrants, it sucks for you. For everyone else, it is great. (Speaking purely from the standpoint of bringing in workers in their prime working years, ignoring cultural or other issues that arise with concentrations of out groups)
- TheJoeMan 4y ago
  Regarding how the overall economy will fare, observing the current trends I don’t see how AI won’t just futher enshittify more. I watch TV with obviously auto-generated subtitles. Where a human cares enough to backspace and correct typos, the broadcaster is perfectly content paying cheap rate for 80% okay subtitles, which can’t even type “oh goodness that’s TMI” without mangling it. My walmart shopping is self-checkout, and you’re in for a treat if the fruit you grabbed is missing a barcode so you stand around waiting on an attendant. But others would just “steal” it out of impatience, causing some corpo MBA to complain about “high shrinkage”. Disney has setup a fake screen behind the actors to display the background for shooting, how long until an AI generates fake cityscapes for movies, and people stop getting a sense for what the real world looks like? But hey, paying workers for foreign set locations and B roll is pricey!
  - jamiek88 4y ago
    You know you can look up the produce item on a keyboard search? ‘Look up item’. You don’t need an attendant for that. Sorry to interrupt your rant, ranting is important.
    - the_sleaze9 4y ago
      This addresses none of the concerns raised in the above post, which you malign as a rant. Hacker news is not the place for hot take-downs and ignorant dismissals. There are other places for that.
      - CelticBard 4y ago
        Hacker news is a space for whatever you need it to be. Don’t gatekeep
      - jamiek88 4y ago
        Ha, I actually really meant that these rants are important. No shade meant, and clearly no benefit of the doubt given to someone trying to just pass along a helpful hint either.
matthewdgreen 4y ago
If AI pans out, it will be a huge multiplier of human progress. It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. It's worth pointing out that the (ideal) inexpensive AI tech would remove basically every remaining advantage that human beings have over machines, at least if we continue to live in a society where human beings must work to survive and find meaning. AI is fundamentally different from the steam engine or cars or machine tools, in the sense that those inventions still left room for human operators. To the extent that AI leaves room for humans, it may only be due to the fact that "ideal" AI isn't achievable and what we build is (perhaps temporarily) some approximation of the more powerful thing people are worried about.
- gumby 4y ago
  > It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. Though historically the John Henry story has been bull (machines didn't replace but augmented human work), how great if it became true in this case. There are other sources of dignity beyond compensated work. And as the marginal cost of production approaches zero, why not just pay people — money may lose its “store of value” property but retain its signaling (prioritization) function. How much better to go spend time hanging out with your aging parent than be changing their nappies. How much better to be writing shitty poetry for your enjoyment and that of your friends.
- nradov 4y ago
  I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- int_19h 4y ago
  It should be noted that this is not an inevitable outcome, but merely the one that is caused by our existing socioeconomic arrangements. We have a choice whether it will deprive huge number of people of their livelihoods and dignity or not. If we go with the existing model, AI - like any capital - will end up concentrated in very few hands. Except, crucially, this is the kind of capital that - at least in the long term, if not quite just yet - does not require labor to produce value, which is normally the limiting factor on how inhumane capitalism can get.
tialaramex 4y ago
Ultimately because of the Protestant Work Ethic, the belief that labour is inherently good and so if people aren't working this is a moral failing. You will see this in government programmes that assert the goal is that people have jobs, any assistance on offer is temporary, until they get jobs, and the programmes are very, very reluctant to accept that some people aren't able to work, let alone that many people don't want to work. The PWE suits many of the wealthy and powerful, who would prefer that the poor must do what they say or starve - and so it isn't questioned. But as the actual value of more human labour falls to zero, this whole idea doesn't work. Countries should have been preparing for this for decades, but like climate change it'll start to have horrible effects before they actually take serious steps to tackle it, and like climate change it'll hurt the poorest first and most of all. There's a lot of money to be made, shovelling back the tide.
- nradov 4y ago
  There is no evidence that the value of human labor will fall to zero. This is not an eventuality that countries should waste effort preparing for. Some few occupations will become obsolete, just as has happened occasionally since the dawn of civilization. Countries should provide unemployment insurance and job training for the impacted workers. I am happy to pay taxes and contribute donations to support people who are unable to work or pursuing education. As for people who are able to work but don't want to work, fuck 'em. I have zero interest in subsidizing them and will vote accordingly.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    You are not planning for AI. You are planning for failed AI.
progrus 4y ago
The right question to ask is: What kind of labor market will those who get fired find awaiting them?

Why are the concerns always 'will this fire people?' instead of 'how much of a multiplier will this be for a person?' Should maintaining the status quo of work be our first concern?

idontwantthis 4y ago

The Luddites did not want to ban progress - they wanted to be compensated with a portion of the increased revenues from automation. They weren't crazy, the world is.

dccoolgai 4y ago

We are concerned with it precisely because when the concern is "how much more productive one person can be", the wealth created by that production is invariably captured by the global elite and used to inflict misery and ruin on everyone else. Rise up and be manipulated and crucified by people like Stalin. Stay your hand and have it chewed off by people like Musk, or have toxic chemicals dumped in your back yard like in East Palestine. It's been that way since the industrial revolution.

weard_beard 4y ago

Given how they mock monopoly, If the tallow makers of France saw what we had done to capitalism they might fear our barons of industry would charge for sunlight or blot it out. Universal human good appears on no financial report nor ballot sheet or any other objective of the mass of human work on the face of the earth (except perhaps a byline in a shrinking church or fraternal order). If new suns are in store, how exactly are we to organize its distribution and protect its fertility? What commons has not been spoiled? What resource has not been extracted and hoarded? The black gold of AI will be pumped from ground to mingle with the water of art and truth and community and education and as sure as such extraction has polluted the land it will sully our minds and squeeze our wallets.

InvaderFizz 4y ago

Because the losses are concentrated and the gains are dispersed. The total economy will be drastically better off with AI and robots to do more work for us, but a small overall fraction will see the greatest losses in employment and employability. It's the illegal immigration debate all over again. Economically, they are a boon to the US economy over the long term. If you are low skilled or in other industries where you are competing with those migrants, it sucks for you. For everyone else, it is great. (Speaking purely from the standpoint of bringing in workers in their prime working years, ignoring cultural or other issues that arise with concentrations of out groups)

TheJoeMan 4y ago
Regarding how the overall economy will fare, observing the current trends I don’t see how AI won’t just futher enshittify more. I watch TV with obviously auto-generated subtitles. Where a human cares enough to backspace and correct typos, the broadcaster is perfectly content paying cheap rate for 80% okay subtitles, which can’t even type “oh goodness that’s TMI” without mangling it. My walmart shopping is self-checkout, and you’re in for a treat if the fruit you grabbed is missing a barcode so you stand around waiting on an attendant. But others would just “steal” it out of impatience, causing some corpo MBA to complain about “high shrinkage”. Disney has setup a fake screen behind the actors to display the background for shooting, how long until an AI generates fake cityscapes for movies, and people stop getting a sense for what the real world looks like? But hey, paying workers for foreign set locations and B roll is pricey!
- jamiek88 4y ago
  You know you can look up the produce item on a keyboard search? ‘Look up item’. You don’t need an attendant for that. Sorry to interrupt your rant, ranting is important.
  - the_sleaze9 4y ago
    This addresses none of the concerns raised in the above post, which you malign as a rant. Hacker news is not the place for hot take-downs and ignorant dismissals. There are other places for that.
    - CelticBard 4y ago
      Hacker news is a space for whatever you need it to be. Don’t gatekeep
    - jamiek88 4y ago
      Ha, I actually really meant that these rants are important. No shade meant, and clearly no benefit of the doubt given to someone trying to just pass along a helpful hint either.

matthewdgreen 4y ago

If AI pans out, it will be a huge multiplier of human progress. It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. It's worth pointing out that the (ideal) inexpensive AI tech would remove basically every remaining advantage that human beings have over machines, at least if we continue to live in a society where human beings must work to survive and find meaning. AI is fundamentally different from the steam engine or cars or machine tools, in the sense that those inventions still left room for human operators. To the extent that AI leaves room for humans, it may only be due to the fact that "ideal" AI isn't achievable and what we build is (perhaps temporarily) some approximation of the more powerful thing people are worried about.

gumby 4y ago
> It may also deprive huge numbers of people of their livelihoods and dignity. Though historically the John Henry story has been bull (machines didn't replace but augmented human work), how great if it became true in this case. There are other sources of dignity beyond compensated work. And as the marginal cost of production approaches zero, why not just pay people — money may lose its “store of value” property but retain its signaling (prioritization) function. How much better to go spend time hanging out with your aging parent than be changing their nappies. How much better to be writing shitty poetry for your enjoyment and that of your friends.
nradov 4y ago
I'd like to see an AI snake out a plugged toilet. Or do literally anything else from the Dirty Jobs TV show. We're making some progress on the software side, but hardware lags far behind.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
int_19h 4y ago
It should be noted that this is not an inevitable outcome, but merely the one that is caused by our existing socioeconomic arrangements. We have a choice whether it will deprive huge number of people of their livelihoods and dignity or not. If we go with the existing model, AI - like any capital - will end up concentrated in very few hands. Except, crucially, this is the kind of capital that - at least in the long term, if not quite just yet - does not require labor to produce value, which is normally the limiting factor on how inhumane capitalism can get.

tialaramex 4y ago

Ultimately because of the Protestant Work Ethic, the belief that labour is inherently good and so if people aren't working this is a moral failing. You will see this in government programmes that assert the goal is that people have jobs, any assistance on offer is temporary, until they get jobs, and the programmes are very, very reluctant to accept that some people aren't able to work, let alone that many people don't want to work. The PWE suits many of the wealthy and powerful, who would prefer that the poor must do what they say or starve - and so it isn't questioned. But as the actual value of more human labour falls to zero, this whole idea doesn't work. Countries should have been preparing for this for decades, but like climate change it'll start to have horrible effects before they actually take serious steps to tackle it, and like climate change it'll hurt the poorest first and most of all. There's a lot of money to be made, shovelling back the tide.

nradov 4y ago
There is no evidence that the value of human labor will fall to zero. This is not an eventuality that countries should waste effort preparing for. Some few occupations will become obsolete, just as has happened occasionally since the dawn of civilization. Countries should provide unemployment insurance and job training for the impacted workers. I am happy to pay taxes and contribute donations to support people who are unable to work or pursuing education. As for people who are able to work but don't want to work, fuck 'em. I have zero interest in subsidizing them and will vote accordingly.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  You are not planning for AI. You are planning for failed AI.

progrus 4y ago

The right question to ask is: What kind of labor market will those who get fired find awaiting them?