3 ms·

> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software I think in the long run the software will do a much better job t

> Do you choose to use software instead of employing a person because you prefer the software I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person. It's inevitable in my opinion. We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved. > I do not like to think about an automated, antisocial world That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter. This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about. Of course we need a different distribution mechanism of goods created by the machines. But that's a different question.

bzbarsky 15y ago
Some people are in fact doing jobs they're passionate about. What you should really worry about is a world in which a person can't do anything except consume entertainment and goods, because everything else is handled better by machines....
- icebraining 15y ago
  I expect the dichotomy of machine/human to disappeared before that moment comes.
- cgmorton 15y ago
  And what exactly is wrong with that? You've gotten 'consume entertainment and goods' confused with 'do absolutely anything they want'. Maybe that's making movies, or writing, or painting, or travelling, or maybe spending their time getting to know interesting people. And even if this person really prefers sitting at home watching TV (even though they haven't spent their energy at some demeaning, labour-intensive job), well, who are you to say that's a problem? Let people decide for themselves what they want to do. Increasing their free time and decreasing scarcity can only give people more options.
  - bzbarsky 15y ago
    No, I don't have it confused. Some people really like producing something someone else can use. Especially if people then actually use it. There are quite a lot of people like that, actually. And such people would be absolutely screwed in the world you describe. What's the point of making movies no one will watch? Is it worth writing if no one will read it? Painting if no one wants to see them? For some people, yes. For many, no.
wladimir 15y ago
I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person Software is good at doing a single, static, well-defined job many times. What people do much better than software is adopt to change, deal with unexpected events, and communicating with other people. Anyway, my point is not that software isn't doing a good job, it's that there is a turnover point... We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved Yes. No arguing that. But no trend ever keeps going in the same direction forever. It could well be that the diminishing returns for adding more software have already started. That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter. No, I don't. You couldn't be more wrong about that. This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines But do you believe this? Can we "leave the world to machines"? (or, to any abstraction?) Who controls these machines? They put all the worlds power in a few hands -- if we live at their whim, do they have your best interest in mind? And even if they do now, will they always have our best interests in mind? (if not, it is very unstable) The problem reaches much deeper than just "the distribution mechanism". We already have a big problem with getting such basics as food all over the planet, and that's not because the mechanisms don't exist... while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about. I agree that would be great. We could do that already now. We could take care of the poor and un(der)employed people, step out of the consumerist mindset, and stop worrying and trying to control everyone's every actions. The problem is that it requires a shift in the mindset of people. Until we figure that out, I have very little belief in this "loving machine future".

bzbarsky 15y ago

Some people are in fact doing jobs they're passionate about. What you should really worry about is a world in which a person can't do anything except consume entertainment and goods, because everything else is handled better by machines....

icebraining 15y ago
I expect the dichotomy of machine/human to disappeared before that moment comes.
cgmorton 15y ago
And what exactly is wrong with that? You've gotten 'consume entertainment and goods' confused with 'do absolutely anything they want'. Maybe that's making movies, or writing, or painting, or travelling, or maybe spending their time getting to know interesting people. And even if this person really prefers sitting at home watching TV (even though they haven't spent their energy at some demeaning, labour-intensive job), well, who are you to say that's a problem? Let people decide for themselves what they want to do. Increasing their free time and decreasing scarcity can only give people more options.
- bzbarsky 15y ago
  No, I don't have it confused. Some people really like producing something someone else can use. Especially if people then actually use it. There are quite a lot of people like that, actually. And such people would be absolutely screwed in the world you describe. What's the point of making movies no one will watch? Is it worth writing if no one will read it? Painting if no one wants to see them? For some people, yes. For many, no.

wladimir 15y ago

I think in the long run the software will do a much better job than a person Software is good at doing a single, static, well-defined job many times. What people do much better than software is adopt to change, deal with unexpected events, and communicating with other people. Anyway, my point is not that software isn't doing a good job, it's that there is a turnover point... We are not even a century into computing and look what we already have achieved Yes. No arguing that. But no trend ever keeps going in the same direction forever. It could well be that the diminishing returns for adding more software have already started. That is because you define your world as the action of going to work in order to receive food and shelter. No, I don't. You couldn't be more wrong about that. This does not necessarily have to be your world. I say we should leave this world to machines But do you believe this? Can we "leave the world to machines"? (or, to any abstraction?) Who controls these machines? They put all the worlds power in a few hands -- if we live at their whim, do they have your best interest in mind? And even if they do now, will they always have our best interests in mind? (if not, it is very unstable) The problem reaches much deeper than just "the distribution mechanism". We already have a big problem with getting such basics as food all over the planet, and that's not because the mechanisms don't exist... while everybody can go on to do what he is really passionate about. I agree that would be great. We could do that already now. We could take care of the poor and un(der)employed people, step out of the consumerist mindset, and stop worrying and trying to control everyone's every actions. The problem is that it requires a shift in the mindset of people. Until we figure that out, I have very little belief in this "loving machine future".