3 ms·

This statement is why I am not the kind of person who reads Jacobin, despite it's usual good writing's > you get an automation pension and get to relax for the

• forty 4y ago
  It depends on the job probably :)
  • gjsman-1000 4y ago
    Not really - humans become attached to whatever job they have, generally. There are NYC trash crews who couldn’t imagine leaving.
    • forty 4y ago
      That's what people who like their job like to believe :) I'd say that for many people, the only thing they like about their job is the money. you might be right though that it probably depends more on the couple (person, job) than on the job itself.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    • xboxnolifes 4y ago
      Pick a few hundred people at random and pay them 2x their current salary/wage, no strings attached. See how many stay at their current job.
• MayeulC 4y ago
  Well, it has to do with your fundamental needs. "Relaxing" is not being stressed about them. If I didn't need to work to live decently, I'd likely still work, but differently. Maybe part-time at a bakery? I'd focus on other topics, probably some longer-term research subjects. It's also true that it's very easy to go down the "lazy" path, and probably much less enriching.
  • anon291 4y ago
    I've lived long enough to know that while I pursue lots of long-term research type projects in my spare time; the vast majority of people would spend their relaxing time on online games, gambling, and other useless pursuits. Sorry, but it's just true. I've seen it in my own family.
• wahnfrieden 4y ago
  The full picture depends on what is done with the surplus generated by the workers
• koch 4y ago
  He's not saying people will stop doing things. People love to do things. People even love to work - on things that matter to them, where they can have responsibility and autonomy. Right now "work" is what other people want you do to, and it's attached to your livelihood. That's what we have the capability of escaping. Would you stop working for other people if you didn't have to?
  • anon291 4y ago
    Sure, I agree with you, and if the author had said something like "AI will free us from drudgery so that we can pursue more meaningful pursuits" I may agree with him. However, he said people could get a pension and relax. You are interpreting the word relax (which means to seek rest and recreation) to be the opposite of what it means (you claim that 'relax' means to do meaningful work). I'm not sure why you're doing this.
    • cassianoleal 4y ago
      Meaningful work can be very relaxing. I really like coding my own personal projects. Many times I do it precisely to find flow and relax. Same with designing parts to 3D print, or printing them afterwards. Solving real world problems that I care about can be extremely rewarding and often quite relaxing. I actually think most of the stress from work comes from the fact that you either perform or you might not have enough for food and shelter, for yourself and your family. Take that away and failure becomes nothing more than an opportunity to learn. I find that very relaxing.
• deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
• ChatGTP 4y ago
  But the plan under a capitalist system would be that you're going to have the things you like to do automated, the work, one way or another because it's an opportunity for someone to make money? Under a socialist society, there is less incentives to drive everything so hard because people can relax a little. Yes, people will be free to choose and push things further, but not so desperate for doing so. The drive to hard and spooky "AGIs" would probably slow down too, right now it's happening at such break next pace because of economic incentives are so strong for doing so. I was freaking out quite a bit about the future, until someone on here mentioned socialism a few days ago, and I chilled out because ultimately, I think that's where we'll end up, at least some form of it, and it actually made me feel better. I've lived in countries which people would consider "socialist", and it was awesome, so I'm not worried about it. Also don't forget that societies have existed with many "happy citizens" not doing really much of anything, Rome, and many indigenous cultures, yes they had to do some work for food, but mostly had a pretty good carefree lives without "jobs".
  • anon291 4y ago
    Criticizing Jacobin does not mean one is an unapologetic capitalist. Not sure why hacker news, which prides itself on supposed openness to new ideas, is playing the false dichotomy game when it comes to this subject.
• outime 4y ago
  Work generally isn't good for the human soul but meaningful (whatever that means for each individual) work is. Most of the jobs aren't very meaningful and they're done solely to survive. Let's not kid ourselves, most of the people here including myself have jobs they like or even love but outside of this bubble a big percentage of jobs are rather miserable.
  • anthony_d 4y ago
    The thing is that everything is ultimately meaningless. Maybe you’re 5 or 6 levels removed, maybe it’s only 1 level removed but it’s still meaningless. Work _creates_ meaning. It doesn’t have to and you’re free to not find satisfaction in your work, but you get to choose. There is no creature that lives without work. Why should any of us be otherwise? My post probably isn’t going to convince you but read some Marcus Aurelius or another stoic and maybe they will.
    • anon291 4y ago
      Exactly this. Constant relaxation is bad for the human psyche
• fluxinflex 4y ago
  And where has that gotten us? An internet that can't be trusted, people stuck in bullshit jobs (David Graeber words) and retirement and health systems that don't work. Yet another bank crisis. Yet another war. And people still living in poverty. Hm. For me, you can give it to the birds or rather to the AIs. I'll take the beach any day.
  • anon291 4y ago
    The alternatives are not Jacobism or capitalism. There are multitudes of economic systems. False dichotomies get us nowhere.