3 ms·

I think it’s absurd as well. Jobs won’t be stolen, different jobs will be created. At a certain point we will move past scarcity, and maybe we won’t have to lab

I think it’s absurd as well. Jobs won’t be stolen, different jobs will be created. At a certain point we will move past scarcity, and maybe we won’t have to labor to not die. What’s so important about a job? Humans need meaning, but meaning doesn’t have to be delivered by PayChex at the expense of the human soul.

flangola7 4y ago
Ultimately the whole number of jobs will decrease, in the same way that cars didn't create new jobs for horses. I'm definitely not opposed to post scarcity. I do wonder how you feel about the replacement of social "jobs" in the world. Models like GPT roleplay a girlfriend, parent, colleague at least as well as it roleplays a developer or a scriptwriter. I don't think many people have those consequences in mind yet.
vitehozonage 4y ago
>At a certain point we will move past scarcity, and maybe we won’t have to labor to not die. Society seems to be globally showing very decisively that it wont allow that to happen. Productivity has already increased massively. Society could have already used that productivity to decrease the hours that each person has to work to survive. Instead, society's structure pushes those profits to the owners of the businesses that run the technology. 'Working class people must work full time' is still such a fundamental part of culture that it is literally the Federal Reserve's mandate to maximise employment.
oytis 4y ago
Not having to labor is attractive to someone who has a solid foundation of accumulated wealth - at least a house with a garden in a first world country inherited from parents. For the rest of us skilled labor was (and still is for a while) a means to accumulate some wealth, get an own place to live, move to a different country we want to live in, get some things like travelling an hobbies that are not strictly necessary, but pleasant to have. If labor doesn't serve this purpose any more, it's unlikely that something else will, not in our lifetime at least
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  It’s a fair point - health care isn’t the only thing holding us in bondage. I’d note that I think humans will still work, but it’ll be more directed towards causes (we see this emerging as a generational demand now that work be meaningful) that talk to the human. I think, and now we are really ranging afield, that we already see as society’s move to post scarcity reproduction rates drop materially and some of these issues around “where to live” become less crushing. Additionally, as the need to be proximate to a human hamster wheel containment facility (office) we can utilize the broader infrastructure for our bag of mostly carbon water home and garden. I think the issue will be less about whether it’s possible or whether we won’t get what we want, but more about breaking down norms and inertia and biases and mental constraints and the need for accountants to keep us in hamster wheels for their moral view of the world.

flangola7 4y ago

Ultimately the whole number of jobs will decrease, in the same way that cars didn't create new jobs for horses. I'm definitely not opposed to post scarcity. I do wonder how you feel about the replacement of social "jobs" in the world. Models like GPT roleplay a girlfriend, parent, colleague at least as well as it roleplays a developer or a scriptwriter. I don't think many people have those consequences in mind yet.

vitehozonage 4y ago

>At a certain point we will move past scarcity, and maybe we won’t have to labor to not die. Society seems to be globally showing very decisively that it wont allow that to happen. Productivity has already increased massively. Society could have already used that productivity to decrease the hours that each person has to work to survive. Instead, society's structure pushes those profits to the owners of the businesses that run the technology. 'Working class people must work full time' is still such a fundamental part of culture that it is literally the Federal Reserve's mandate to maximise employment.

oytis 4y ago

Not having to labor is attractive to someone who has a solid foundation of accumulated wealth - at least a house with a garden in a first world country inherited from parents. For the rest of us skilled labor was (and still is for a while) a means to accumulate some wealth, get an own place to live, move to a different country we want to live in, get some things like travelling an hobbies that are not strictly necessary, but pleasant to have. If labor doesn't serve this purpose any more, it's unlikely that something else will, not in our lifetime at least

fnordpiglet 4y ago
It’s a fair point - health care isn’t the only thing holding us in bondage. I’d note that I think humans will still work, but it’ll be more directed towards causes (we see this emerging as a generational demand now that work be meaningful) that talk to the human. I think, and now we are really ranging afield, that we already see as society’s move to post scarcity reproduction rates drop materially and some of these issues around “where to live” become less crushing. Additionally, as the need to be proximate to a human hamster wheel containment facility (office) we can utilize the broader infrastructure for our bag of mostly carbon water home and garden. I think the issue will be less about whether it’s possible or whether we won’t get what we want, but more about breaking down norms and inertia and biases and mental constraints and the need for accountants to keep us in hamster wheels for their moral view of the world.