3 ms·

By whom? ...and what will happen when every single person goes and tries to buy a 50" TV? Hm? Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine? Come on... t

By whom? ...and what will happen when every single person goes and tries to buy a 50" TV? Hm? Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine? Come on... this is Real Life, not Magical Fairy Land. We're not talking about a magical cornucopia that generates an endless amount of physical goods that can be used to accommodate the needs of every person. We're very specifically talking here about technological shift that will eliminate a large pool of skilled jobs. People will still need jobs, or they will become homeless / starve / have to leave the country. AI is not going to feed the world any time soon.

Terretta 4y ago
> Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine? I mean ... we already have 3D printing, and car making robots, and electronics making robots. Most of the TV is robots. All that's needed is the equivalent of 3D printing that adds an extra step of "TV-making-robot"-making robots. One reason we don't have that is that it turns out the robot making robot costs more than certain as-yet non-globalized labor markets. It's not that we can't, it's that the ROE is bad.
- wokwokwok 4y ago
  How is this relevant to GPT4? What you're saying was already true... so what. Now people are unemployed because of GPT4 we're going to start making free TVs for everyone? Dang. That's sure not what happened when all those people lost their jobs during covid (eg. restaurant staff). I guess this time will be different? That's uh... well, very optimistic.
  - Terretta 4y ago
    How is "Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine?" relevant to GPT-4? I replied to that. And: > already true so what OK, so we did invent it. Then we agree on that.
    - wokwokwok 4y ago
      > I replied to that. Out of context. This entire thread is in the context of “gpt is going to destroy jobs”; the arbitrary “we need to disassociate working and basic necessities” isn’t an isolated socialist discourse. You can wax philosophical all you like, but you’re failing to address the fundamental reality. There is a physical limit of good and services available right now and no amount of magical posturing will make that untrue. Anything is possible in the future given unlimited time and resources, but this thread is not about that. It is about right now, people losing their jobs. What is being proposed here is not a solution to that problem. The ability for people to build things doesn’t mean they will. It’s pure speculation about what might possibly happen in the future. > Then we agree on that. I do not agree with you. You’re just making arbitrary speculative statements.
- weatherlite 4y ago
  Would be nice to also have infinite minerals to prepare all those goods, or will the TVs be made of wind and solar?
Gud 4y ago
Why do we need jobs? I’m genuinely curious. If the machines can produce the food, goods and luxury items traditionally made by mankind and their domesticated animals, I genuinely don’t see the problem. Naturally this is purely hypothetical, parent argued that work gives meaning to life(which I generally agree with). I argued you can still be working, even if less efficiently than the machines. Maybe it will be a gradual change. Agriculture and manufacturing is already highly automated, for better or worse.
- weatherlite 4y ago
  > Why do we need jobs? I’m genuinely curious. If the machines can produce the food, goods and luxury items traditionally made by mankind and their domesticated animals, I genuinely don’t see the problem. In principal you're right, we can in theory live like you suggest and expand on leisure culture / volunteering / 'made up' jobs by the government. In practice, we're super far from the utopia. Energy is expensive, food is expensive, housing is expensive in ChatGPT can't do squat about it. What it CAN do is possibly replace me as a worker. So that's the conundrum.

Terretta 4y ago

> Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine? I mean ... we already have 3D printing, and car making robots, and electronics making robots. Most of the TV is robots. All that's needed is the equivalent of 3D printing that adds an extra step of "TV-making-robot"-making robots. One reason we don't have that is that it turns out the robot making robot costs more than certain as-yet non-globalized labor markets. It's not that we can't, it's that the ROE is bad.

wokwokwok 4y ago
How is this relevant to GPT4? What you're saying was already true... so what. Now people are unemployed because of GPT4 we're going to start making free TVs for everyone? Dang. That's sure not what happened when all those people lost their jobs during covid (eg. restaurant staff). I guess this time will be different? That's uh... well, very optimistic.
- Terretta 4y ago
  How is "Did we suddenly invent a magical TV making machine?" relevant to GPT-4? I replied to that. And: > already true so what OK, so we did invent it. Then we agree on that.
  - wokwokwok 4y ago
    > I replied to that. Out of context. This entire thread is in the context of “gpt is going to destroy jobs”; the arbitrary “we need to disassociate working and basic necessities” isn’t an isolated socialist discourse. You can wax philosophical all you like, but you’re failing to address the fundamental reality. There is a physical limit of good and services available right now and no amount of magical posturing will make that untrue. Anything is possible in the future given unlimited time and resources, but this thread is not about that. It is about right now, people losing their jobs. What is being proposed here is not a solution to that problem. The ability for people to build things doesn’t mean they will. It’s pure speculation about what might possibly happen in the future. > Then we agree on that. I do not agree with you. You’re just making arbitrary speculative statements.
weatherlite 4y ago
Would be nice to also have infinite minerals to prepare all those goods, or will the TVs be made of wind and solar?

Gud 4y ago

Why do we need jobs? I’m genuinely curious. If the machines can produce the food, goods and luxury items traditionally made by mankind and their domesticated animals, I genuinely don’t see the problem. Naturally this is purely hypothetical, parent argued that work gives meaning to life(which I generally agree with). I argued you can still be working, even if less efficiently than the machines. Maybe it will be a gradual change. Agriculture and manufacturing is already highly automated, for better or worse.

weatherlite 4y ago
> Why do we need jobs? I’m genuinely curious. If the machines can produce the food, goods and luxury items traditionally made by mankind and their domesticated animals, I genuinely don’t see the problem. In principal you're right, we can in theory live like you suggest and expand on leisure culture / volunteering / 'made up' jobs by the government. In practice, we're super far from the utopia. Energy is expensive, food is expensive, housing is expensive in ChatGPT can't do squat about it. What it CAN do is possibly replace me as a worker. So that's the conundrum.