6 ms·

"Work" above is being used in a more specific form than you are using it. GP is not referring to all productive work, they are specifically referring to employm

"Work" above is being used in a more specific form than you are using it. GP is not referring to all productive work, they are specifically referring to employment on the market. Yes, human beings are better in relationships and better when they help each other, but GP is not talking about abolishing helping other people or doing meaningful things. There are a huge number of things people can do to meaningfully make the world a better place outside of traditional jobs. And a non-trivial number of people work at jobs that aren't aligned with producing value or helping people in the first place. Value on the market in specific is not the be-all end-all measure of whether work can be personally fulfilling and validating. A market job can be meaningful, yes. But it's not the entire category. If I never had to work for income I would still "work", but what I worked on would be very different and would probably focus a lot more on non-scalable non-commercial smaller projects and volunteering. There are things that are valuable and meaningful to do that don't involve working specifically for a company and don't involve looking at that work primarily through the lens of "how can I make money off of this?"

hnfong 4y ago
I generally agree with you in principle, but it’s not a given that you can find meaning outside of the job market if the market doesn’t find your labor valuable. What if nobody actually wants your “help”? What if your labor is not only worthless in the job market, but also in general, where people prefer assistance from AI instead of from a live human person? What if no matter what you do, some AI does it better? How will humanity find our own value and meaning when that happens?
- jeremyjh 4y ago
  The professional chess community has been living in this world for a long time. The engines crush us, and their games can be fascinating too but Magnus’s and Hikaru’s make a helluva lot more money. It’s not a winner take all market in general but the human element is actually very important; the creation is more than just the game on the board.
- jamilton 4y ago
  I think the point where that is the case is pretty far off, since it requires endless fully-autonomous robots and no demand for human-created media or connection. But regardless, people throughout history have found happiness and meaning in their life completely separately from what they did to put food on the table.
- danShumway 4y ago
  I don't think this is something people should be worried about. There is so much stuff to do in the world, and quite frankly, there are not enough people to do all of it. And a lot of that stuff is not particularly suited to AI. But what I would question if you want to get a little existential -- do people value being helpful or do they value feeling helpful, because those are two different things. And I think that if the idea of "people need help and what if an AI can help them better than I can" is actually terrifying to people, that should maybe prompt a small amount of reflection about our motivations for helping others. But the shorter answer is that there is just so much stuff to do in the world right now.
- koch 4y ago
  I'm so disappointed in the other replies to this comment. > Don't worry about it, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done > pretty far off > chess grandmasters are ok We are on an exponential curve of being able to create agents on demand that can essentially act in human ways, at least digitally/online. If you're working on a computer (aka all white collar jobs or anything that can be done remotely), it will soon enough be trivial to create an agent and task it with "Unqueue tasks from the backlog and implement fixes in the codebase. Ask questions if you need help." and it will do it. And you can create as many of these agents as you like. As many as you like! On demand! How the hell are humans supposed to compete with that?
  - saurik 4y ago
    I mean, that isn't a "what ever will happen to my job?" level of concern, that's more "will society handle transitioning to a post-job reality once everyone is useless without revolving into a war" or "maybe humanity will cease to be relevant and we'll all get killed by the computer we design", which is a fundamentally different level of problem, right? Like, the last thing I am going to be concerned about is my silly job in the future you are positing where all white collar jobs are replaced, as to be quite frank about it: my job as a low-level software developer is harder to replace than the jobs of the people who hired me or the people who hired them or the people who invested in their company to begin with... once the computer flips from the regime of being worse than a human and yet helpful to them into a theoretical one where it is better than a human, I think the answer is going to very rapidly change from "maybe you should just consider it to be helpful!" to "maybe that will be the end of human civilization" with very very little in between.
- ilyt 4y ago
  That would really only be a problem if majority decided to not do anything and we had actual shortage, not just "corporations don't want to pay decent wage so they can't find people" If the incentive is "here is basic income, you can afford flat on outskirts of the town or in some small town and basic necessities", there is still plenty motivation to do better and get better stuff (whether just for living, or for your hoobbies or interest), just not a pressure of taking first job you can find just to afford being alive. So average person have option of just going on 6 month hiatus to learn some life skill, or artist have time to develop their skill enough to make art or music that gets enough interest to make it into income.
- lm28469 4y ago
  > it’s not a given that you can find meaning outside of the job market That's bleak af, how old are you ? where do you live ? what do you do ? do you have a family ? do you have friends ? hobbies ? I can guarantee you the vast majority of min wage workers would absolutely find a meaning in things other than flipping burgers or triaging the shit people buy on Amazon
- mckravchyk 4y ago
  I think there are 3 factions in a world where AI took out most jobs (with UBI of course): #1 There will always be jobs requiring humans - jobs that require human interaction. The supply will be much smaller, but so will be the demand. #2 By the time AI replaces all jobs, we will most likely have a very realistic VR with multiplayer capabilities. I think that many people will live adventures in such world and spend most of their waking hours in it. Metaverse sucks but it's only because it's so artificial. If you could have tech that could integrate with your senses directly, giving experiences on par with the sharpest lucid dream... that's going to be much different and for better or worse, a lot of people will get sucked into it. Of course, it's going suck - life is about yin-yang, endless pleasure is not good. People who will end up spending the majority of their time in such VR will not be unlike drug addicts, unless they will also be doing activities that require mental & "physical" engagement (I think one of the coolest thing that could arise out of it are new sports that would not be possible in the real world), however, that yin-yang balance would be hard to achieve when there's no evolutionary pressure combined with overabundance of simple pleasure that's just available all the time. #3 Walking the path to mastery in some pursuit - i.e. artistic, athletic, a craft. There's pure joy in just getting better at something and enjoying every day of practice and most importantly - feeling challenged which is a primal need. It may be competitive as heck to get some recognition or play in the big leagues (which would be more like #1), but that would be just a bonus from that perspective. If AI leaves us nothing to do, then #3 will always be available. AI will not take away our own engagement but engagement requires effort and so, I would bet that a significant majority will overindulge in #2 to their unconscious doom - I guess it will still be a pretty cool experience though and it's not like those people will not have a choice to get out.
vc8f6vVV 4y ago
I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need. No, it doesn't have to be a work "for a company", but if you can't "make money off of this" it probably means your "work" is only relevant to you, or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created. It's how society works, and we are social animals.
- wrs 4y ago
  By this argument, hobbies do not exist.
  - FooBarWidget 4y ago
    Hobbies are relevant personally. Fits his definition.
    - namarie 4y ago
      Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.
      - FooBarWidget 4y ago
        Not necessarily, but more often so than not. Even the competitions that you mention are only valuable to other hobbyists, and only in so far people's free times allow. Non-hobbyists are not likely to pay much to see those competitions. And when free time runs out, those hobbies are amongst the first things to go.
- jamilton 4y ago
  People who have enough wealth to not work for a living seem to manage their boredom pretty well.
phkahler 4y ago
Someone has to grow, process, and ship your food. Mine the coal, or build and maintain the energy infrastructure. And roads. They expect to be paid because in many cases its work more than keeping busy. Those things that are more valuable or meaningful are valuable and meaningful to you, so not really a fair trade to the people doing work to support you.
- danShumway 4y ago
  I want to be polite about this, but I hate how I can correct one specific point on HN, and then I instantly need to defend an entire philosophy. The comment I was replying to argued that we were talking about abolishing all meaningful human activity, and I pointed out that "meaningful human activity" and "gainful economic employment" are not the exact same category. I don't really think that warrants having an extended debate about whether or not decoupling income from "work" is fair or not. And it's kind of a weird sequitur anyway, because all of the jobs you're talking about are paid noticeably less than white-collar jobs even though they are arguably way more essential than any of the programming work that we do. So for this to suddenly be a conversation about fairness... I mean, what conversation do you want to have, do you want to have a conversation about AI or about the entire history of wages and about how human beings value blue-collar jobs? It's not a problem, it's just... people read way too much into comments like this. I'm just pointing out that "meaningful work" can happen outside of an economy, something that I think is a pretty obvious, uncontroversial point to state.

hnfong 4y ago

I generally agree with you in principle, but it’s not a given that you can find meaning outside of the job market if the market doesn’t find your labor valuable. What if nobody actually wants your “help”? What if your labor is not only worthless in the job market, but also in general, where people prefer assistance from AI instead of from a live human person? What if no matter what you do, some AI does it better? How will humanity find our own value and meaning when that happens?

jeremyjh 4y ago
The professional chess community has been living in this world for a long time. The engines crush us, and their games can be fascinating too but Magnus’s and Hikaru’s make a helluva lot more money. It’s not a winner take all market in general but the human element is actually very important; the creation is more than just the game on the board.
jamilton 4y ago
I think the point where that is the case is pretty far off, since it requires endless fully-autonomous robots and no demand for human-created media or connection. But regardless, people throughout history have found happiness and meaning in their life completely separately from what they did to put food on the table.
danShumway 4y ago
I don't think this is something people should be worried about. There is so much stuff to do in the world, and quite frankly, there are not enough people to do all of it. And a lot of that stuff is not particularly suited to AI. But what I would question if you want to get a little existential -- do people value being helpful or do they value feeling helpful, because those are two different things. And I think that if the idea of "people need help and what if an AI can help them better than I can" is actually terrifying to people, that should maybe prompt a small amount of reflection about our motivations for helping others. But the shorter answer is that there is just so much stuff to do in the world right now.
koch 4y ago
I'm so disappointed in the other replies to this comment. > Don't worry about it, there's a lot of stuff that needs to be done > pretty far off > chess grandmasters are ok We are on an exponential curve of being able to create agents on demand that can essentially act in human ways, at least digitally/online. If you're working on a computer (aka all white collar jobs or anything that can be done remotely), it will soon enough be trivial to create an agent and task it with "Unqueue tasks from the backlog and implement fixes in the codebase. Ask questions if you need help." and it will do it. And you can create as many of these agents as you like. As many as you like! On demand! How the hell are humans supposed to compete with that?
- saurik 4y ago
  I mean, that isn't a "what ever will happen to my job?" level of concern, that's more "will society handle transitioning to a post-job reality once everyone is useless without revolving into a war" or "maybe humanity will cease to be relevant and we'll all get killed by the computer we design", which is a fundamentally different level of problem, right? Like, the last thing I am going to be concerned about is my silly job in the future you are positing where all white collar jobs are replaced, as to be quite frank about it: my job as a low-level software developer is harder to replace than the jobs of the people who hired me or the people who hired them or the people who invested in their company to begin with... once the computer flips from the regime of being worse than a human and yet helpful to them into a theoretical one where it is better than a human, I think the answer is going to very rapidly change from "maybe you should just consider it to be helpful!" to "maybe that will be the end of human civilization" with very very little in between.
ilyt 4y ago
That would really only be a problem if majority decided to not do anything and we had actual shortage, not just "corporations don't want to pay decent wage so they can't find people" If the incentive is "here is basic income, you can afford flat on outskirts of the town or in some small town and basic necessities", there is still plenty motivation to do better and get better stuff (whether just for living, or for your hoobbies or interest), just not a pressure of taking first job you can find just to afford being alive. So average person have option of just going on 6 month hiatus to learn some life skill, or artist have time to develop their skill enough to make art or music that gets enough interest to make it into income.
lm28469 4y ago
> it’s not a given that you can find meaning outside of the job market That's bleak af, how old are you ? where do you live ? what do you do ? do you have a family ? do you have friends ? hobbies ? I can guarantee you the vast majority of min wage workers would absolutely find a meaning in things other than flipping burgers or triaging the shit people buy on Amazon
mckravchyk 4y ago
I think there are 3 factions in a world where AI took out most jobs (with UBI of course): #1 There will always be jobs requiring humans - jobs that require human interaction. The supply will be much smaller, but so will be the demand. #2 By the time AI replaces all jobs, we will most likely have a very realistic VR with multiplayer capabilities. I think that many people will live adventures in such world and spend most of their waking hours in it. Metaverse sucks but it's only because it's so artificial. If you could have tech that could integrate with your senses directly, giving experiences on par with the sharpest lucid dream... that's going to be much different and for better or worse, a lot of people will get sucked into it. Of course, it's going suck - life is about yin-yang, endless pleasure is not good. People who will end up spending the majority of their time in such VR will not be unlike drug addicts, unless they will also be doing activities that require mental & "physical" engagement (I think one of the coolest thing that could arise out of it are new sports that would not be possible in the real world), however, that yin-yang balance would be hard to achieve when there's no evolutionary pressure combined with overabundance of simple pleasure that's just available all the time. #3 Walking the path to mastery in some pursuit - i.e. artistic, athletic, a craft. There's pure joy in just getting better at something and enjoying every day of practice and most importantly - feeling challenged which is a primal need. It may be competitive as heck to get some recognition or play in the big leagues (which would be more like #1), but that would be just a bonus from that perspective. If AI leaves us nothing to do, then #3 will always be available. AI will not take away our own engagement but engagement requires effort and so, I would bet that a significant majority will overindulge in #2 to their unconscious doom - I guess it will still be a pretty cool experience though and it's not like those people will not have a choice to get out.

vc8f6vVV 4y ago

I your work is not producing anything valuable for other people it's void and you will get bored pretty fast, it's a human nature. If it does you can always find a way to monetize it as people need it and ready to share their wealth for something they need. No, it doesn't have to be a work "for a company", but if you can't "make money off of this" it probably means your "work" is only relevant to you, or somebody else will "make money off of this" using what you have created. It's how society works, and we are social animals.

wrs 4y ago
By this argument, hobbies do not exist.
- FooBarWidget 4y ago
  Hobbies are relevant personally. Fits his definition.
  - namarie 4y ago
    Hobbies aren't necessarily only relevant to oneself, so no, they don't fit. Running a marathon can be a hobby, and lots of people compete in those together.
    - FooBarWidget 4y ago
      Not necessarily, but more often so than not. Even the competitions that you mention are only valuable to other hobbyists, and only in so far people's free times allow. Non-hobbyists are not likely to pay much to see those competitions. And when free time runs out, those hobbies are amongst the first things to go.
jamilton 4y ago
People who have enough wealth to not work for a living seem to manage their boredom pretty well.

phkahler 4y ago

Someone has to grow, process, and ship your food. Mine the coal, or build and maintain the energy infrastructure. And roads. They expect to be paid because in many cases its work more than keeping busy. Those things that are more valuable or meaningful are valuable and meaningful to you, so not really a fair trade to the people doing work to support you.

danShumway 4y ago
I want to be polite about this, but I hate how I can correct one specific point on HN, and then I instantly need to defend an entire philosophy. The comment I was replying to argued that we were talking about abolishing all meaningful human activity, and I pointed out that "meaningful human activity" and "gainful economic employment" are not the exact same category. I don't really think that warrants having an extended debate about whether or not decoupling income from "work" is fair or not. And it's kind of a weird sequitur anyway, because all of the jobs you're talking about are paid noticeably less than white-collar jobs even though they are arguably way more essential than any of the programming work that we do. So for this to suddenly be a conversation about fairness... I mean, what conversation do you want to have, do you want to have a conversation about AI or about the entire history of wages and about how human beings value blue-collar jobs? It's not a problem, it's just... people read way too much into comments like this. I'm just pointing out that "meaningful work" can happen outside of an economy, something that I think is a pretty obvious, uncontroversial point to state.