5 ms·

There’s no real dignity in work that can easily be done by a robot. A lot of these jobs make people miserable anyway, maybe we shouldn’t be fighting so hard to

by valine 3y ago

There’s no real dignity in work that can easily be done by a robot. A lot of these jobs make people miserable anyway, maybe we shouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep them.

GedHawk 3y ago
All Labor has Dignity
- valine 3y ago
  Does it? If I pay you to move rocks back and forth in a field does that work have dignity? Making someone work a job that could be done cheaper and faster by a robot doesn’t benefit anyone. You’re destroying economic value and wasting the worker’s time.
  - thephyber 3y ago
    This seems like a perception thing. Like the person moving rocks might be extremely grateful just to have a job. The mentally disabled, ex-cons, and other people who have been overlooked for work for many years all likely experience a sense of dignity in being paid to work. Perhaps they even delude themselves into thinking moving rocks is somehow useful or necessary. I always found it weird that outsiders need to dictate what dignity is, since it is an internal state/feeling about own actions. I’m not against automating high toil (the definition from the Google SRE book) jobs. But people will find dignity in their hobbies if they can’t find it at work. If they can’t find dignity there, they have been failed by society.
  - carlosjobim 3y ago
    Yes, in the same way as a work-out in the gym has dignity and value. In the gym you're just moving some metal chunks up and down, but that work has tremendous physical and mental effects on the person doing it.
    - valine 3y ago
      Unless you're a professional athlete no one is going to pay you to work out. It has no value for society.
      - carlosjobim 3y ago
        What are you talking about? Society? The benefit is to the person working or working out.
    - fomine3 3y ago
      Yes. For latest example, there are many people enjoy coding that can be written by GPT.
  - topkai22 3y ago
    Well over 50% of workers report being satisfied with their job. Automation eliminating jobs people are satisfied or happy with is almost certainly a loss the workers, even if it is an improvement overall. I say this as someone who knows he has been directly responsible for eliminating dozens of jobs through automation. Not all the people affected had lives were improved by the job elimination, even if I truly believe our solution made far more peoples lives better and was a win overall. —- Edits for typos
- dclowd9901 3y ago
  It has dignity if it gives purpose. I can tell you right now there’s a substantial portion of a generation of people who see working _for_ anyone as purposeless. There’s already value in the human made and hand crafted. Maybe our society just becomes one where we’re left to the retirement of a civilization. It makes me think of this series: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football Post-scarcity, post capitalism, post everything.
macintux 3y ago
We’re back to the recurring question: what economics model will work without workers?
- belter 3y ago
  None. There will be an economy of Robot consumers and Robot producers.
  - mjan22640 3y ago
    Humans squeezed out of the existing economy will engage in a parallel economy. It will be interesting how these things will interplay and what it will lead to in the end.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > what economics model will work without workers? Without labour? None. Without human workers? All of them. That said, everything we label the humanities has plenty of runway apart from automation.
  - edgarvaldes 3y ago
    Capitalism without human workers? How?
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > Capitalism without human workers? Humans only own and consume while robots (functionally, the capital of this economy) provide the labour. Everyone is a founder, but instead of co-founders and employees, you just command a team of AIs and robots. You're still trying to innovate and provide a product, as are others to you. But nobody is selling labour per se.
      - h0l0cube 3y ago
        AGI will claim the novelty of ‘innovation’ from humans too
jimbokun 3y ago
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is training humans fast enough to stay one step ahead of the robots and the LLMs.
willio58 3y ago
"There’s no real dignity in working to make a living." FTFY /s But seriously, while I think humans will always find some meaning in work, there will come a day when that work is no longer required. Or at the very least, work will look so different that it will be unrecognizable to us currently. I think "work" will look more and more like "art" in the year 4000 for example. The idea of a person sacrificing some of their time to enrich the person at the top of a company already sounds bad, but we all accept it must happen so we can afford to live. But when robots and AI takes over labor in a significant way, what will be left for those humans that remain? And let's say we converge on something like a universal basic income to fix this, where will humans find meaning?
- jononomo 3y ago
  Thinking about the year 4000 isn't interesting. Thinking about the year 2100 is interesting.
  - p1esk 3y ago
    Thinking about the year GPT-5 is released is interesting (likely 2024).
    - schrodingerscow 3y ago
      Indeed. People are way underestimating how quickly this change is coming
  - willio58 3y ago
    I think both ideas have their merits. I think we can all agree that progress isn’t necessarily linear. So maybe in 2100 we won’t quite get to what I’m talking about, but by 4000 I don’t think anyone can claim that we’ll be working 40 hours a week and paying bills with credit cards still.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  I was a huge supporter of UBI for a while, but now I think money is going to become kind of meaningless at some point (the more we print the less it's worth, and UBI policies would struggle to keep up with the inflation they drive) I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics. Everyone should be able to at least meet their minimal basic needs without depending on their economic relevance (which isn't a given for many people over the next 100 years). People who want more than the essentials (a house with larger bedrooms, equipment for their hobbies, travel accommodations) can find paid work in positions that still require a human touch. And if there aren't enough jobs available for everyone who wants one, then start reducing the standard work week from 40 hours, until everyone who wants can find work.
randomdata 3y ago
> A lot of these jobs make people miserable anyway A lot of these jobs also make people happy, though. That is why the loss of manufacturing in particular was such a blow to Americans. People love manufacturing – to the point that having small-scale manufacturing facilities in one's garage so that one can keep on manufacturing things on the weekend is a dream of many.
- walleeee 3y ago
  This is a foundation of the liberal tradition and one on which e.g. Smith and Marx would agree: human-scale industry is among our most fundamental (and prolific) predilections Moreover that it tends to produce better outcomes than the frantic, often brutal thrust of the greater industrial revolution This is not to condemn labor-saving ingenuity but to advise deep consideration with regard to social and material technologies

by valine 3y ago

There’s no real dignity in work that can easily be done by a robot. A lot of these jobs make people miserable anyway, maybe we shouldn’t be fighting so hard to keep them.

GedHawk 3y ago

All Labor has Dignity

valine 3y ago
Does it? If I pay you to move rocks back and forth in a field does that work have dignity? Making someone work a job that could be done cheaper and faster by a robot doesn’t benefit anyone. You’re destroying economic value and wasting the worker’s time.
- thephyber 3y ago
  This seems like a perception thing. Like the person moving rocks might be extremely grateful just to have a job. The mentally disabled, ex-cons, and other people who have been overlooked for work for many years all likely experience a sense of dignity in being paid to work. Perhaps they even delude themselves into thinking moving rocks is somehow useful or necessary. I always found it weird that outsiders need to dictate what dignity is, since it is an internal state/feeling about own actions. I’m not against automating high toil (the definition from the Google SRE book) jobs. But people will find dignity in their hobbies if they can’t find it at work. If they can’t find dignity there, they have been failed by society.
- carlosjobim 3y ago
  Yes, in the same way as a work-out in the gym has dignity and value. In the gym you're just moving some metal chunks up and down, but that work has tremendous physical and mental effects on the person doing it.
  - valine 3y ago
    Unless you're a professional athlete no one is going to pay you to work out. It has no value for society.
    - carlosjobim 3y ago
      What are you talking about? Society? The benefit is to the person working or working out.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    Yes. For latest example, there are many people enjoy coding that can be written by GPT.
- topkai22 3y ago
  Well over 50% of workers report being satisfied with their job. Automation eliminating jobs people are satisfied or happy with is almost certainly a loss the workers, even if it is an improvement overall. I say this as someone who knows he has been directly responsible for eliminating dozens of jobs through automation. Not all the people affected had lives were improved by the job elimination, even if I truly believe our solution made far more peoples lives better and was a win overall. —- Edits for typos
dclowd9901 3y ago
It has dignity if it gives purpose. I can tell you right now there’s a substantial portion of a generation of people who see working _for_ anyone as purposeless. There’s already value in the human made and hand crafted. Maybe our society just becomes one where we’re left to the retirement of a civilization. It makes me think of this series: https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football https://www.sbnation.com/a/17776-football Post-scarcity, post capitalism, post everything.

macintux 3y ago

We’re back to the recurring question: what economics model will work without workers?

belter 3y ago
None. There will be an economy of Robot consumers and Robot producers.
- mjan22640 3y ago
  Humans squeezed out of the existing economy will engage in a parallel economy. It will be interesting how these things will interplay and what it will lead to in the end.
JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> what economics model will work without workers? Without labour? None. Without human workers? All of them. That said, everything we label the humanities has plenty of runway apart from automation.
- edgarvaldes 3y ago
  Capitalism without human workers? How?
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > Capitalism without human workers? Humans only own and consume while robots (functionally, the capital of this economy) provide the labour. Everyone is a founder, but instead of co-founders and employees, you just command a team of AIs and robots. You're still trying to innovate and provide a product, as are others to you. But nobody is selling labour per se.
    - h0l0cube 3y ago
      AGI will claim the novelty of ‘innovation’ from humans too

jimbokun 3y ago

I don't think that's the issue. The issue is training humans fast enough to stay one step ahead of the robots and the LLMs.

willio58 3y ago

"There’s no real dignity in working to make a living." FTFY /s But seriously, while I think humans will always find some meaning in work, there will come a day when that work is no longer required. Or at the very least, work will look so different that it will be unrecognizable to us currently. I think "work" will look more and more like "art" in the year 4000 for example. The idea of a person sacrificing some of their time to enrich the person at the top of a company already sounds bad, but we all accept it must happen so we can afford to live. But when robots and AI takes over labor in a significant way, what will be left for those humans that remain? And let's say we converge on something like a universal basic income to fix this, where will humans find meaning?

jononomo 3y ago
Thinking about the year 4000 isn't interesting. Thinking about the year 2100 is interesting.
- p1esk 3y ago
  Thinking about the year GPT-5 is released is interesting (likely 2024).
  - schrodingerscow 3y ago
    Indeed. People are way underestimating how quickly this change is coming
- willio58 3y ago
  I think both ideas have their merits. I think we can all agree that progress isn’t necessarily linear. So maybe in 2100 we won’t quite get to what I’m talking about, but by 4000 I don’t think anyone can claim that we’ll be working 40 hours a week and paying bills with credit cards still.
pcthrowaway 3y ago
I was a huge supporter of UBI for a while, but now I think money is going to become kind of meaningless at some point (the more we print the less it's worth, and UBI policies would struggle to keep up with the inflation they drive) I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics. Everyone should be able to at least meet their minimal basic needs without depending on their economic relevance (which isn't a given for many people over the next 100 years). People who want more than the essentials (a house with larger bedrooms, equipment for their hobbies, travel accommodations) can find paid work in positions that still require a human touch. And if there aren't enough jobs available for everyone who wants one, then start reducing the standard work week from 40 hours, until everyone who wants can find work.

randomdata 3y ago

> A lot of these jobs make people miserable anyway A lot of these jobs also make people happy, though. That is why the loss of manufacturing in particular was such a blow to Americans. People love manufacturing – to the point that having small-scale manufacturing facilities in one's garage so that one can keep on manufacturing things on the weekend is a dream of many.

walleeee 3y ago
This is a foundation of the liberal tradition and one on which e.g. Smith and Marx would agree: human-scale industry is among our most fundamental (and prolific) predilections Moreover that it tends to produce better outcomes than the frantic, often brutal thrust of the greater industrial revolution This is not to condemn labor-saving ingenuity but to advise deep consideration with regard to social and material technologies