4 ms·

"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

"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
  > I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics. What's the difference between that and UBI? The state giving the people a magical ticket to redeem for food and shelter or simply giving them food and shelter is the same thing at the end of the day. Both are equally prone to be inflationary as they require workers to provide the food and shelter without receiving anything real in return. In both cases you need to seize real value from the wealthy population if you want to avoid the inflationary effects. It's the same thing, just different accounting.
  - pcthrowaway 3y ago
    In theory, the government is only bearing the cost for people who want to depend on socialized meals, which is different from giving everyone $500/month. With UBI, people are also putting that money back in the private sectors. With socialized meal programs, the government lean on the wealthy to ensure everyone has access to food, and uses that to employ people in the public sector. > Both are equally prone to be inflationary as they require workers to provide the food and shelter without receiving anything real in return. I'm not sure I follow why this would be inflationary, but it's also not what I was suggesting. Even if this does lead to more inflation though, it ensures the government is responsible for securing food and housing for everyone, rather than something like UBI which might result in people who can't find work not actually being able to afford the essentials.
midoridensha 3y ago
>But when robots and AI takes over labor in a significant way, what will be left for those humans that remain? If AI gets advanced enough that it can make art better than humans (not just technically superior, but artistically superior, more inspired/innovative etc.), then humans will be truly obsolete and doomed, because AIs will be just as sentient as humans, but more capable. If AIs don't quite reach this point, but still do all the other drudge-work, humans are going to have a hard time still. Some humans will do great, because they'll be doing things that AIs can't, and working by telling AIs what to do, but not-so-smart humans will find themselves without any purpose in life, and only UBI to keep them from rioting.
- NumberWangMan 3y ago
  The only way AIs won’t reach the point of being better than humans is if we intentionally stop, I fear. Once an AI is trained, you can copy it a million times over. A human takes many years to learn a skill to the point of mastery.

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
> I'm leaning more towards socialized housing, food, health care, and public transporation now, at least for the basics. What's the difference between that and UBI? The state giving the people a magical ticket to redeem for food and shelter or simply giving them food and shelter is the same thing at the end of the day. Both are equally prone to be inflationary as they require workers to provide the food and shelter without receiving anything real in return. In both cases you need to seize real value from the wealthy population if you want to avoid the inflationary effects. It's the same thing, just different accounting.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  In theory, the government is only bearing the cost for people who want to depend on socialized meals, which is different from giving everyone $500/month. With UBI, people are also putting that money back in the private sectors. With socialized meal programs, the government lean on the wealthy to ensure everyone has access to food, and uses that to employ people in the public sector. > Both are equally prone to be inflationary as they require workers to provide the food and shelter without receiving anything real in return. I'm not sure I follow why this would be inflationary, but it's also not what I was suggesting. Even if this does lead to more inflation though, it ensures the government is responsible for securing food and housing for everyone, rather than something like UBI which might result in people who can't find work not actually being able to afford the essentials.

midoridensha 3y ago

>But when robots and AI takes over labor in a significant way, what will be left for those humans that remain? If AI gets advanced enough that it can make art better than humans (not just technically superior, but artistically superior, more inspired/innovative etc.), then humans will be truly obsolete and doomed, because AIs will be just as sentient as humans, but more capable. If AIs don't quite reach this point, but still do all the other drudge-work, humans are going to have a hard time still. Some humans will do great, because they'll be doing things that AIs can't, and working by telling AIs what to do, but not-so-smart humans will find themselves without any purpose in life, and only UBI to keep them from rioting.

NumberWangMan 3y ago
The only way AIs won’t reach the point of being better than humans is if we intentionally stop, I fear. Once an AI is trained, you can copy it a million times over. A human takes many years to learn a skill to the point of mastery.