7 ms·

> By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. I see

> By replacing labour with robots and not compensating them, you're sending a clear message that you don't respect people and the value that they bring. I see many problems with this statement: - Is a new robot-only company fairer than firing humans at an old company? - Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? - Should there be a robot tax? What is a robot? Is my calculator a robot that keeps an arithmeticist out of a job? - Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? In my view, we should automate as much as we can, because we spend less valuable human time on what is achievable by machine. However, as more and more people fall behind as technology progresses, it might pose a problem, so I think we should institute basic income. I wouldn't bother with regulating the minutia, just tax Laffer-optimally and give out benefits so as not to create perverse incentives. But I am keen to know someone's thoughts to the contrary.

NoahKAndrews 3y ago
I generally agree with you, and I suspect the person you're replying to might as well. The problem they had was with replacing people without compensating them, but you're proposing basic income, which takes care of the compensation part.
- mc32 3y ago
  Basic income is not the same as being able to seek higher earning potential. People making above the median certainly will not like getting reset to a basic income lifestyle.
sublinear 3y ago
> However, as more and more people fall behind as technology progresses, it might pose a problem, so I think we should institute basic income. Basic income is the most counterproductive idea possible. We should have spent more on education over 100 years ago.
- DiggyJohnson 3y ago
  Nobody has ever accused me of supporting UBI, but hardly any idea is more “counterproductive” than “we should have” done something 100 years ago. Or maybe it’s less counterproductive, more irrelevant, if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?”
  - sublinear 3y ago
    > if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?” If that's at hand, the answer is to let the rest of society catch up before increasing automation. I agree some form of government intervention is needed because it's the government's fault in the first place. I'm just saying something that should not be controversial at all: throwing money at the problem is crazy.
- sp527 3y ago
  For real. As just one example, retirement homes routinely increase rates in tandem with increases to social security. Yet people here somehow think basic income will work out just fine. It's laughably naive.
dogman144 3y ago
Yes, this would be the clear message OP is talking about haha. It’s a time to be pro-human, across many topics.
bigstrat2003 3y ago
> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Yes! Very much yes! Adam Smith himself noted that a capitalist enterprise, if not run according to good values (which to him meant Christian values, but it need not be that for everyone), would be a horrible thing. That hasn't really changed since. A business needs to have some values behind it other than pure profit-seeking, or else it becomes a serious ill for society.
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  He wasn't the only one. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
  - goatlover 3y ago
    A constitution needs to take into account all sorts of people or it's inadequate. All societies have a mix, and the religiously moral ones have their notable failings.
  - galaxyLogic 3y ago
    I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?
    - esafak 3y ago
      I take it to mean immoral people can make mincemeat out of the best government.
      - galaxyLogic 3y ago
        Yes, unless there are safeguards and Constitution that keep "immoral" people out of the government. But I agree something like that was probably what Adams was trying to say. As an example in recent news Super Court justices have been accused of taking bribes. It is no surprise because there is now ethical rules the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court says it would have to follow, by law. I'm not sure if that is true but surely there could be such a law. So we need laws, and we need better laws, which means laws that have fewer loopholes, and which apply to all, even Supreme Court justices and Presidents. Are we there yet? Not yet. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...
talent_deprived 3y ago
> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.
- __loam 3y ago
  It's going to be funny when all these AI companies realize that hurting people who make things also hurts their models in the long run.
  - chii 3y ago
    > hurts their models unless the AI models surpass a certain critical point, with which new and original works could be generated without using original human derived works. aka, an AGI.
    - bamboozled 3y ago
      This is the ultimate big tech play.
    - __loam 3y ago
      Yeah it would be great if these systems were magic. Too bad they're not.
- Aerroon 3y ago
  We should apply the same rule to all improvements. Can you imagine how many people we could employ if we banned all tools for digging and required everyone to dig by hand? We could literally create hundreds of millions of jobs!
  - danuker 3y ago
    My worry exactly! Ideally we should need no jobs, and machines should do all the work.
heavyset_go 3y ago
> - Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? We as society aren't the beneficiaries of automation, those profits go to private owners. Given that price points exist, the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins. After those profits are captured, we as society have to shoulder the burden of caring for potentially thousands, or more, people who are put out of work, and their families.
- eru 3y ago
  > Given that price points exist, the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins. Historically, that hasn't held true for long: competition catches up.
- visarga 3y ago
  > the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins Or increased diversity, customisation, higher quality, more availability, and because of competition - where it exists, cheaper products and services. Increased capability leads to demand scaling. Making a road wider will increase traffic to match.
- pauldenton 3y ago
  60% of the population used to work in Agriculture. Now that's more like 2% Do you think the 6/10 classmates who had career choices they wouldn't have otherwise "benefited from Agricultural Automation"? Even if they didn't own any farms or Agricultural Manafacturing stocks. Their labour being freed up for other uses helped them no?
ms2718 3y ago
[dead]
bfung 3y ago
> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Should an AI created to make paper clips consider other values than making paper clips? https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-paperclip-maximizer https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-pa... Diving all the way down ad absurdum: What's the point of maximizing profit if there are no humans to utilize those profits?
- btschaegg 3y ago
  Obligatory mention of Charles Stross' talk where he knits together exactly those two thoughts. "Dude, you broke the future": https://youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4
- kortilla 3y ago
  Profit can easily be redistributed. It’s better to have a machine that makes 100 cakes for 100 people with only 2 people working than to employ all 100 people without the machine to make 4 cakes.
  - supertimor 3y ago
    But historically, profit has NOT been redistributed. Why would this time be any different? The people who make the profits have the power to influence legislation to benefit themselves and keep from sharing in their profit. This is one of the fears that actually gave rise to the Luddite movement, and so far history has only proven that there is merit to this fear. When workers brought up these concerns, the factory owners brushed them aside which forced the Luddites to use more extreme measures to be heard like breaking factory machinery. Eventually the wealthy owner class pushed parliament to pass a law that made machine-breaking subject to the death penalty. “In an attempt to halt or at least make the transition smoother, the Luddites initially sought to renegotiate terms of working conditions based on the changing circumstances in the workplace. Some of the ideas and requests included the introduction of a minimum wage, the adherence of companies to abide by minimum labour standards, and taxes which would enable funds to be created for workers’ pensions. Whilst these terms do not seem unreasonable in the modern day workplace, for the wealthy factory owners, these attempts at bargaining proved futile. The Luddite movement therefore emerged when attempts at negotiation failed and their valid concerns were not listened to, let alone addressed. “ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-L...
hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago
>Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? False dichotomy + poorly statistically worded. The proper question is always "Would society be better off at the margin with more automation". The answer someday may well be "No, because many people are already unemployed, and this will exacerbate that even further", but there's no reason to add that clause to the question.
yMEyUyNE1 3y ago
> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Enterprise is created to provide a beneficial service to the society/humanity/world. Profit is a means to sustain the people, who are working in the enterprise, and subsequently the enterprise. The problem starts when some smartass in power becomes greedy and turns an enterprise for service to people into an enterprise ONLY for profit. If you only want to make money, work in a govt mint.

NoahKAndrews 3y ago

I generally agree with you, and I suspect the person you're replying to might as well. The problem they had was with replacing people without compensating them, but you're proposing basic income, which takes care of the compensation part.

mc32 3y ago
Basic income is not the same as being able to seek higher earning potential. People making above the median certainly will not like getting reset to a basic income lifestyle.

sublinear 3y ago

> However, as more and more people fall behind as technology progresses, it might pose a problem, so I think we should institute basic income. Basic income is the most counterproductive idea possible. We should have spent more on education over 100 years ago.

DiggyJohnson 3y ago
Nobody has ever accused me of supporting UBI, but hardly any idea is more “counterproductive” than “we should have” done something 100 years ago. Or maybe it’s less counterproductive, more irrelevant, if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?”
- sublinear 3y ago
  > if some topic at hand is “what should we do about increasing automation [in the future]?” If that's at hand, the answer is to let the rest of society catch up before increasing automation. I agree some form of government intervention is needed because it's the government's fault in the first place. I'm just saying something that should not be controversial at all: throwing money at the problem is crazy.
sp527 3y ago
For real. As just one example, retirement homes routinely increase rates in tandem with increases to social security. Yet people here somehow think basic income will work out just fine. It's laughably naive.

dogman144 3y ago

Yes, this would be the clear message OP is talking about haha. It’s a time to be pro-human, across many topics.

bigstrat2003 3y ago

> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Yes! Very much yes! Adam Smith himself noted that a capitalist enterprise, if not run according to good values (which to him meant Christian values, but it need not be that for everyone), would be a horrible thing. That hasn't really changed since. A business needs to have some values behind it other than pure profit-seeking, or else it becomes a serious ill for society.

SoftTalker 3y ago
He wasn't the only one. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. -- John Adams
- goatlover 3y ago
  A constitution needs to take into account all sorts of people or it's inadequate. All societies have a mix, and the religiously moral ones have their notable failings.
- galaxyLogic 3y ago
  I think Adams is wrong. Constitution was made (I believe) to deter immoral people who would like to get rid of the constitution, who would love to establish a dictatorship, who would love to force a specific religion on all of us. Moral people don't really need laws, laws exist to deter crime. Frankly I don't get what John Adams was trying say? Can someone explain?
  - esafak 3y ago
    I take it to mean immoral people can make mincemeat out of the best government.
    - galaxyLogic 3y ago
      Yes, unless there are safeguards and Constitution that keep "immoral" people out of the government. But I agree something like that was probably what Adams was trying to say. As an example in recent news Super Court justices have been accused of taking bribes. It is no surprise because there is now ethical rules the right-wing majority of the Supreme Court says it would have to follow, by law. I'm not sure if that is true but surely there could be such a law. So we need laws, and we need better laws, which means laws that have fewer loopholes, and which apply to all, even Supreme Court justices and Presidents. Are we there yet? Not yet. https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-undisclosed-luxury-travel-gifts-crow https://www.propublica.org/article/clarence-thomas-scotus-un...

talent_deprived 3y ago

> Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? Yes. AI generates sameness on a good day, and comical gibberish on a bad day, that will never change because, AI isn't human. Sameness will drive customers to look for human made stuff, gibberish will drive them away.

__loam 3y ago
It's going to be funny when all these AI companies realize that hurting people who make things also hurts their models in the long run.
- chii 3y ago
  > hurts their models unless the AI models surpass a certain critical point, with which new and original works could be generated without using original human derived works. aka, an AGI.
  - bamboozled 3y ago
    This is the ultimate big tech play.
  - __loam 3y ago
    Yeah it would be great if these systems were magic. Too bad they're not.
Aerroon 3y ago
We should apply the same rule to all improvements. Can you imagine how many people we could employ if we banned all tools for digging and required everyone to dig by hand? We could literally create hundreds of millions of jobs!
- danuker 3y ago
  My worry exactly! Ideally we should need no jobs, and machines should do all the work.

heavyset_go 3y ago

> - Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? We as society aren't the beneficiaries of automation, those profits go to private owners. Given that price points exist, the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins. After those profits are captured, we as society have to shoulder the burden of caring for potentially thousands, or more, people who are put out of work, and their families.

eru 3y ago
> Given that price points exist, the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins. Historically, that hasn't held true for long: competition catches up.
visarga 3y ago
> the benefits of lowering costs of production are captured by increasing profit margins Or increased diversity, customisation, higher quality, more availability, and because of competition - where it exists, cheaper products and services. Increased capability leads to demand scaling. Making a road wider will increase traffic to match.
pauldenton 3y ago
60% of the population used to work in Agriculture. Now that's more like 2% Do you think the 6/10 classmates who had career choices they wouldn't have otherwise "benefited from Agricultural Automation"? Even if they didn't own any farms or Agricultural Manafacturing stocks. Their labour being freed up for other uses helped them no?

ms2718 3y ago

[dead]

bfung 3y ago

> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Should an AI created to make paper clips consider other values than making paper clips? https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-paperclip-maximizer https://www.lesswrong.com/tag/squiggle-maximizer-formerly-pa... Diving all the way down ad absurdum: What's the point of maximizing profit if there are no humans to utilize those profits?

btschaegg 3y ago
Obligatory mention of Charles Stross' talk where he knits together exactly those two thoughts. "Dude, you broke the future": https://youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4 https://youtube.com/watch?v=RmIgJ64z6Y4
kortilla 3y ago
Profit can easily be redistributed. It’s better to have a machine that makes 100 cakes for 100 people with only 2 people working than to employ all 100 people without the machine to make 4 cakes.
- supertimor 3y ago
  But historically, profit has NOT been redistributed. Why would this time be any different? The people who make the profits have the power to influence legislation to benefit themselves and keep from sharing in their profit. This is one of the fears that actually gave rise to the Luddite movement, and so far history has only proven that there is merit to this fear. When workers brought up these concerns, the factory owners brushed them aside which forced the Luddites to use more extreme measures to be heard like breaking factory machinery. Eventually the wealthy owner class pushed parliament to pass a law that made machine-breaking subject to the death penalty. “In an attempt to halt or at least make the transition smoother, the Luddites initially sought to renegotiate terms of working conditions based on the changing circumstances in the workplace. Some of the ideas and requests included the introduction of a minimum wage, the adherence of companies to abide by minimum labour standards, and taxes which would enable funds to be created for workers’ pensions. Whilst these terms do not seem unreasonable in the modern day workplace, for the wealthy factory owners, these attempts at bargaining proved futile. The Luddite movement therefore emerged when attempts at negotiation failed and their valid concerns were not listened to, let alone addressed. “ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-Luddites/ https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/The-L...

hiAndrewQuinn 3y ago

>Should we as a society forego the benefits of automation, because it makes some people unemployed? False dichotomy + poorly statistically worded. The proper question is always "Would society be better off at the margin with more automation". The answer someday may well be "No, because many people are already unemployed, and this will exacerbate that even further", but there's no reason to add that clause to the question.

yMEyUyNE1 3y ago

> Should an enterprise created for profit consider other values than profit? Enterprise is created to provide a beneficial service to the society/humanity/world. Profit is a means to sustain the people, who are working in the enterprise, and subsequently the enterprise. The problem starts when some smartass in power becomes greedy and turns an enterprise for service to people into an enterprise ONLY for profit. If you only want to make money, work in a govt mint.