7 ms·

It bothers me a little bit as a programmer, but the rational part of my mind is aware that there's literally never been a major technological advancement in hum

It bothers me a little bit as a programmer, but the rational part of my mind is aware that there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less. Improvements in productivity just result in people realizing there's a whole new world of stuff they can now build that wasn't feasible before, and the market will eat that up. The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job.

jquery 3y ago
Ask horses how they're doing these days... just because we've always found a use for humans because of their unique cognitive abilities doesn't mean we always will find a use. I think it's critical to be thinking about how to make sure wealth isn't simply funneled to a few capitalists who own everything simply by virtue of them being first, because it seems that's the future we're heading for if we aren't careful. I think you, and I, and everyone on HN will be fine (more or less...) but I am worried about a wide swath of people who will get "left behind."
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > Ask horses how they're doing these days... It would be pointless. Do you even know that 99% of horses can't speak English? Anyway, my own experience tells me they're mostly just horsing around. A lot more leisure and a lot less work than a few centuries ago... Good times!
  - CaptWillard 3y ago
    "The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840. What does the overall growth of horses and mules during the nineteenth century suggest about the relationship between animal power and the introduction of new mechanical technologies, including the steam engine?" https://energyhistory.yale.edu/horse-and-mule-population-statistics/ https://energyhistory.yale.edu/horse-and-mule-population-sta...
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      > "The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840." Clearly unsustainable, so I'm glad that problem solved itself. Phew! Can you imagine what it'd be like if they continued reproducing like a plague? Anyway, the real question is: were they happier in 1910 when they were our slaves or are they happier now that they have more leisure? How do you even measure happiness in a horse? How do you measure happiness in humans? Is happiness even real? What is the meaning of life? What does "42" mean?
TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
> there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less. In the past, new automation technologies often open up new possibilities in production capabilities in turn creating new jobs - specifically jobs that have not been automated yet. AI though promises to be the universal automation, i.e. it can do any job. Thus even if new jobs show up, they will be taken over by AI too. Then what? > The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job. Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job.
- someplaceguy 3y ago
  > Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job. My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly. But at that point in time, I think me giving one massage would perhaps be enough for me to retire for life, as long as I can abstain from buying luxury goods or services, i.e. those provided manually by other people (instead of AIs, whose labor would be practically free).
  - TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
    > My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly. But why you? There are billions of other people who are out of work they could hire for the “authentic human experience”.
    - someplaceguy 3y ago
      Because other people don't need to give massages, so you can't pay them to do it. They already gave one massage, so now they can afford AI-made stuff for the rest of their lives, including AI massages for themselves. AI labor is effectively free at that point, didn't you get the memo? :)

jquery 3y ago

Ask horses how they're doing these days... just because we've always found a use for humans because of their unique cognitive abilities doesn't mean we always will find a use. I think it's critical to be thinking about how to make sure wealth isn't simply funneled to a few capitalists who own everything simply by virtue of them being first, because it seems that's the future we're heading for if we aren't careful. I think you, and I, and everyone on HN will be fine (more or less...) but I am worried about a wide swath of people who will get "left behind."

someplaceguy 3y ago
> Ask horses how they're doing these days... It would be pointless. Do you even know that 99% of horses can't speak English? Anyway, my own experience tells me they're mostly just horsing around. A lot more leisure and a lot less work than a few centuries ago... Good times!
- CaptWillard 3y ago
  "The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840. What does the overall growth of horses and mules during the nineteenth century suggest about the relationship between animal power and the introduction of new mechanical technologies, including the steam engine?" https://energyhistory.yale.edu/horse-and-mule-population-statistics/ https://energyhistory.yale.edu/horse-and-mule-population-sta...
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    > "The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840." Clearly unsustainable, so I'm glad that problem solved itself. Phew! Can you imagine what it'd be like if they continued reproducing like a plague? Anyway, the real question is: were they happier in 1910 when they were our slaves or are they happier now that they have more leisure? How do you even measure happiness in a horse? How do you measure happiness in humans? Is happiness even real? What is the meaning of life? What does "42" mean?

TerrifiedMouse 3y ago

> there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less. In the past, new automation technologies often open up new possibilities in production capabilities in turn creating new jobs - specifically jobs that have not been automated yet. AI though promises to be the universal automation, i.e. it can do any job. Thus even if new jobs show up, they will be taken over by AI too. Then what? > The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job. Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job.

someplaceguy 3y ago
> Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job. My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly. But at that point in time, I think me giving one massage would perhaps be enough for me to retire for life, as long as I can abstain from buying luxury goods or services, i.e. those provided manually by other people (instead of AIs, whose labor would be practically free).
- TerrifiedMouse 3y ago
  > My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly. But why you? There are billions of other people who are out of work they could hire for the “authentic human experience”.
  - someplaceguy 3y ago
    Because other people don't need to give massages, so you can't pay them to do it. They already gave one massage, so now they can afford AI-made stuff for the rest of their lives, including AI massages for themselves. AI labor is effectively free at that point, didn't you get the memo? :)