5 ms·

> If the profits from AI (or robots) replacing Job X were distributed among the people who used to do Job X, I don't think anyone would mind. Why on Earth woul

> If the profits from AI (or robots) replacing Job X were distributed among the people who used to do Job X, I don't think anyone would mind. Why on Earth would you expect something so unjust and unfair? Do you expect to pay a tax to former travel agents when you buy a plane ticket online? Do you pay to descendants of calculators (as in profession — the humans who did manual calculations) every time you use a modern computer?

jprete 3y ago
AI is trained off the intellectual output of the people who did Job X, so it seems 100% fair to me.
- golergka 3y ago
  In 90% of cases, these people have consented to sell their intellectual output to their employers, and in remaining 9,9%, they have consented to release it under an open source license. In both cases, it's completely unfair for them to expect any additional monetary reward for any use of their code above what they have already consented to — salary in the first case and nothing in the second.
4death4 3y ago
What is just and what is fair? To quote George Costanza: "We're living in a society!"
- golergka 3y ago
  Anything that people decide to do with their property is just and fair.
meheleventyone 3y ago
We expect the workers displaced to suffer something worse. It’s not just or fair that people lose their source of income and ability to support their families through no fault of their own. Slippery slope arguments to one side. We have a choice about how society is organized our current setup isn’t ‘natural’ and it’s largely one of accelerating inequality.
- golergka 3y ago
  > It’s not just or fair that people lose their source of income and ability to support their families through no fault of their own. There's nothing unfair about it. No person or company is entitled to other people or companies buying their services or goods. Your "source of income" is just other people making decisions with their money. Which they are free to make however they want (as long as they honour agreements that already exist, of course).
  - ryandrake 3y ago
    Your definition of "fair" assumes the supremacy of property rights over everything else that might potentially be valued by a society. Specifically, the right of the owner of a productive asset to collect as much of the profit from that asset as he wishes, up to 100%. You seem pretty certain of this, so I'm not going to try to talk you out of that definition, but try to imagine that there are other valid definitions of "fair" out there that don't place individual property rights as high on the totem pole.

jprete 3y ago

AI is trained off the intellectual output of the people who did Job X, so it seems 100% fair to me.

golergka 3y ago
In 90% of cases, these people have consented to sell their intellectual output to their employers, and in remaining 9,9%, they have consented to release it under an open source license. In both cases, it's completely unfair for them to expect any additional monetary reward for any use of their code above what they have already consented to — salary in the first case and nothing in the second.

4death4 3y ago

What is just and what is fair? To quote George Costanza: "We're living in a society!"

golergka 3y ago
Anything that people decide to do with their property is just and fair.

meheleventyone 3y ago

We expect the workers displaced to suffer something worse. It’s not just or fair that people lose their source of income and ability to support their families through no fault of their own. Slippery slope arguments to one side. We have a choice about how society is organized our current setup isn’t ‘natural’ and it’s largely one of accelerating inequality.

golergka 3y ago
> It’s not just or fair that people lose their source of income and ability to support their families through no fault of their own. There's nothing unfair about it. No person or company is entitled to other people or companies buying their services or goods. Your "source of income" is just other people making decisions with their money. Which they are free to make however they want (as long as they honour agreements that already exist, of course).
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Your definition of "fair" assumes the supremacy of property rights over everything else that might potentially be valued by a society. Specifically, the right of the owner of a productive asset to collect as much of the profit from that asset as he wishes, up to 100%. You seem pretty certain of this, so I'm not going to try to talk you out of that definition, but try to imagine that there are other valid definitions of "fair" out there that don't place individual property rights as high on the totem pole.