3 ms·

A serious, hopefully not flippant question; Who are "they" in this case? Particularly as the process you describe tends to the limit.

jampekka 3y ago
I would guess that "they" are "the capitalists" as a class. It's very common to use personal pronouns for such abstract entities, and describe them in behaving in a goal-driven matter. It doesn't really matter who "they" are as individuals (or even if they are individuals). More accurate would be something like "reducing labor costs increases return on capital investment, so labor costs will be reduced in a system where economy organizes to maximize return on capital investment". But our language/vocabulary isn't great at describing processes.
specialist 3y ago
Poor phrasing. Apologies. u/jampekka nails it. Better phrasing may have been "...happily assist, confident our own jobs will remain secure."
- nonrandomstring 3y ago
  Thanks. Not putting this onto you so I'll say "we/our" to follow your good faith; What is "coming for our jobs" is some feature of the system, but it being a system of which we presume to be, and hope to remain a part, even though ultimately our part in it must be to eliminate ourselves. Is that fair? Our hacker's wish to "replace myself with a very small shell-script and hit the beach" is coming true. The only problem I have with it, even though "we're all hackers now", is I don't see everybody making it to the beach. But maybe everybody doesn't want to. Will "employment" in the future be a mark of high or low status?
  - specialist 3y ago
    > Will "employment" in the future be a mark of high or low status? Damn good question. Also, +1 for beach metaphor. My (ignorant, evolving) views on these things have most recently been informed by John and Barbara Ehrenreich's observations about the professional-managerial class. ICYMI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93managerial_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93manageria...
    - jampekka 3y ago
      An interesting view is that people would still "work" even if they weren't needed for anything productive. In this "Bullshit job" interpretation wage labor is so critical for social organization and control that jobs will be "invented" even if the work is not needed for anything, or is actively harmful (and that this is already going on). https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
  - jampekka 3y ago
    The problem is that under the current system the gains of automation or other increased productivity do not "trickle down" to workers that are replaced by the AI/shell script. Even to those who create the AI/shell script. The "hit the beach" part requires that you hide the shell script from the company owners, if by hitting the beach you don't mean picking up empty cans for sustinence.

jampekka 3y ago

I would guess that "they" are "the capitalists" as a class. It's very common to use personal pronouns for such abstract entities, and describe them in behaving in a goal-driven matter. It doesn't really matter who "they" are as individuals (or even if they are individuals). More accurate would be something like "reducing labor costs increases return on capital investment, so labor costs will be reduced in a system where economy organizes to maximize return on capital investment". But our language/vocabulary isn't great at describing processes.

specialist 3y ago

Poor phrasing. Apologies. u/jampekka nails it. Better phrasing may have been "...happily assist, confident our own jobs will remain secure."

nonrandomstring 3y ago
Thanks. Not putting this onto you so I'll say "we/our" to follow your good faith; What is "coming for our jobs" is some feature of the system, but it being a system of which we presume to be, and hope to remain a part, even though ultimately our part in it must be to eliminate ourselves. Is that fair? Our hacker's wish to "replace myself with a very small shell-script and hit the beach" is coming true. The only problem I have with it, even though "we're all hackers now", is I don't see everybody making it to the beach. But maybe everybody doesn't want to. Will "employment" in the future be a mark of high or low status?
- specialist 3y ago
  > Will "employment" in the future be a mark of high or low status? Damn good question. Also, +1 for beach metaphor. My (ignorant, evolving) views on these things have most recently been informed by John and Barbara Ehrenreich's observations about the professional-managerial class. ICYMI: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93managerial_class https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Professional%E2%80%93manageria...
  - jampekka 3y ago
    An interesting view is that people would still "work" even if they weren't needed for anything productive. In this "Bullshit job" interpretation wage labor is so critical for social organization and control that jobs will be "invented" even if the work is not needed for anything, or is actively harmful (and that this is already going on). https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ https://strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/
- jampekka 3y ago
  The problem is that under the current system the gains of automation or other increased productivity do not "trickle down" to workers that are replaced by the AI/shell script. Even to those who create the AI/shell script. The "hit the beach" part requires that you hide the shell script from the company owners, if by hitting the beach you don't mean picking up empty cans for sustinence.