11 ms·
I think the examples given in the article actually are in favour of the idea that AI will not be a catastrophe. Most people don't want to spend their life doing
by lelag 3y ago
I think the examples given in the article actually are in favour of the idea that AI will not be a catastrophe. Most people don't want to spend their life doing gruesome work on a farm, most people don't want to spend their life turning the same screw in a factory. If you believe David Graeber, up to 50% of jobs are actually meaningless 'bullshit jobs'. If AI replaced those, would society be worse off ?
The real issue is that people need a job to make money to survive. What we need might not be to save jobs but rather to find new ways to redistribute wealth...
- kjkjadksj 3y agoI am not convinced ai tools will replace those bullshit jobs, when every other piece of technology since has not obviated those jobs, perhaps has created more even. There must be some inherent value for keeping the working population occupied on these sorts of things during the day. No time or energy left after a work week to plan revolutions perhaps, or to harden oneself against consumerist propaganda, or read into what the actual verbiage of what public policy is saying.
- lelag 3y agoI don't buy into the conspiracy theory that's all planned. In the end, any corporation is trying to make money, they employ people because they provide some value, even in bullshit positions. The bullshit part of those jobs is that they don't bring much benefit to society as a whole and society would be better off if they were eliminated. Ex: if you made telemarketing totally illegal, you would prevent some companies to make lots of money and some people would loose their jobs, but society benefits.