3 ms·
Tonedeaf "logic". Destroying incomes harms most people while disproportionately benefiting only a few. This decreases wages and increases competition for an eve
by anon-sre-srm 3y ago
Tonedeaf "logic". Destroying incomes harms most people while disproportionately benefiting only a few. This decreases wages and increases competition for an ever shrinking pool of jobs. Eventually, there will only be shit jobs paying peanuts that are too expensive to automate.
- Legend2440 3y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy There is no ever shrinking pool of jobs, and real wages today are 10x higher than prior to automation. Instead, we do more with the same number of people, and invent new jobs that didn't exist prior to automation. Like Youtube star or computer programmer.
- jprete 3y agoI was persuaded by this argument for most tech, but AI researchers really, really want to make humans obsolete. I'm reminded of the God of the Gaps argument - if you prove a supreme being exists by the existence of phenomena we can't explain, then that supreme being's space to exist is ever-shrinking as we explain more and more natural phenomena. I think your argument is a kind of employment-of-the-gaps, but AI doesn't have to stop short of human capability, so there's no reason to think the gap won't completely close.
- Legend2440 3y agoThe only situation where there would be no jobs is if all of your needs are met by machine. If the machines are not doing everything for us - then there will still be things for people to do.