6 ms·
Re 1 - aren't people mostly doing bullshit jobs already? Re 2 - fakery in videos and images has been a part since their inception. So, don't worry, I guess?
by verisimi 2y ago
Re 1 - aren't people mostly doing bullshit jobs already?
Re 2 - fakery in videos and images has been a part since their inception.
So, don't worry, I guess?
The only thing is the scale of bs that could be put out, and whether the wider population lose trust in what they see on screens. Which would be a good thing, imo.
- shinycode 2y agoBullshit jobs yes but still they are paid. What happens in a capitalist society when thousands of people loose their job and can’t produce value and contribute to society ? It’s tearing apart the fabric of capitalism is some way. What happen when all those people without jobs won’t be able to train for better jobs (because they would have done it already and won’t have a bullshit job in the first place) and either fall poor or move to less paid jobs ?
- wordpad 2y agoTechnology and automation tends to create more jobs. As operational costs decrease, your end service or product becomes cheaper, so all your b2b or b2c customers can afford more of it which leads to more opportunities, doing things which were cost prohibitive before. Some of those things may too require manual labor.
- shinycode 2y agoThere is a threshold between the number of lost jobs and the new ones that are created, more than that, the new opportunities are not necessarily for the people who lost a job and are not qualified which does not change this social problem that might be created.
- verisimi 2y agoI'm not saying that people won't be paid or that jobs will disappear. I'm saying it's easy to create new jobs. Here are some ideas: Increase bureaucratic overhead, eg 3 years mandatory training for a licensed hairdresser. More forms, more delays. Require that a plumber has a plumber's mate. Require in person meetings to avoid fraud. Etc.
- hnlmorg 2y agoThe “computers are replacing our jobs” line is very emotive and I feel both sides of the argument are looking at the problem too binary. Yes some jobs are menial but they are still some people’s literal livelihoods. And yes, industries need to evolve and job preservation shouldn’t be the #1 criteria for holding back change. The real question we should be asking ourselves isn’t either of those two former points but actually this: Is the pace of change too quick, or is there any support to allow those economically affected by change to be able to retrain? Removing jobs doesn’t help society because it just leads to unemployment and thus more people dependent on the state. But retraining people is absolutely a benefit. For example, if call centres replaced the first line support with AI, that could lead to shorter call waiting times. But the existing call centre staff could become 2nd line support, account managers for business accounts, install engineers, or even AI supervisors that review a subset of AI interactions to ensure customer satisfaction is maintained.
- shinycode 2y agoI completely agree with your conclusion and that is ideal. Will there be companies that make the choice to invest money into retraining a major part of their workforce ? I really hope so because it’s an elegant solution.
- naijaboiler 2y agoHumans can never run out of economic activities we call for each other. Period!
- hnlmorg 2y agoI don’t understand what you’re trying to say there.