3 ms·
In my view, we don't reward labour, we reward its output. And unlike a physical object or consumable material, the utility of this type of knowledge seem to lie
by hliyan 2y ago
In my view, we don't reward labour, we reward its output. And unlike a physical object or consumable material, the utility of this type of knowledge seem to lie in its novelty (i.e. it's not already available elsewhere). Happy to be corrected.
- johnnyanmac 2y ago>Maybe if we could let people do what they could become an expert in, we would all be better off. Ideally, yes. In reality, far from it. Teaching and nursing are some of the easiest examples of how this structure is fundamentally broken. >unlike a physical object or consumable material, the utility of this type of knowledge seem to lie in its novelty Well we don't take the time to measure the long term output of knowledge. That's a fundamental problem that goes against your view. If novelty is the value and we remove that, knowledge is no longer valuable and thus, not rewarded based on its output. Your novel research on the next iteration of AGI is no more valuable than some AI slop that spits out a recipe for a cake. And incorrectly at that. Does that sound like a structure that can support a non-post scarcity society?
- throwthrowuknow 2y agoNot novelty otherwise random text would be valuable.