5 ms·

You won't be happy doing a robot's job either, at least not for long. In the ideal case, we won't be dependent on the unwilling labor of other humans at all.

You won't be happy doing a robot's job either, at least not for long. In the ideal case, we won't be dependent on the unwilling labor of other humans at all. Would you do your current job for free? If not -- if you'd rather do something else with your productive life -- then it seems irrational to defend the status quo. One thing's for certain: ancient Marxist tropes about labor and capital don't bring any value to the table. Abandon that thinking sooner rather than later; it won't help you navigate what's coming.

hooverd 2y ago
Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.
- CamperBob2 2y ago
  Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
  - p_j_w 2y ago
    >Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
    - inglor_cz 2y ago
      How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
  - breuleux 2y ago
    In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
    - CamperBob2 2y ago
      If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
      - breuleux 2y ago
        The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
    - nuancebydefault 2y ago
      What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down. Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result. Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process. What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.
cryptopian 2y ago
That's not historically what's happened though, is it? We've had plenty of opportunities to reduce the human workload through increased efficiency. What usually happens is people demand more - faster deliveries, more content churn; and those of us who are quite happy with what we have are either forced to adapt or get left behind while still working the same hours.
- satvikpendem 2y ago
  Jevon's paradox really does work for everything, not just in the current way people have used it this last week in terms of GPU demand. People always demand more, and thus, there is an endless amount of work to be done.
- esafak 2y ago
  If you really have enough, you can retire early.
  - Capricorn2481 2y ago
    We don't have enough because the productivity improvements are not shared with the working class. The wealth gap increases, people work the same. This is historically what has happened and it's what will happen with AI. The next generations will never have the opportunity to retire.

hooverd 2y ago

Because billionaires think that you are a horse and that the best course of action is to turn you into glue while they hope AGI lets them live forever.

CamperBob2 2y ago
Billionaires don't think about you at all. That's what nobody seems to get. We enjoy many luxuries unavailable even to billionaires only a few decades ago. For this trend to continue, the same thing needs to happen in other sectors that happened in (for example) the agricultural sector over the course of the 20th century: replacement of human workers by mass automation and superior organization.
- p_j_w 2y ago
  >Billionaires don't think about you at all. If that were true they wouldn't be building ultra secure bunkers to escape to when the climate shit hits the fan.
  - inglor_cz 2y ago
    How many of them did that? Five out of a thousand? Anecdotally, around two people in a hundred in my proximity are preppers as well, though obviously with smaller budgets. It is just a specific fringe way of thinking.
- breuleux 2y ago
  In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.
  - CamperBob2 2y ago
    If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours. I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.
    - breuleux 2y ago
      The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.
  - nuancebydefault 2y ago
    What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down. Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result. Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process. What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.

cryptopian 2y ago

That's not historically what's happened though, is it? We've had plenty of opportunities to reduce the human workload through increased efficiency. What usually happens is people demand more - faster deliveries, more content churn; and those of us who are quite happy with what we have are either forced to adapt or get left behind while still working the same hours.

satvikpendem 2y ago
Jevon's paradox really does work for everything, not just in the current way people have used it this last week in terms of GPU demand. People always demand more, and thus, there is an endless amount of work to be done.
esafak 2y ago
If you really have enough, you can retire early.
- Capricorn2481 2y ago
  We don't have enough because the productivity improvements are not shared with the working class. The wealth gap increases, people work the same. This is historically what has happened and it's what will happen with AI. The next generations will never have the opportunity to retire.