4 ms·

>Why Is This CEO Bragging About Replacing Humans with A.I.? this headline is mind-bogglingly obtuse-on-purpose: replacing humans with robots so humans can enjo

>Why Is This CEO Bragging About Replacing Humans with A.I.? this headline is mind-bogglingly obtuse-on-purpose: replacing humans with robots so humans can enjoy a "star-trek" future of pursuing what interests them instead of hardscrabble toil for necessities has been part of the woodwork of engineering since before the word robot was invented. Sure, "careful what you wish for" and law of unintended consequences, and employability will suffer along the way, so write about that, but that doesn't degrade the wish, and short term sacrifice is always entailed for long term gain. Does the NY Times have any new ideas to propose? They would have been better going with "ther terk er jerbs!" People on HN, instead of repeatedly expressing angst over their own job prospects, could try thinking "hmmm, will a future where nobody has to work be within the grasp of my children, or my grandchildren? think of the possibilities!"

ssssvd 2y ago
You can do exactly that right now - just stop working. You don't have to. Nobody ever had to. Would the overall productive output of humanity for goods that matter drop significantly if you opt-out? Probably not at all. The problem, though, is, a job secures your place in the goods distribution scheme, and the scheme in general rewards certain behaviours that lead to (sometimes outsized) gains for the broader society. So what's the new scheme is going to be? It's not just wealth redistribution. It's keeping people busy. It's suppressing antisocial behaviour on massive scale. It's rewarding polite social interactions - and even basic hygiene. Recall the second half of the first COVID year, and how rapidly a good chunk of population degraded into absolute slobbery. Surprisingly, it's a much easier question for China than it is for US. Privately owned AI is about as smart as privately owned nuclear weapons.
computerthings 2y ago
The gains of productivity do not trickle down like that. Where are the horses that used to pull carriages? We didn't let them run free, we got rid of them. So in so far as the means of production don't even need exploited workers to generate more capital, those workers will be removed from the equation. They won't get free food and housing to go do art and ride bikes from those who, right now, don't care they they have no food or no housing. That idea was never serious, but in 2025? > All too often, the inventor is the Faustian idealist who wants to improve the world but fails in the face of harsh realities. If he wants to push through his ideas, he has to get involved with powers whose sense of reality is sharper and more pronounced. In today's world, without wishing to make a value judgment, such powers are primarily the military and managers. -- Konrad Zuse This isn't an engineering question. We could already live in a "Star Trek" kind a world (minus warp drive, teleportation and food replicators maybe) a long time ago, several times over. It's not for lack of productivity or inventions. We now have tech broligarchs in line with dismantling consumer and environment protections. Productivity keeps going up, so do profits for fewer and fewer, but the outlook for the average person, their share in a nice future, keeps shrinking. Technology that empowers the few that spy on, exploit, manipulate and eventually murder the masses is very different from technology that empowers people to get together and improve their lives. To all just sum it up as "tech" or "AI" is destroying all the detail. We live in the world we live in, not Star Trek. > short term sacrifice is always entailed for long term gain That's how every cult operates, too. That's what fascists say. Why not make the world better? Why do people have to be more disenfranchised, why do more children need to have developmental defects, why does there need to be more drug addiction, and hundreds of other things so nicely removed out of sight, out of mind, with the phrase "employability will suffer along the way", for something as wishy washy as "a star trek future"? > "hmmm, will a future where nobody has to work be within the grasp of my children, or my grandchildren? think of the possibilities!" If it's so great, why rush and break things, and not get there without making things worse, decade by decade, by instead reversing the trend of growing inequality? Just a little? Current generations have less than previous ones. Life expectancy in the US is going down. "Those who abused the power they already were given will suddenly play nice when they have ALL the power" is what it basically boils down to. This is like saying the guy who punches me in the gut and says "give me your wallet, asshole", claims to pity for me when it turns out I have no wallet, and he suggests I get in his van so he can drive me to the villa of his friend with this great party that goes on forever, where I can eat and dance for the rest of my life, is the real deal. But when I say "okay, then give me the address and I'll go home, change clothes and show up there with my best friend", he gets SUPER IMPATIENT and kind of angry in a creepy way? Yeah, no.
- jddj 2y ago
  I agree with your overall projection. I'm skeptical that a revolution (either social, political or economic) where the proletariat manages to end up in a drastically better position than they are in today can happen in a (for now still hypothetical, thankfully) world where there is no longer a clear economic need for those individuals to be around. That said, in response to >Where are the horses that used to pull carriages? We didn't let them run free, we got rid of them. I can't help but point to the pigeons as a counterexample
  - computerthings 2y ago
    Can you elaborate on what you mean about pigeons?
    - baxtr 2y ago
      My guess is OP is saying that we used to deploy pigeons for letter transport. They didn’t disappear like horses though. Instead, they’ve organized as gangs in our cities.
      - computerthings 2y ago
        Sure, they get by, but mostly on their own, not because we care so much, right? As WP puts it, they're mostly seen as pest but also serve as "important prey species for birds of prey".

ssssvd 2y ago

You can do exactly that right now - just stop working. You don't have to. Nobody ever had to. Would the overall productive output of humanity for goods that matter drop significantly if you opt-out? Probably not at all. The problem, though, is, a job secures your place in the goods distribution scheme, and the scheme in general rewards certain behaviours that lead to (sometimes outsized) gains for the broader society. So what's the new scheme is going to be? It's not just wealth redistribution. It's keeping people busy. It's suppressing antisocial behaviour on massive scale. It's rewarding polite social interactions - and even basic hygiene. Recall the second half of the first COVID year, and how rapidly a good chunk of population degraded into absolute slobbery. Surprisingly, it's a much easier question for China than it is for US. Privately owned AI is about as smart as privately owned nuclear weapons.

computerthings 2y ago

The gains of productivity do not trickle down like that. Where are the horses that used to pull carriages? We didn't let them run free, we got rid of them. So in so far as the means of production don't even need exploited workers to generate more capital, those workers will be removed from the equation. They won't get free food and housing to go do art and ride bikes from those who, right now, don't care they they have no food or no housing. That idea was never serious, but in 2025? > All too often, the inventor is the Faustian idealist who wants to improve the world but fails in the face of harsh realities. If he wants to push through his ideas, he has to get involved with powers whose sense of reality is sharper and more pronounced. In today's world, without wishing to make a value judgment, such powers are primarily the military and managers. -- Konrad Zuse This isn't an engineering question. We could already live in a "Star Trek" kind a world (minus warp drive, teleportation and food replicators maybe) a long time ago, several times over. It's not for lack of productivity or inventions. We now have tech broligarchs in line with dismantling consumer and environment protections. Productivity keeps going up, so do profits for fewer and fewer, but the outlook for the average person, their share in a nice future, keeps shrinking. Technology that empowers the few that spy on, exploit, manipulate and eventually murder the masses is very different from technology that empowers people to get together and improve their lives. To all just sum it up as "tech" or "AI" is destroying all the detail. We live in the world we live in, not Star Trek. > short term sacrifice is always entailed for long term gain That's how every cult operates, too. That's what fascists say. Why not make the world better? Why do people have to be more disenfranchised, why do more children need to have developmental defects, why does there need to be more drug addiction, and hundreds of other things so nicely removed out of sight, out of mind, with the phrase "employability will suffer along the way", for something as wishy washy as "a star trek future"? > "hmmm, will a future where nobody has to work be within the grasp of my children, or my grandchildren? think of the possibilities!" If it's so great, why rush and break things, and not get there without making things worse, decade by decade, by instead reversing the trend of growing inequality? Just a little? Current generations have less than previous ones. Life expectancy in the US is going down. "Those who abused the power they already were given will suddenly play nice when they have ALL the power" is what it basically boils down to. This is like saying the guy who punches me in the gut and says "give me your wallet, asshole", claims to pity for me when it turns out I have no wallet, and he suggests I get in his van so he can drive me to the villa of his friend with this great party that goes on forever, where I can eat and dance for the rest of my life, is the real deal. But when I say "okay, then give me the address and I'll go home, change clothes and show up there with my best friend", he gets SUPER IMPATIENT and kind of angry in a creepy way? Yeah, no.

jddj 2y ago
I agree with your overall projection. I'm skeptical that a revolution (either social, political or economic) where the proletariat manages to end up in a drastically better position than they are in today can happen in a (for now still hypothetical, thankfully) world where there is no longer a clear economic need for those individuals to be around. That said, in response to >Where are the horses that used to pull carriages? We didn't let them run free, we got rid of them. I can't help but point to the pigeons as a counterexample
- computerthings 2y ago
  Can you elaborate on what you mean about pigeons?
  - baxtr 2y ago
    My guess is OP is saying that we used to deploy pigeons for letter transport. They didn’t disappear like horses though. Instead, they’ve organized as gangs in our cities.
    - computerthings 2y ago
      Sure, they get by, but mostly on their own, not because we care so much, right? As WP puts it, they're mostly seen as pest but also serve as "important prey species for birds of prey".