3 ms·

Even if that turns out to be true - I don't want human life to be about accomplishment only. We're not here as economic machines to squeeze value out of the nex

by v3xro 2y ago

Even if that turns out to be true - I don't want human life to be about accomplishment only. We're not here as economic machines to squeeze value out of the next business idea.

staplers 2y ago
Unfortunately every single political, economic, and societal force is drifting aimlessly toward this end.
- dahart 2y ago
  I’m unconvinced. Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Things were even worse for the vast majority of people before the 1800s, most people didn’t even get “careers” or have the luxury of thinking in terms of “accomplishments”.
  - lm28469 2y ago
    > Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Wages stagnated while productivity doubled. What you could afford on one salary 50 years ago is unaffordable for a 2 salaries household, &c. We peaked sometime between WWII and 1990, since then it's not obvious that things improved in the west
    - dahart 2y ago
      I think waking time away from work, and not work pay, is the most relevant metric to answer the question raised in this sub-thread. (Though there is obviously overlap, what you can do with your free time and how much you have is obviously driven by your income.) While you have a good point - there is real inequality and it’s still a struggle to be poor, no question - this doesn’t actually contradict my point, which is that people have on average more free time than they used to, and that free time is what I think @v3xro is referring to. “Productivity” is a loaded word, it means dollars collected, and a productivity increase does not necessarily mean workers worked harder (though it does happen sometimes). While it sucks for workers if companies can collect more dollars without paying more for production, it’s not directly relevant to worker’s lifestyle. This chart shows adjusted wages increasing at a very slow moderate rate for the last 50 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q. It’s not that bad if wages “stagnate” if we’re talking inflation adjusted purchasing parity, which I think you are. While it might be unfair for capitalists to reap relatively more, that doesn’t actually reflect on the question of what human life is about and whether “accomplishments” at work are the primary meaning of our lives.
titanomachy 2y ago
If you broaden the notion of "accomplishment" enough then I guess this sentiment is ok. But raising a family, enjoying nature, or attaining good health (for example) don't really seem like things a chatbot could help with much. I guess, charitably, AI could increase the amount of wealth in society to the point where people have more time to pursue those things, but I'm not sure that's the most likely outcome.

by v3xro 2y ago

Even if that turns out to be true - I don't want human life to be about accomplishment only. We're not here as economic machines to squeeze value out of the next business idea.

staplers 2y ago

Unfortunately every single political, economic, and societal force is drifting aimlessly toward this end.

dahart 2y ago
I’m unconvinced. Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Things were even worse for the vast majority of people before the 1800s, most people didn’t even get “careers” or have the luxury of thinking in terms of “accomplishments”.
- lm28469 2y ago
  > Working hours in industrial countries have gone down over the last century or two, not up. Wages stagnated while productivity doubled. What you could afford on one salary 50 years ago is unaffordable for a 2 salaries household, &c. We peaked sometime between WWII and 1990, since then it's not obvious that things improved in the west
  - dahart 2y ago
    I think waking time away from work, and not work pay, is the most relevant metric to answer the question raised in this sub-thread. (Though there is obviously overlap, what you can do with your free time and how much you have is obviously driven by your income.) While you have a good point - there is real inequality and it’s still a struggle to be poor, no question - this doesn’t actually contradict my point, which is that people have on average more free time than they used to, and that free time is what I think @v3xro is referring to. “Productivity” is a loaded word, it means dollars collected, and a productivity increase does not necessarily mean workers worked harder (though it does happen sometimes). While it sucks for workers if companies can collect more dollars without paying more for production, it’s not directly relevant to worker’s lifestyle. This chart shows adjusted wages increasing at a very slow moderate rate for the last 50 years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q. It’s not that bad if wages “stagnate” if we’re talking inflation adjusted purchasing parity, which I think you are. While it might be unfair for capitalists to reap relatively more, that doesn’t actually reflect on the question of what human life is about and whether “accomplishments” at work are the primary meaning of our lives.

titanomachy 2y ago

If you broaden the notion of "accomplishment" enough then I guess this sentiment is ok. But raising a family, enjoying nature, or attaining good health (for example) don't really seem like things a chatbot could help with much. I guess, charitably, AI could increase the amount of wealth in society to the point where people have more time to pursue those things, but I'm not sure that's the most likely outcome.