3 ms·

I was thinking last night. Shouldn't software we make help people instead of replacing them? Why must innovation be in the direction of and at the cost of repla

I was thinking last night. Shouldn't software we make help people instead of replacing them? Why must innovation be in the direction of and at the cost of replacing humans?

Avicebron 2y ago
We've been optimizing for the wrong metrics? Infinite growth was fine when the map had "here be dragons", led to absurdum you get the profit driven, neurotic company architecture that optimizes for the goals of optimizing, every single person can be playing the right cards but the end goal is to move value from A to B with A(A-value) being not considered, when A(-value) are people with lives, we either pickup and move, but A_n(-value) is already there. Aka. no more dragons.\ edit for clarity
devit 2y ago
That's what it does. "Replacement" is only a problem for people who are dependent on someone else being dependent on them.
- xigency 2y ago
  > "Replacement" is only a problem for people who are dependent on someone else being dependent on them. Not so. Replacement is a huge problem for people who have people who depend on them to furnish the cost of living. Also it can be quite dangerous in a game setting where some costs of losing the game include homelessness or death. In fact, it might be desirable to some political figures to drive up enlistment numbers by putting more people in such precarious situations. But what do I know, I read a book and an AI can do that for you now... so... don't think too much about it.
  - charcircuit 2y ago
    >Also it can be quite dangerous in a game setting where some costs of losing the game include homelessness or death. It could allow for natural selection to start taking place again to select for desirable traits.
    - xigency 2y ago
      A meteor could select for the whole Earth to be gone, but I don't think I'm going to start praising disaster.
lamename 2y ago
It doesn't have to be. But often the executives or investors who stand to profit the most from innovation also have strong public facing influence over the narrative. Employees cost a ton, so it's self serving both to promote the product to like minded people, and to hype the product itself.
pj_mukh 2y ago
"I was thinking last night. Shouldn't <all innovation> we make help people instead of replacing them? Why must innovation be in the direction of and at the cost of replacing humans?" -Humans when electricity replaced lamplighter jobs [1] [1]: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/learning-from-automation-anxiety-of-the-past/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/learning-from-automation...
- hackable_sand 2y ago
  True then, still true now.
- frotaur 2y ago
  I really don't care if jobs are replaced, so long that people are still able to make a living. It really becomes a problem if you replace humans as a whole, and don't come up with something to allow them to make a living still such as UBI or others. I think that is the big difference between the lamplighter situation, and the situation at hand.
  - pj_mukh 2y ago
    I've seen no evidence for there being "not enough jobs". The problem (as always) is the status associated with the job. There is a real dearth of people wanting to work the trades, but no one wants those jobs. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, even I don't want that job.
    - xigency 2y ago
      A smart society would give status to people who take jobs that are needed but undesirable. We do not live in a smart society.
    - lamename 2y ago
      Related is the fact that other jobs existing, even IF desirable, doesn't mean they can be learned over night. Many jobs worth having take years of training. Switching careers overnight is not realistic for nearly anyone who gets laid off due to replacement.

I was thinking last night. Shouldn't software we make help people instead of replacing them? Why must innovation be in the direction of and at the cost of replacing humans?

Avicebron 2y ago

We've been optimizing for the wrong metrics? Infinite growth was fine when the map had "here be dragons", led to absurdum you get the profit driven, neurotic company architecture that optimizes for the goals of optimizing, every single person can be playing the right cards but the end goal is to move value from A to B with A(A-value) being not considered, when A(-value) are people with lives, we either pickup and move, but A_n(-value) is already there. Aka. no more dragons.\ edit for clarity

devit 2y ago

That's what it does. "Replacement" is only a problem for people who are dependent on someone else being dependent on them.

xigency 2y ago
> "Replacement" is only a problem for people who are dependent on someone else being dependent on them. Not so. Replacement is a huge problem for people who have people who depend on them to furnish the cost of living. Also it can be quite dangerous in a game setting where some costs of losing the game include homelessness or death. In fact, it might be desirable to some political figures to drive up enlistment numbers by putting more people in such precarious situations. But what do I know, I read a book and an AI can do that for you now... so... don't think too much about it.
- charcircuit 2y ago
  >Also it can be quite dangerous in a game setting where some costs of losing the game include homelessness or death. It could allow for natural selection to start taking place again to select for desirable traits.
  - xigency 2y ago
    A meteor could select for the whole Earth to be gone, but I don't think I'm going to start praising disaster.

lamename 2y ago

It doesn't have to be. But often the executives or investors who stand to profit the most from innovation also have strong public facing influence over the narrative. Employees cost a ton, so it's self serving both to promote the product to like minded people, and to hype the product itself.

pj_mukh 2y ago

"I was thinking last night. Shouldn't <all innovation> we make help people instead of replacing them? Why must innovation be in the direction of and at the cost of replacing humans?" -Humans when electricity replaced lamplighter jobs [1] [1]: https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/learning-from-automation-anxiety-of-the-past/ https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/learning-from-automation...

hackable_sand 2y ago
True then, still true now.
frotaur 2y ago
I really don't care if jobs are replaced, so long that people are still able to make a living. It really becomes a problem if you replace humans as a whole, and don't come up with something to allow them to make a living still such as UBI or others. I think that is the big difference between the lamplighter situation, and the situation at hand.
- pj_mukh 2y ago
  I've seen no evidence for there being "not enough jobs". The problem (as always) is the status associated with the job. There is a real dearth of people wanting to work the trades, but no one wants those jobs. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, even I don't want that job.
  - xigency 2y ago
    A smart society would give status to people who take jobs that are needed but undesirable. We do not live in a smart society.
  - lamename 2y ago
    Related is the fact that other jobs existing, even IF desirable, doesn't mean they can be learned over night. Many jobs worth having take years of training. Switching careers overnight is not realistic for nearly anyone who gets laid off due to replacement.