3 ms·

Historically it seems humanity is often better off after major advances. But it’s the transition that is the problem. The people living through the transition

Historically it seems humanity is often better off after major advances. But it’s the transition that is the problem. The people living through the transition have to go through hell.

newyankee 1y ago
Especially from Global South who somehow do not even find a footnote in a lot of research
Analemma_ 1y ago
Yeah, I'm always annoyed at how blasé people are about these transition periods, where they seem to think the ends justify any means, and any chaos which happens as a result of the means. You see this all the time when some new technology, especially an information disintermediation technology, gets compared to the printing press. "The printing press broke the monopoly on knowledge and brought Europe out of the Dark Ages!" Yeah, but first it killed millions of people in a century of warfare. Do the people in an equivalent position now get a vote, or are they acceptable casualties for the glorious hypothetical future?
- bluefirebrand 1y ago
  > Yeah, but first it killed millions of people in a century of warfare. Do the people in an equivalent position now get a vote, or are they acceptable casualties for the glorious hypothetical future? The answer seems to be we get no vote I'm not happy about it
- spongebobstoes 1y ago
  Can you present a proposal for how should we adopt technology with less chaos? Are you accounting for the lives saved through better technology?
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Yes. We compensate disrupted industries and make long term plans to adjust around the technologies. The advent of the PC exposed it early to kids, it advertised its usefulness to the public, and it offered digital trainings to adjust to a new workflow. In the worst case, we help any redundant roles get a new job in the indystry or offer other benefits like early pensions. As we see here, this tech is only taking and not giving much back.
    - simianwords 1y ago
      You only want this because it is tech that is getting disrupted - the compensation would be provided to you now
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Not really. I don't think I "need" it myself. My sector will be much more resistant to the advent of AI compared to others anyway, so I'm not worried of being displaced short term. My industry didn't need AI as an excuse to lay off a bunch of people every year. I'm just demonstrating that advancing technology and throwing a whole job sector out with nowhere to go is not mutually exclusive. And that the lack of any such conversation means we'll just go down the same bloody path as last time in history.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Chaos can be avoided if we start talks to facilitate this "AI age". But are we talking seriously about UBI? Nope (we can't even fund healthcare). What about training? Training in-job has been on the decline for decades, no one's helping with transitions. Are people's lives at least getting better? The sentiment in surveys say no thus far. As usual it seems like there's only one box left when a new technology tries to strongarm its way into society. The invention of the personal computer avoided a lot of chaos by doing all of the above.
  - decremental 1y ago
    [dead]
sethammons 1y ago
In one of my economic classes at my university introduced me to the book Shafted: Free Trade & America's Working Poor. I think this qualifies as an advancement and one that is oft argued as a net good for global trade. The author contends that free trade has become a tool favoring corporate interests at the expense of workers’ dignity, community, and fair participation in economic decision-making. Beyond that, they illustrate that net economic gains _should_ be able to also lift those same workers, providing enough surplus for re-training, but it doesn't. The gains flow to the top and the workers left in a worse position. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/310362.Shafted https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/310362.Shafted

Historically it seems humanity is often better off after major advances. But it’s the transition that is the problem. The people living through the transition have to go through hell.

newyankee 1y ago

Especially from Global South who somehow do not even find a footnote in a lot of research

Analemma_ 1y ago

Yeah, I'm always annoyed at how blasé people are about these transition periods, where they seem to think the ends justify any means, and any chaos which happens as a result of the means. You see this all the time when some new technology, especially an information disintermediation technology, gets compared to the printing press. "The printing press broke the monopoly on knowledge and brought Europe out of the Dark Ages!" Yeah, but first it killed millions of people in a century of warfare. Do the people in an equivalent position now get a vote, or are they acceptable casualties for the glorious hypothetical future?

bluefirebrand 1y ago
> Yeah, but first it killed millions of people in a century of warfare. Do the people in an equivalent position now get a vote, or are they acceptable casualties for the glorious hypothetical future? The answer seems to be we get no vote I'm not happy about it
spongebobstoes 1y ago
Can you present a proposal for how should we adopt technology with less chaos? Are you accounting for the lives saved through better technology?
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  Yes. We compensate disrupted industries and make long term plans to adjust around the technologies. The advent of the PC exposed it early to kids, it advertised its usefulness to the public, and it offered digital trainings to adjust to a new workflow. In the worst case, we help any redundant roles get a new job in the indystry or offer other benefits like early pensions. As we see here, this tech is only taking and not giving much back.
  - simianwords 1y ago
    You only want this because it is tech that is getting disrupted - the compensation would be provided to you now
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Not really. I don't think I "need" it myself. My sector will be much more resistant to the advent of AI compared to others anyway, so I'm not worried of being displaced short term. My industry didn't need AI as an excuse to lay off a bunch of people every year. I'm just demonstrating that advancing technology and throwing a whole job sector out with nowhere to go is not mutually exclusive. And that the lack of any such conversation means we'll just go down the same bloody path as last time in history.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
Chaos can be avoided if we start talks to facilitate this "AI age". But are we talking seriously about UBI? Nope (we can't even fund healthcare). What about training? Training in-job has been on the decline for decades, no one's helping with transitions. Are people's lives at least getting better? The sentiment in surveys say no thus far. As usual it seems like there's only one box left when a new technology tries to strongarm its way into society. The invention of the personal computer avoided a lot of chaos by doing all of the above.
- decremental 1y ago
  [dead]

sethammons 1y ago

In one of my economic classes at my university introduced me to the book Shafted: Free Trade & America's Working Poor. I think this qualifies as an advancement and one that is oft argued as a net good for global trade. The author contends that free trade has become a tool favoring corporate interests at the expense of workers’ dignity, community, and fair participation in economic decision-making. Beyond that, they illustrate that net economic gains _should_ be able to also lift those same workers, providing enough surplus for re-training, but it doesn't. The gains flow to the top and the workers left in a worse position. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/310362.Shafted https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/310362.Shafted