4 ms·

> It's a false dichotomy to imagine that workers and employers are the only people affected. Customers are also generally affected for the better, and far more

> It's a false dichotomy to imagine that workers and employers are the only people affected. Customers are also generally affected for the better, and far more people are customers than workers or employers. Uh, what now? I would say customers ~= workers + employers, especially if you count retired workers as workers. Outside of those groups, what do you have? The idle rich and welfare recipients? Not very big groups... Also workers are by far the most numerous class of consumer, and lets not get deceived by the lazy capitalist oversimplification that a worker is not any worse off if you cut his income while making some of the goods he buys cheaper.

philipallstar 1y ago
I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever. You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both.
- palmotea 1y ago
  > I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever. That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics). > You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both. That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. Maybe some other consumer gets a cheaper car, but fat lot of good that does you, unemployed guy. Then repeat that across most if not all sectors all at once, and it's not a good story for consumers, broadly. And then there's all kinds of other stuff going on, stuff that economics thinking (especially ECON 101 dogma) has a hard time with.
  - philipallstar 1y ago
    > That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics). Marketing is only evidence of the fact that someone wants to sell something. How can you equate basic, fundamental economics with some marketing trend? > That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. It's definitely not a fairy tale. Evidence: all the millions of teams in the world that use some form of automation. You don't need a secretary for every manager now because Word and Outlook exist.

philipallstar 1y ago

I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever. You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both.

palmotea 1y ago
> I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever. That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics). > You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both. That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. Maybe some other consumer gets a cheaper car, but fat lot of good that does you, unemployed guy. Then repeat that across most if not all sectors all at once, and it's not a good story for consumers, broadly. And then there's all kinds of other stuff going on, stuff that economics thinking (especially ECON 101 dogma) has a hard time with.
- philipallstar 1y ago
  > That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics). Marketing is only evidence of the fact that someone wants to sell something. How can you equate basic, fundamental economics with some marketing trend? > That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. It's definitely not a fairy tale. Evidence: all the millions of teams in the world that use some form of automation. You don't need a secretary for every manager now because Word and Outlook exist.