4 ms·

> If someone is arguing to limit that technology, then yes. This was a rhetorical question to highlight the ridiculousness of using this statement as justifica

> If someone is arguing to limit that technology, then yes. This was a rhetorical question to highlight the ridiculousness of using this statement as justification for anything. You can state it however many times you want, it does not change reality. Just as well, we would not need legs if only the reality was that we live in the water. Turns out, the reality is that we live on land and we need legs. The right way is to adapt humans to living in water first, and then legs would have been gone away through evolution. The wrong way is to cut off people’s legs[0]. > I'm guessing that you say that because you enjoy your job Let’s stick to the point, not to what you imagine about me. If somebody hates their job, taking away their source of income is extremely harmful (clearly they would have quit already if they didn’t absolutely need money). If somebody loves their job, taking away what gives their life meaning is extremely harmful. > It's happening, so we had better figure out how to wrap our small brains around it. Not at all. For it to start happening, those who are in charge of robot job replacement would have to stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes. I feel like we are talking past each other, I am done trying to rephrase my point. [0] To make things obvious… Making sure jobs are not vital for human existence is evolving humans to live in water. Replacing jobs with robots is cutting off people’s legs.

thunky 1y ago
> Not at all What I'm saying is that the automation is happening, so we need to deal with that reality. > stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes Exactly.
- strogonoff 1y ago
  > What I'm saying is that the automation is happening, so we need to deal with that reality. This is not a force of nature. Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain people, heavily featured on this forum, are working on something that causes harm to many, which they are not concerned about because they get paid well, or at best because of some long-term utilitarian math—alongside those complicit in it by investing in the effort, trying to make it seem as if it’s “natural” and “inevitable” and “normal”, and so on. If that’s what you mean—perhaps that’s true, and that’s exactly why this thread is happening. It is man made, and unlike reality in which we’ve been living for thousands of years and which we are well adapted for this change is being forced by a wealthy minority onto the rest of humanity in the span of decades. Luckily it is far from being “reality” yet and it can well be stopped.
  - thunky 1y ago
    > Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain people, heavily featured on this forum, are working on something that causes harm to many No that's not at all what I mean to say. I see technological advancement as inevitible and good. A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress. People working towards progress aren't evil. I assume that they, like me, believe that our society can and should evolve with the technology. If it can't, that's our fault, not the fault of the tech. If our government is so embarrisingly bad that it exploits the people that it represents rather than helping them (which I agree it is), well that's also our fault and not the tech's. The government is us. We better get our shit together. The wealthy already own and control everything. So your status quo goal of a fair society where we all work all day and feel needed and appreciated and have a nice comfortable life is already dead. You're defending a dead body.
    - strogonoff 1y ago
      > I see technological advancement as inevitible and good. It’s false, simply because it is a product of human effort and human choice to do this or the other. > A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress A “good thing” is what benefits humans. Robots replacing humans at what humans choose to do for their own benefit is decidedly not a good thing—aside from humans who profit from running the robots. You may have noticed that I am repeating myself[0]. You are yet to show how this benefits humanity in a way that outweighs harm to humans who lose their jobs (especially considering many of them provided, without consent, the data instrumental for the robots to work in the first place). If you are among the people who work on robots, I think you ought to pause and reflect. > The wealthy already own and control everything. “They” don’t. A lot of “them” are here, by the way. Wealth gap is high, but to say it’s absolute (100% is owned by the rich and we are all just slaves for them) is simply wrong. We should work towards decreasing the gap, not increasing it. [0] I am basically reiterating my original comment: > “robots are coming for your jobs” is a valid argument against robots even if they can do those jobs better and faster, under two assumptions: 1) humans benefit from having jobs and 2) human benefit is the end goal.

thunky 1y ago

> Not at all What I'm saying is that the automation is happening, so we need to deal with that reality. > stop plugging their ears and shouting whenever someone talks about the issues it causes Exactly.

strogonoff 1y ago
> What I'm saying is that the automation is happening, so we need to deal with that reality. This is not a force of nature. Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain people, heavily featured on this forum, are working on something that causes harm to many, which they are not concerned about because they get paid well, or at best because of some long-term utilitarian math—alongside those complicit in it by investing in the effort, trying to make it seem as if it’s “natural” and “inevitable” and “normal”, and so on. If that’s what you mean—perhaps that’s true, and that’s exactly why this thread is happening. It is man made, and unlike reality in which we’ve been living for thousands of years and which we are well adapted for this change is being forced by a wealthy minority onto the rest of humanity in the span of decades. Luckily it is far from being “reality” yet and it can well be stopped.
- thunky 1y ago
  > Perhaps what you mean to say is that certain people, heavily featured on this forum, are working on something that causes harm to many No that's not at all what I mean to say. I see technological advancement as inevitible and good. A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress. People working towards progress aren't evil. I assume that they, like me, believe that our society can and should evolve with the technology. If it can't, that's our fault, not the fault of the tech. If our government is so embarrisingly bad that it exploits the people that it represents rather than helping them (which I agree it is), well that's also our fault and not the tech's. The government is us. We better get our shit together. The wealthy already own and control everything. So your status quo goal of a fair society where we all work all day and feel needed and appreciated and have a nice comfortable life is already dead. You're defending a dead body.
  - strogonoff 1y ago
    > I see technological advancement as inevitible and good. It’s false, simply because it is a product of human effort and human choice to do this or the other. > A robot that can do jobs so that humans don't have to is a good thing. It's progress A “good thing” is what benefits humans. Robots replacing humans at what humans choose to do for their own benefit is decidedly not a good thing—aside from humans who profit from running the robots. You may have noticed that I am repeating myself[0]. You are yet to show how this benefits humanity in a way that outweighs harm to humans who lose their jobs (especially considering many of them provided, without consent, the data instrumental for the robots to work in the first place). If you are among the people who work on robots, I think you ought to pause and reflect. > The wealthy already own and control everything. “They” don’t. A lot of “them” are here, by the way. Wealth gap is high, but to say it’s absolute (100% is owned by the rich and we are all just slaves for them) is simply wrong. We should work towards decreasing the gap, not increasing it. [0] I am basically reiterating my original comment: > “robots are coming for your jobs” is a valid argument against robots even if they can do those jobs better and faster, under two assumptions: 1) humans benefit from having jobs and 2) human benefit is the end goal.