4 ms·
Usually the implication of this (very common) analogy is that people in the past were somehow behaving wrongly, despite the fact that anybody is right to fight
by happytoexplain 11mo ago
Usually the implication of this (very common) analogy is that people in the past were somehow behaving wrongly, despite the fact that anybody is right to fight savagely against dramatic disruption to the life they've built, regardless of what the best solution is theoretically. Though even beyond that, the comparison is thin. With AI disruption, the size of the total affected jobs in comparison to the entire economy, as well as the speed of the change, is much more significant.
- Hizonner 11mo ago> anybody is right to fight savagely against dramatic disruption to the life they've built Yeah, I'd built a whole lifestyle around armed robbery, and the cops had the gall to arrest me. It was dramatically disruptive! Seriously, you do not have a "right" to keep doing whatever you've been doing, even if it wasn't destructive. Nobody owes you that. People aren't your serfs.
- Neil44 11mo agoI think they were behaving wrongly yes because the one constant in life is change whatever you do and whatever species you are. Adapt or die surely? The universe isn't a museum.
- greygoo222 11mo agoUnderstandable? Maybe. Right? Absolutely not.