6 ms·
so the jobs have to be lost _first_ , then we can ban it?
by gosub100 7mo ago
so the jobs have to be lost _first_ , then we can ban it?
- sroussey 7mo agoJust like when musicians were on strike and the radio people decided to play a recording over the air (gasp! a record!) rather than live performances. A nice ban on playing recorded music would have saved those jobs.
- gosub100 7mo agoBad example. You are agreeing that copyright is owned by the people whose work an AI agent is trained on. Sure, come take a class of jobs, and then pay them in perpetuity to license the exposition of their work. For 75 years after the authors death, just like current copyright.
- Ukv 7mo agoIf the idea was that laws must be motivated by a negative occurrence rather than preemptive, then that'd follow yeah (if counting job loss as a reason to ban something, which I think is questionable). But note akersten is saying that it's normal for laws to be preemptive in both cases.
- cortesoft 7mo agoJob loss is a horrible reason to ban something. Think about our history if we always did that. We would all be stuck working on farms today, because we didn’t want to allow tractors or other machinery because it would take away farming jobs. Instead of banning tech to save jobs, pass laws that make sure tech prices in externalities (tax carbon emissions), and find other ways to assist people who lose jobs (UBI, good social safety nets, etc). Don’t stifle progress just because it makes us have to work less.
- ukuina 7mo agoCar dealerships would like a word.
- cortesoft 7mo agoAnother example why these types of laws make things worse for people.
- pocksuppet 7mo agoRight - fix the economy instead. Why should increasing efficiency cause people to have less resources - that makes no sense.
- Joker_vD 7mo agoBecause there are people who live off rent (in a broad sense of this world), and there are people who live off selling their ability to work. Increased efficiency and productivity may or may not benefit the second kind of people, depending on whether they can sell their labour to be used for something else.
- cortesoft 7mo agoSo instead of figuring out ways to limit the ability of people to live off rent, we want to ban beneficial things that people could extract rent from? This is like saying, "We don't like how landlords extract value from housing, so we are banning apartment buildings"
- Joker_vD 7mo agoWell, usually we tax the landlords instead. But when the landlords make up the overwhelming majority of the legislature, this tend to not happen. The situation with apartment buildings is even more quirky because the USA has quite ridiculous zoning regulations, which AIUI many landlords actually support? It's really a wonderful barrel of worms, and I am glad I have no paddle in it.
- gosub100 7mo agoBanning AI does increase efficiency. It makes it more efficient for a working class family to afford to survive. What perverted definition of the word were you considering?
- cortesoft 7mo agoHow is this different from saying "Banning mechanical farm equipment does increase efficiency, it makes it more efficient for farm workers to afford to survive" You are fighting against productivity improvements when you should be fighting against people hoarding the benefits of productivity improvements.
- TimorousBestie 7mo ago> Job loss is a horrible reason to ban something. Think about our history if we always did that. The US has continually set up protectionist policies to preserve a local workforce. Automotive manufacturers, the shipbuilding industry, etc.
- tt24 7mo agoThese are bad things
- FatherOfCurses 7mo agoIn an economy that depends on consumer spending, you can only wipe out so many jobs until no one can afford to purchase consumer goods.