4 ms·
> Last year this podcast said that nobody wants to solve this because solving it is going to eliminate (IIRC) hundreds of thousands of jobs. Which is a point to
by heyitsmedotjayb 7mo ago
> Last year this podcast said that nobody wants to solve this because solving it is going to eliminate (IIRC) hundreds of thousands of jobs. Which is a point to consider.
Why not simply hire them to do something that isn't pointless - like dig ditches or clean garbage
- nullpoint420 7mo agoYou could say the same to tech workers after AI.
- lII1lIlI11ll 7mo agoDo you expect US government to create a huge regulated industry similar to health insurance to keep tech workers employed?
- pessimizer 7mo agoSo what? Are you arguing that since we think we're all special that we should be accepting that other people think they're special? Meanwhile, people getting laid off (just so the jobs could be exported to countries with more poverty and lower pollution, worker's rights, and standards for working conditions) were getting berated that they should "learn to code" for decades, while we laughed and discussed our stock options.
- nullpoint420 7mo ago> while we laughed and discussed our stock options. We? Sorry, I'm one of the "newer" engineers that joined the industry right before the AI bubble. I didn't laugh or discuss my stock options. I accepted what jobs were available post-COVID crash.
- orangecat 7mo agoAnd you'd be right. Forbidding efficiency improvements in order to preserve jobs is the correct solution approximately never.