6 ms·

Robots are everywhere. Especially in the factories. I think making things automatic is good, all those stupid jobs, moving all day something from one place to

Robots are everywhere. Especially in the factories. I think making things automatic is good, all those stupid jobs, moving all day something from one place to another, manually is pure waste of human energy. If this energy is redirected to education, and more meaningful work, those people will be much more valuable for their community and the world. If robots are used in that direction, they can do a lot of good things, and there will be no ethical lines to cross. Helping people enhance is a good thing!

idiotsecant 6mo ago
Nobody is objecting to the loss of bad jobs. The jobs themselves are not the problem. The problem is that we tie basic human dignity to how much value that human can produce, and then remove the ability to produce that value. It leads to the stratification of society between the people who own the automation and the people who don't. That's always been a problem but we're about to enter a period of exponentially worse growth of that problem, beyond the ability of social systems to handle. A 'k shaped' future is not stable.
- pizza234 6mo ago
  > Nobody is objecting to the loss of bad jobs. The jobs themselves are not the problem. Very strong disagree; a lot of people is objecting. A job on an assembly line may be "bad" for somebody, but for somebody else can be a lifeline, if they won't be able to find another job soon enough and/or in reasonable conditions. Long-term, the job market can rebalance (and if unemployed people are supported in their education, it's great), but short-term displacement is a serious issue.
  - bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
    If your job is that tedious a robot could do it, it's a bad job. Do you think Sam Altman wastes a single minute on operations and the actual minutae of running a business? Fuck no he gets wageslaves like me and yo to do it
    - estearum 6mo ago
      Every year, fewer and fewer people are capable of doing jobs that robots cannot do. That's sort of the whole conundrum here. "Robots" broadly defined are getting more capable and more intelligent at a significantly faster rate than humans are. This obviously produces incredible economic surplus, but 1) that surplus is naturally captured by the owners of those robots and not the people they replaced, and 2) doesn't seem clear that all the negative consequences of mass obsolescence are solvable by economic surplus even in theory.
      - bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
        Search "Humans are becoming horses" by CGP grey. He's making the exact same point as you except his is 15 years old and still hasn't passed. I ask you to follow your premise to it's conclusion... who's paying for it these robots and who buys the stuff the robots make? Other robots?? In this world where robot serves robot, where exactly did we disappear to?
        estearum 6mo ago
        If you want to see what just productivity improvements (with no social innovations) naturally does, you can go read about the Gilded Age. Productivity improvements are necessary but not sufficient to enhance human wellbeing. Productivity improvements by themselves appear to simultaneously suppress quality of life for those below the productivity and/or capital ownership bar while increasing quality for those above it. Yes, an economy is perfectly capable of orienting itself around satisfying the wants of the few people who have a lot of capital at the expense of the many who have little capital. Why wouldn't this be possible? It obviously creates systemic risk in the economy, which is one of many reasons it should be mitigated by policy and taxation, but I'm not sure why you're acting like it's some mathematical impossibility. Not sure anyone said anything about humans "disappearing," just driven to extreme economic hardship despite ample overall productivity, which again we have literally hundreds of real world examples of throughout history.
        bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
  - idiotsecant 6mo ago
    ... You realize you just made exactly the same point I did, right? I know you have two eyes and 10 fingers but give those appendages a rest and reread

idiotsecant 6mo ago

Nobody is objecting to the loss of bad jobs. The jobs themselves are not the problem. The problem is that we tie basic human dignity to how much value that human can produce, and then remove the ability to produce that value. It leads to the stratification of society between the people who own the automation and the people who don't. That's always been a problem but we're about to enter a period of exponentially worse growth of that problem, beyond the ability of social systems to handle. A 'k shaped' future is not stable.

pizza234 6mo ago
> Nobody is objecting to the loss of bad jobs. The jobs themselves are not the problem. Very strong disagree; a lot of people is objecting. A job on an assembly line may be "bad" for somebody, but for somebody else can be a lifeline, if they won't be able to find another job soon enough and/or in reasonable conditions. Long-term, the job market can rebalance (and if unemployed people are supported in their education, it's great), but short-term displacement is a serious issue.
- bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
  If your job is that tedious a robot could do it, it's a bad job. Do you think Sam Altman wastes a single minute on operations and the actual minutae of running a business? Fuck no he gets wageslaves like me and yo to do it
  - estearum 6mo ago
    Every year, fewer and fewer people are capable of doing jobs that robots cannot do. That's sort of the whole conundrum here. "Robots" broadly defined are getting more capable and more intelligent at a significantly faster rate than humans are. This obviously produces incredible economic surplus, but 1) that surplus is naturally captured by the owners of those robots and not the people they replaced, and 2) doesn't seem clear that all the negative consequences of mass obsolescence are solvable by economic surplus even in theory.
    - bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
      Search "Humans are becoming horses" by CGP grey. He's making the exact same point as you except his is 15 years old and still hasn't passed. I ask you to follow your premise to it's conclusion... who's paying for it these robots and who buys the stuff the robots make? Other robots?? In this world where robot serves robot, where exactly did we disappear to?
      - estearum 6mo ago
        If you want to see what just productivity improvements (with no social innovations) naturally does, you can go read about the Gilded Age. Productivity improvements are necessary but not sufficient to enhance human wellbeing. Productivity improvements by themselves appear to simultaneously suppress quality of life for those below the productivity and/or capital ownership bar while increasing quality for those above it. Yes, an economy is perfectly capable of orienting itself around satisfying the wants of the few people who have a lot of capital at the expense of the many who have little capital. Why wouldn't this be possible? It obviously creates systemic risk in the economy, which is one of many reasons it should be mitigated by policy and taxation, but I'm not sure why you're acting like it's some mathematical impossibility. Not sure anyone said anything about humans "disappearing," just driven to extreme economic hardship despite ample overall productivity, which again we have literally hundreds of real world examples of throughout history.
        bcjdjsndon 6mo ago
- idiotsecant 6mo ago
  ... You realize you just made exactly the same point I did, right? I know you have two eyes and 10 fingers but give those appendages a rest and reread