4 ms·

You need to first address 1)What is work? 2)Why we need to work? Animals don't "work". Not atleast for their own sake. If there is enough green pasture and wat

• AuthAuth 3mo ago
  There exists to many complex things in the world and we cannot do it all ourselves. We work so that we have something of value to trade to the people who do the work on the things we want. We will never automate all work so we with half of humanity doing nothing of value it will be a struggle for the people who do nothing of value to convince people to do work for them. We can see it now where products dont target the people without money. There is no point because they cant give you any reward so instead you do your work for the people that can give you something in return. We can use the government to stimulate and balance this a bit but at a certain point the number gets to high and things collapse.
  • jeffhuys 3mo ago
    So when you say stuff like“ We will never automate all work” generally you’d follow that up with an argument as to why you think that. It’s not fact, YOU think this to be the case. Back it up!
    • RandomLensman 3mo ago
      In the extreme, could just agree not to use technology in some areas (which isn't something unheard of). Human agency is real and powerful - unless humans want to automate all work, it won't happen.
      • jeffhuys 3mo ago
        True, and that’s a good argument. It does shine a light on that we need to define what “work” means to all participants of discussion; is painting work? Is elder care work? Is making a nice sandwich for yourself work?
    • AuthAuth 3mo ago
      Its impossible because I could point to anything or refer to history and the complexities of work and you would say "in the future there is a magic technology that could automate it" and it would be impossible to disprove that.
  • plastic-enjoyer 3mo ago
    What if there is simply not enough work to provide value for the people that do the work on things we want?
• jrowen 3mo ago
  This. Before we worry about how much work there is left, we have to define what work is "to be done." We're already at a point where an incredible amount of work done isn't strictly "necessary." It's not growing food, it's not making clothing, it's not building houses, or providing other basic needs and comforts... How many man-hours go into various parts of the advertising distribution chain? Though a certain fraction of that energy goes to connecting people with goods and services they might find valuable, most of it goes into shifting numbers around for people that already don't personally have to worry about money. We don't need to find endless ways for people to spin wheels, but as long as we're worried about "jobs," we will. We just need to find the social structures to provide people with basic needs and reserve "work" for things that are vital to society or truly inspired.
  • sharikous 3mo ago
    > We just need to find the social structures to provide people with basic needs and reserve "work" for things that are vital to society or truly inspired. just?
    • ElProlactin 3mo ago
      Yeah, isn't there an AI for that?
      • nisegami 3mo ago
        There will be soon, I hope.
    • econ 3mo ago
      The hardest engineering problem is getting along.
    • jrowen 3mo ago
      Sure it’s a tall order but we’re not even trying (in a broader collective sense, I know there are people doing good work). We’re still voting for billionaires rights.
  • 3mo ago
• lelanthran 3mo ago
  This is a very short-sighted, and exceedingly common, take. Until the machines aren't owned by anyone (or owned by everyone, take your pick on the phrasing), the owners of the machine have no need to keep you alive. This take is basically "Don't worry, people like Sam Altman are looking out for us"...
  • strken 3mo ago
    It's quite a good metaphor. What used to happen to an old horse? How many horses do you see now that the world has moved to tractors[0]? I can't wait to be kept in agistment by my overlords, fed on treacle and oats, ridden in circles once a fortnight, and shot when I break a leg. [0] https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based-Horse-Population-1850-2007_fig1_254456029 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/United-States-Farm-based...
    • defrost 3mo ago
      > I can't wait to be kept in agistment by my overlords, fed on treacle and oats, ridden in circles once a fortnight, and shot when I break a leg. Luxury horse living during the heyday of working horses and pit ponies, "horse power" wasn't left ideal for a fortnight. > How many horses do you see now that the world Personally, a surprising number perhaps, there's a pony club at the top of my street in town, and the area is still littered with horses and other livestock. This isn't my area, but it's not dissimilar: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45623799 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45623799 Full size image: https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/a26664f6500a7c748682a8fbefc87e40 https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/a26664f6500a7c74...
  • lowbloodsugar 3mo ago
    Sure. But either way we aren’t going to have to worry about it. We’ll have post scarcity utopia, or we’ll have died. But there is an argument that the billionaire need to pay attention to: an ASI that kills 7 billion people won’t mind killing a few more.
    • jambalaya8 3mo ago
• lagrange77 3mo ago
  Exactly. And taking unpleasant work from humans has always been the ultimate goal of technology as a whole.
• shinryuu 3mo ago
  Agree on this. Since we have this wonderful system called capitalism there are tendencies for, relatively speaking, a few human beings hoard / control most of the productive capacity and as such wealth. Some may consider local LLMs to help with that as the power of LLMs would be more distributed. I think local LLMs would help marginally. Companies as an entity would still be better positioned to use these to their advantage vis a vis individuals. So projecting into the future I still wonder if it won't become more challenging for individuals to make a living on average.
• simonbarker87 3mo ago
  But animals and humans are different. Humans are an animal but to suggest a lion, dog, fish etc operate in the same manner seems a little odd to me. My dog was perfectly happy to snooze most of the day, play with toys occasionally, go for walks and try to hunt rodents. I on the other hand would be incredibly bored with that.
• zombot 3mo ago
  Only if you buy the fairy tale that the machines will be our nursemaids and that the powerful will forget their obsession with controlling and exploiting others.
  • Folcon 3mo ago
    > the powerful will forget their obsession with controlling and exploiting others I do find this line of reasoning overly simplistic The drive some individuals have to control / exploit others isn't limited to the rich, they're just in a better position to exercise it There are people who have absolutely no interest in what other people around them are doing; there are others who will move heaven and earth to help those around them whenever they can, even at the expense of their own interests; others still who can't help but compare themselves to everyone and make it everyone else's problem if they find themselves lacking; and yet others who at all costs want people to afford them "respect" which when you drill into it means stroking their ego I'm sure we've all experienced petty individuals who've been granted just enough power that they can gain personal satisfaction from leveraging it to make themselves feel better at the expense of all other considerations These are all just some of the many flavours of humanity
    • zombot 3mo ago
      But the rich and powerful will be the ones who own the machines that everybody depends on for their survival in that vision. Do the math.
• Balgair 3mo ago
  > 2)Why we need to work? It's a status thing, right?
• orcasushi 3mo ago
  Since you keep being the top comment: I agree with your philosophy, but that is not how Biology often works. When enough green pastures are around animals usually reproduce till that is no longer the case and they need to move to other pastures. They continue doing this untill all green pastures are occupied. After this they start competing with one another to compete for the green pastures already occupied. Some animals will be so succesfull that they take larger green pastures, letting others starve. If by some miraclelous event (ai?) suddenly a lot of green pastures arise, animals will simply reproduce again till they occupied all green pastures again. Looking at us? The agraric revolution, neither the Industrial revolution, nor this ai revolution have decreased how much we work on our 'jobs' (finding food indirectly). All it did was increasing the population so that all green pastures became occupied.
• sharadov 3mo ago
  Why are you assuming that the machines or their masters will be benevolent? All actions so far have been contrarian.
• throwaway-11-1 3mo ago
  Who owns the machines? Work is what we exchange with capital for food and shelter, at this point I'm not so sure they would give it to us for free under any circumstance. I mean look at all the homelessness and medical debt, its clearly a discipline mechanism