3 ms·

I don't think pmarca is saying people are against robots per se, but against the efficiency-driven unemployment they see. I'm firmly on the side of pmarca and

by rdl 12y ago

I don't think pmarca is saying people are against robots per se, but against the efficiency-driven unemployment they see. I'm firmly on the side of pmarca and technology here -- I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, and we could find new and better things for those people to do (through the market, ideally, but I'd be open to Basic Income or other forms of wealth distribution if needed). I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. If we did that in the 1700s, there would only be a few thousand people left over after primary agriculture to do anything else. That would suck. People holding unionized or otherwise protected jobs are rent-seekers (albeit on a smaller scale than large companies in regulated industries). Rent seekers do not make the world a better place.

corford 12y ago
I don't think that's really the point of al3x's post. I think it's more we should be very worried that someone with such a balck & white, infantile view of society and economy is in a position to throw billions of dollars at advancing his world view. I love technology but fear for the world we'll end up with if people like pmarca are left to pull the levers.
- rdl 12y ago
  I would sure rather have pmarca pulling the levers rather than people like {politicians, bankers, ...}.
  - edwinnathaniel 12y ago
    What makes you think pmarca is different than {anybody with lots of money and are human being with desires}
    - rdl 12y ago
      He's fundamentally a nerd, and optimistic about humanity. That's enough to be better than 95% of people in power.
      - mattgreenrocks 12y ago
        That sounds like you presume he's like you, so he's OK.
        rdl 12y ago
        That's actually wrong. I'm not optimistic about humanity. pmarca seems to be, which is why I like reading him (and Thiel, etc.), even though I don't totally believe everything they say. I think the world would be better with more pmarcas, though. I may be a nerd, but I'm willing to bet basically everyone on HN shares that trait.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
  - cariss 12y ago
    He isn't backed by the coercive power of the state, for one thing.
    - steveklabnik 12y ago
      Owners of capital and private property don't rely on the coercive power of the state to maintain their ownership? News to me.
  - corford 12y ago
    How about neither of the above :) I'd prefer that.
- wutbrodo 12y ago
  I'm genuinely curious why you think that he has a black and white view of society. It seems like the one-dimensional, black-and-white technocrat view you're ascribing to him wouldn't be in full support of "creating an sustaining a vigorous social safety net", right? The only arguments I've ever heard against "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" are the kind of blatantly cynical strawmen used in the article: > Meanwhile, we don’t need to wait until a hypercapitalist techno-utopia emerges to do right by our struggling neighbors. We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow. Instead, you’re kicking the can down the road and hoping the can will turn into a robot with a market solution. Isn't that Andreessen's whole fucking point? From reading his remarks, it seems evident that he _does_ think that we should "vote to pay for universal healthcare, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow". Who the hell said anything about _waiting_ for a hypercapitalist utopia? And how the hell is a "vigorous social safety net" hypercapitalist?
  - corford 12y ago
    My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. No one is hampering technological progress. Instead a lot of people are (correctly imho) not willing to blindly succumb to it on a promise from those at the top that it will all work out in the end. Everyone is a stake holder in society and entitled to their own fears, hopes and beliefs. pmarca has his, the guy about to be replaced by a robot does too. A responsible society listens to both and figures out an equitable compromise. The problem is pmarca has billions of dollars available to bolster his position in the debate. The guy on the factory flaw does not. A second problem (for me at least) is that what pmarca says and what pmarca does often appear to be two different things.
    - wutbrodo 12y ago
      > My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. > No one is hampering technological progress. I'm sorry, but this could not be more wrong. This is what the entire conversation is _about_. Protecting jobs that do things less efficiently (higher cost, lower output, worse quality by some other metric, whatever) is a HUGE topic of discussion and something that a lot of the country still thinks makes sense[1], despite the fact that it transfers wealth from arbitrary consumers (even the poor) to arbitrary workers (regardless of income), and destroys wealth overall. I've yet to hear a single credible argument for why this is not infinitely worse than maximizing the total amount of wealth (by using the best tool for each job, be it robots or workers) and then explicitly redistributing it the way we want (so transfers will come from e.g. the rich and go to those who need it, like the poor and the sick). The arbitrary, untargeted welfare system that protecting inefficient jobs entails is obviously going to give you a lot more people receiving transfers who don't need it (i.e. middle-to-high income) and a lot more people losing wealth who do need it (consumers who have low incomes). It is a very important point (and one that I've given a lot of thought to) that obsoleting people's jobs _requires_ the robust safety net for them (which we simply don't have in the US), and going full-speed ahead with technology while failing to implement the safety net can be dangerous. That's just an argument for pushing that much harder for a robust safety net (which is something any reasonable person in the US has been doing for decades, at least). Even this distinction is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's view of what the optimal solution would be: you start from an optimal solution (don't intentionally gimp productivity, use the gains from higher productivity to provide a safety net for those who get left behind) and then try to push it through the layers of politics etc that's required to get it actually working. Shouting it down at the ideas phase is just gonna end up with a system where [1] c.f. all the complaints about replacing workers with robots in factories etc
sanderjd 12y ago
> I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, and we could find new and better things for those people to do I agree with you, but I won't share your optimism until I start seeing way more ideas for what this future would look like that are way less hand-wavy than what I've seen so far. Vonnegut's "Player Piano" feels a lot more familiar than Star Trek's no-scarcity-or-need-to-work-but-everything-is-amazing.
- ericd 12y ago
  This is an interesting vision. Not concrete in a lot of ways, but you a lot of the core ideas seem at least somewhat plausible: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm The first story seems more plausible than the second, but I hope the future looks more like the second.
coldtea 12y ago
>I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. The problem is accelerating technology doesn't make the world automatically better either. It can also make it patently worse. E.g, someone presses the red button, and here's a nuclear war. Or some idiot gets access to viruses, and here's a bio attack that wipes out half the population. It's technology that will have enabled both. Actually, the number of people that have died in World War I and II (from the mustard gas to Belsen and from Dresden to Hiroshima) is already tens of millions -- all due to improved technological efficiency. Compared to that kind of harm to the whole of humanity, some people getting an "artificial heart", a guy walking on the moon, and being able to exchange IMs with WhatsApp on one's mobile is not that much of an balance at all. Just something to keep in mind, lest someone thinks technology is all just "embetterment". >People holding unionized or otherwise protected jobs are rent-seekers (albeit on a smaller scale than large companies in regulated industries). Rent seekers do not make the world a better place. Quite the opposite. Protected jobs stop the madness of everything going forward for the sake of going forward, and ask for real improvements to the lives and treatment of real people. It's only a problem when the protection is to a small subclass of people, instead of extending to all workers. We have the 8-hour work day (well, had), we've had booming middle classes, and we've had safety laws and child labor laws because of those "unions" and protests. America was better in the fifties, middle class wise, when unions were strong, compared to what it's now.
- sirkneeland 12y ago
  It didn't hurt that in the 50s American industry was reaping the benefits of having blown their industrial competitors to smithereens just a few years earlier. I can offer all the benefits you want if the odds of my products' prices being undercut by a competitor are roughly zero.
  - coldtea 12y ago
    >I can offer all the benefits you want if the odds of my products' prices being undercut by a competitor are roughly zero. Sweden, Denmark and co seem to be able to offer "all the benefits you want" (and them some) even with lots of competitors being able to undercut them. It's not like a country is like a shop in a commercial street with competing shops around it, and only the rules of competition hold. There are also laws we make and consciously shaping on the environment we operate on. Like, say, tarrifs and subsidies. And it's funny that those are taboo in America, when most of the success of the American economy is the result of a sort of "subsidy" of having a huge military presence and diplomatic pressure (not to mention the actual huge subsidies, to farmers, Detroit, Wall Street et co, shadowing any "socialist" country's GDP spending).
phillmv 12y ago
>I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, On that note, Graeber is fun to read on this topic http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ >I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. Well… that depends on the distribution of income, doesn't it? If my choice is between Elysium and the world of today, I'd rather stay put thank you very much. The key criticism here is that there is a vast legal and cultural machinery in place that overwhelmingly benefits those who already have some form of wealth and that it is this class of people who disproportionately benefit - to the detriment of non capital holders. I'm willing to accept a techno utopia where _everyone_ benefits and not one in which all the efficiency gains automation has to give accrue to a lucky few.
- MaysonL 12y ago
  Of course, you should take that Graeber article with a few grains of salt, given that he also wrote this: Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages
IvyMike 12y ago
> we could find new and better things for those people to do I do not think this is universally true.
- rdl 12y ago
  I don't think we could necessarily say "hey everyone, do whatever you want" and get more productivity out of most people, but I do think a lot of people would be happier, even if less productive. If we can enslave atoms/the sun/computers/etc., and use the surplus from that to let some people be less productive than they otherwise would be if forced, but at the same time let other people be massively more productive than if forced to cover basic subsistence, we might be better off. (I'd sure prefer if "the next Einstein" got to work in a cushy academic/office job while doing his thinking on the side, than if he were working 20h/day in a coal mine to support himself, leaving no time for anything else.) So I'd use "better" in the sense of "people would individually be happier", and also that the absolute returns might be higher overall -- mainly because a billion people receiving a small subsidy on net productivity which trends toward zero actual cost are insignificant cost compared to be benefit of some thousands or hundreds of thousands being massively productive rather than a tiny bit net productive.

by rdl 12y ago

corford 12y ago

I don't think that's really the point of al3x's post. I think it's more we should be very worried that someone with such a balck & white, infantile view of society and economy is in a position to throw billions of dollars at advancing his world view. I love technology but fear for the world we'll end up with if people like pmarca are left to pull the levers.

rdl 12y ago
I would sure rather have pmarca pulling the levers rather than people like {politicians, bankers, ...}.
- edwinnathaniel 12y ago
  What makes you think pmarca is different than {anybody with lots of money and are human being with desires}
  - rdl 12y ago
    He's fundamentally a nerd, and optimistic about humanity. That's enough to be better than 95% of people in power.
    - mattgreenrocks 12y ago
      That sounds like you presume he's like you, so he's OK.
      - rdl 12y ago
        That's actually wrong. I'm not optimistic about humanity. pmarca seems to be, which is why I like reading him (and Thiel, etc.), even though I don't totally believe everything they say. I think the world would be better with more pmarcas, though. I may be a nerd, but I'm willing to bet basically everyone on HN shares that trait.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- cariss 12y ago
  He isn't backed by the coercive power of the state, for one thing.
  - steveklabnik 12y ago
    Owners of capital and private property don't rely on the coercive power of the state to maintain their ownership? News to me.
- corford 12y ago
  How about neither of the above :) I'd prefer that.
wutbrodo 12y ago
I'm genuinely curious why you think that he has a black and white view of society. It seems like the one-dimensional, black-and-white technocrat view you're ascribing to him wouldn't be in full support of "creating an sustaining a vigorous social safety net", right? The only arguments I've ever heard against "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" are the kind of blatantly cynical strawmen used in the article: > Meanwhile, we don’t need to wait until a hypercapitalist techno-utopia emerges to do right by our struggling neighbors. We could make the choice to pay for universal health care, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow. Instead, you’re kicking the can down the road and hoping the can will turn into a robot with a market solution. Isn't that Andreessen's whole fucking point? From reading his remarks, it seems evident that he _does_ think that we should "vote to pay for universal healthcare, higher education, and a basic income tomorrow". Who the hell said anything about _waiting_ for a hypercapitalist utopia? And how the hell is a "vigorous social safety net" hypercapitalist?
- corford 12y ago
  My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. No one is hampering technological progress. Instead a lot of people are (correctly imho) not willing to blindly succumb to it on a promise from those at the top that it will all work out in the end. Everyone is a stake holder in society and entitled to their own fears, hopes and beliefs. pmarca has his, the guy about to be replaced by a robot does too. A responsible society listens to both and figures out an equitable compromise. The problem is pmarca has billions of dollars available to bolster his position in the debate. The guy on the factory flaw does not. A second problem (for me at least) is that what pmarca says and what pmarca does often appear to be two different things.
  - wutbrodo 12y ago
    > My feeling is "Don't hamper technological progress but provide a robust safety net to take care of those left behind" is itself a straw man. > No one is hampering technological progress. I'm sorry, but this could not be more wrong. This is what the entire conversation is _about_. Protecting jobs that do things less efficiently (higher cost, lower output, worse quality by some other metric, whatever) is a HUGE topic of discussion and something that a lot of the country still thinks makes sense[1], despite the fact that it transfers wealth from arbitrary consumers (even the poor) to arbitrary workers (regardless of income), and destroys wealth overall. I've yet to hear a single credible argument for why this is not infinitely worse than maximizing the total amount of wealth (by using the best tool for each job, be it robots or workers) and then explicitly redistributing it the way we want (so transfers will come from e.g. the rich and go to those who need it, like the poor and the sick). The arbitrary, untargeted welfare system that protecting inefficient jobs entails is obviously going to give you a lot more people receiving transfers who don't need it (i.e. middle-to-high income) and a lot more people losing wealth who do need it (consumers who have low incomes). It is a very important point (and one that I've given a lot of thought to) that obsoleting people's jobs _requires_ the robust safety net for them (which we simply don't have in the US), and going full-speed ahead with technology while failing to implement the safety net can be dangerous. That's just an argument for pushing that much harder for a robust safety net (which is something any reasonable person in the US has been doing for decades, at least). Even this distinction is irrelevant when we're talking about someone's view of what the optimal solution would be: you start from an optimal solution (don't intentionally gimp productivity, use the gains from higher productivity to provide a safety net for those who get left behind) and then try to push it through the layers of politics etc that's required to get it actually working. Shouting it down at the ideas phase is just gonna end up with a system where [1] c.f. all the complaints about replacing workers with robots in factories etc

sanderjd 12y ago

> I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, and we could find new and better things for those people to do I agree with you, but I won't share your optimism until I start seeing way more ideas for what this future would look like that are way less hand-wavy than what I've seen so far. Vonnegut's "Player Piano" feels a lot more familiar than Star Trek's no-scarcity-or-need-to-work-but-everything-is-amazing.

ericd 12y ago
This is an interesting vision. Not concrete in a lot of ways, but you a lot of the core ideas seem at least somewhat plausible: http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm The first story seems more plausible than the second, but I hope the future looks more like the second.

coldtea 12y ago

>I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. The problem is accelerating technology doesn't make the world automatically better either. It can also make it patently worse. E.g, someone presses the red button, and here's a nuclear war. Or some idiot gets access to viruses, and here's a bio attack that wipes out half the population. It's technology that will have enabled both. Actually, the number of people that have died in World War I and II (from the mustard gas to Belsen and from Dresden to Hiroshima) is already tens of millions -- all due to improved technological efficiency. Compared to that kind of harm to the whole of humanity, some people getting an "artificial heart", a guy walking on the moon, and being able to exchange IMs with WhatsApp on one's mobile is not that much of an balance at all. Just something to keep in mind, lest someone thinks technology is all just "embetterment". >People holding unionized or otherwise protected jobs are rent-seekers (albeit on a smaller scale than large companies in regulated industries). Rent seekers do not make the world a better place. Quite the opposite. Protected jobs stop the madness of everything going forward for the sake of going forward, and ask for real improvements to the lives and treatment of real people. It's only a problem when the protection is to a small subclass of people, instead of extending to all workers. We have the 8-hour work day (well, had), we've had booming middle classes, and we've had safety laws and child labor laws because of those "unions" and protests. America was better in the fifties, middle class wise, when unions were strong, compared to what it's now.

sirkneeland 12y ago
It didn't hurt that in the 50s American industry was reaping the benefits of having blown their industrial competitors to smithereens just a few years earlier. I can offer all the benefits you want if the odds of my products' prices being undercut by a competitor are roughly zero.
- coldtea 12y ago
  >I can offer all the benefits you want if the odds of my products' prices being undercut by a competitor are roughly zero. Sweden, Denmark and co seem to be able to offer "all the benefits you want" (and them some) even with lots of competitors being able to undercut them. It's not like a country is like a shop in a commercial street with competing shops around it, and only the rules of competition hold. There are also laws we make and consciously shaping on the environment we operate on. Like, say, tarrifs and subsidies. And it's funny that those are taboo in America, when most of the success of the American economy is the result of a sort of "subsidy" of having a huge military presence and diplomatic pressure (not to mention the actual huge subsidies, to farmers, Detroit, Wall Street et co, shadowing any "socialist" country's GDP spending).

phillmv 12y ago

>I'd love to see virtually all crappy jobs today disappear, On that note, Graeber is fun to read on this topic http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ http://www.strikemag.org/bullshit-jobs/ >I cannot imagine retarding technology just to preserve existing jobs being a winning strategy which makes the world better. Well… that depends on the distribution of income, doesn't it? If my choice is between Elysium and the world of today, I'd rather stay put thank you very much. The key criticism here is that there is a vast legal and cultural machinery in place that overwhelmingly benefits those who already have some form of wealth and that it is this class of people who disproportionately benefit - to the detriment of non capital holders. I'm willing to accept a techno utopia where _everyone_ benefits and not one in which all the efficiency gains automation has to give accrue to a lucky few.

MaysonL 12y ago
Of course, you should take that Graeber article with a few grains of salt, given that he also wrote this: Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages

IvyMike 12y ago

> we could find new and better things for those people to do I do not think this is universally true.

rdl 12y ago
I don't think we could necessarily say "hey everyone, do whatever you want" and get more productivity out of most people, but I do think a lot of people would be happier, even if less productive. If we can enslave atoms/the sun/computers/etc., and use the surplus from that to let some people be less productive than they otherwise would be if forced, but at the same time let other people be massively more productive than if forced to cover basic subsistence, we might be better off. (I'd sure prefer if "the next Einstein" got to work in a cushy academic/office job while doing his thinking on the side, than if he were working 20h/day in a coal mine to support himself, leaving no time for anything else.) So I'd use "better" in the sense of "people would individually be happier", and also that the absolute returns might be higher overall -- mainly because a billion people receiving a small subsidy on net productivity which trends toward zero actual cost are insignificant cost compared to be benefit of some thousands or hundreds of thousands being massively productive rather than a tiny bit net productive.