Submitted by jamesj t3_zlcwu3 in singularity
Clarkeprops t1_j06iv1i wrote
Everyone wants food, shelter, healthcare, education… those things aren’t free. They require other humans to dedicate substantial time into doing
You need to contribute to society, and sometimes the contribution required is going to be something you don’t want to do. This is called a ”job”
rdlenke t1_j075dlp wrote
> You need to contribute to society, and sometimes the contribution required is going to be something you don’t want to do. This is called a ”job”
People are afraid that the jobs available right now aren't going to be a thing, and the few jobs that will exist will be heavily specialized things, requiring higher education, time, and money.
When you spend 20+ years honing a skill for it to be worthless, it is normal to be afraid. Telling people "just work in other things", is simplifying a very big problem. I mean, it's already a big problem right now, specially for the elderly/older people.
Prince_Ire t1_j0ac3dq wrote
Retraining have already shown themselves to not be particularly effective at getting displaced workers new jobs, and that's without the factor that as AI improves, it might well be developed to take over new tasks faster than humans can be retrained.
Clarkeprops t1_j076la8 wrote
You’re partly right, and I have ZERO sympathy for people who are entirely inflexible. And those elderly lived in a time where you didn’t need to finish high school and could afford a house in 5 years. Forgive me if I don’t cry them a river. I’ve had to hustle my whole life and provide value where I’m able and I still struggle.
I think that there should be a limit to how much machines are able to take over, pairing it with attrition. Similar to the automation of Transit systems like the TTC. Trains and stations are already automated. Drivers and attendants aren’t being fired or laid off. They’re just not hiring any extras. Nobody has to lose their job.
That being said, creative destruction isn’t new. 2000 dung shovelers in New York City lost their jobs when they switched to cars from horses. And many other jobs were created in fuel transport, mechanics, and other industries to support the car. Imagine trying to ban cars because someone will lose their job shovelling shit?
rdlenke t1_j079jtl wrote
> I have ZERO sympathy for people who are entirely inflexible
Where I live, there are a lot of older people (55+) still working & struggling. If they lose their jobs, they are simply fucked until death. Not because they are inflexible or incompetent, but because no one wants to hire someone that old. I imagine that this sentiment is common in other countries.
> That being said, creative destruction isn’t new. 2000 dung shovelers in New York City lost their jobs when they switched to cars from horses. And many other jobs were created in fuel transport, mechanics, and other industries to support the car. Imagine trying to ban cars because someone will lose their job shovelling shit?
Well, no, that would be silly. But that's why this kinda of debate is important: how to make progress without fucking the lives of people? Specially considering the scale that we are talking about (where multiple jobs, even high demand jobs, that exist now will be done by A.I, and new jobs created will be few, and heavily specialized).
Unfortunately, not everyone can be an A.I scientist.
> I think that there should be a limit to how much machines are able to take over, pairing it with attrition. Similar to the automation of Transit systems like the TTC. Trains and stations are already automated. Drivers and attendants aren’t being fired or laid off. They’re just not hiring any extras. Nobody has to lose their job.
I agree, this would be ideal. But I really doubt that this will be what happens in a larger scale, and that's what makes me afraid.
Clarkeprops t1_j07abt5 wrote
Part of what can guarantee it is organized labour. The reason the TTC didn’t just fire everyone is the union.
For the record, everyone bitched and moaned about grocery store clerks losing their jobs to machines, and that didn’t really happen. I was at a store the other day that removed the machines. Every grocery store I’ve been to has lots of lanes, with lots of clerks, in addition to the machines.
It would be great if the conversion could be gradual, but anyone that thinks that robots doing auto sector tasks instead of a person is bad…. I just don’t agree with them. Let the robots do it and we’ll do something else. Then everything will cost less for everyone.
0913856742 t1_j07cpzp wrote
That assumes that there will always be 'something else' to do. It also assumes that we should always 'do something else'.
A union also doesn't stop market forces from operating. If there is robotics or software that can do the same amount of work faster / better / cheaper, you will be incentivized to use it - because if you don't, someone else will, and you jeopardize your position in the market. I'd take a Presto card over a warm body sitting at the gate collecting tokens any day, and so would the market.
From the flavour of your other posts, it sounds like you feel work by itself has purpose. Tell me why?
I'm speaking in hypotheticals here, but if your survival needs were met, would you still work?
Clarkeprops t1_j07df3o wrote
Absolutely. I need work for regulation, social connection and I care about my city. AI can never take away every avenue I have to contribute in that way. It might shorten my day a bit… oh no. The horror!
We will never run out of jobs, because our lives will never be too good. There will always be something else to do and some way to provide value. People will always want for something, and people will be there to provide it.
0913856742 t1_j07fhdx wrote
Alright. And from your other post about your current priorities I can see why work has such an important place in your life.
However, you need to understand that this isn't the situation for everyone - that is, many people find their social connections, life structure, and sense of fulfillment outside of what they do for a living. In fact, Gallup has shown over the past two decades that about two thirds of people either felt not engaged or were actively disengaged (i.e. hating) their job. (There is more recent polling data but this is the first graphic I found, which only goes from 2000-2016, but I recall the numbers have remained steady since then)
This is understandable if we concede that most people most of the time only work because they are compelled to, or else they will starve.
I think what OPs article was arguing, and what many other people on this sub would argue, is that this free-market capitalistic system itself is problematic in the face of ever-changing technology that risks squeezing out the human component of labour. The ultimate concern being, how would we survive within this system if we have no labour to sell?
I suppose what I don't understand, is why you conceptualize someone's value as strictly what good or service they can provide someone else?
0913856742 t1_j07adrf wrote
> Forgive me if I don’t cry them a river. I’ve had to hustle my whole life and provide value where I’m able and I still struggle.
What I'm hearing is "I had to suffer, so you must suffer." This is not how we make progress as a society.
What if that was you? What if you worked your whole life, did everything you were supposed to, invested as wisely as you could, and decided to retire sometime between 2019-2022? Well, we know how difficult it would be, because we're living through it right now.
This argument that technology will always create new jobs is limiting and limited. Limiting because it conceptualizes human beings as workers only. Limited because it assumes that the new situation will always be better.
Humans are not infinitely flexible widgets, and nor should they be. I wonder when you are 50 years old, and your job becomes outsourced / automated / made obsolete by technology, will you also be so eager and ready to retrain to the next viable industry? And keep in mind, new jobs that are created through technological advancements tend to require more skills and education, not less, and there's no guarantee that there will be more jobs created, or even a 1:1 replacement. Or maybe you feel it is viable that everybody learn to write code, or everyone should go to trade school, regardless of ability or interest?
Clarkeprops t1_j07bsvy wrote
You’re hearing wrong.
They DID NOT suffer. They lived through the most prosperous time known to humanity and were given more opportunity for wealth than my generation or any other. I can’t speak to any one’s personal experience, but for the boomer generation, that settled.
ALSO, they are responsible for the economic and environmental situation we’re in, so forgive me if I don’t have sympathy for their misfortune that they’re only just now joining me in.
The struggle isn’t new to me so if being better at it gives me an edge for once, I’m going to take it and feel ZERO remorse. It’s the first and maybe the last time I’ll get any kind of edge.
Oh, I’m sorry, “Interest”? Since when does interest play a part in survival? I’m currently unemployed and am looking for plenty of jobs I’m not interested in. I wasn’t aware that beggars can be choosers.
0913856742 t1_j07dleu wrote
I mean, the general tone of this forum is an optimism about the future and how technology could improve all our lives. Given your personal situation I can understand why this may seem like a mirage, given that you are more concerned with your immediate survival needs. I hope you are able to improve your situation.
Clarkeprops t1_j07fci6 wrote
Technology absolutely will improve all our lives as a whole. Even if I stand to be negatively impacted, I’m certain that it’s a net benefit to humanity.
I just feel the need to counter the pushback against creative destruction and the stifling of progress for petty material reasons. I also think most fears are overblown and misplaced.
Same as Y2K. Overblown worry that cost more in panic than it did in inconvenience
ShowerGrapes t1_j06ketf wrote
>You need to contribute to society
who says? no one asked to be born into this shitty system. who decides what level of contribution is "enough"? you clark?
Clarkeprops t1_j06n160 wrote
You’re welcome to exit the system. There are communes everywhere. Funny enough, they have a system that they all agree on that states how much work/contribution is required. Feeding chickens, cleaning up, burying waste… You can’t live anywhere and just be lazy/useless.
If you don’t want to work, who do you expect is going to come feed you?
ShowerGrapes t1_j06w19b wrote
you have to define work differently. it's not just having to do anything a tall. that's not what work is in this context. of course we all have to do things. i make coffee every day. that would be defined as work in your silly argument.
Clarkeprops t1_j06y8ca wrote
No it isn’t. Making yourself coffee isn’t work. Providing a service of value to society is work. If you enjoy it and don’t consider it work, I don’t care. Make art. Care for the sick. Work with kids. Doesn’t matter. If you expect someone to grow your food, repair your utilities, generate your power, and ship your goods, don’t think that nothing is required in return.
Imagine Star Trek. Everyone has a job. Nobody just hangs out in the holodek all day every day.
ShowerGrapes t1_j0701fa wrote
yes they have work to be done but it is independent of where they sleep and the food they eat. they're not making other people rich on the ship. if they're sick, they don't get medical help based on their job. they get fixed, no matter what their job is. just like in star trek, you're right, everyone should have basic needs met and you need to work to get anything else. that's what star treks shows us. star trek isn't a capitalistic utopia.
Clarkeprops t1_j0744yv wrote
Yes. Late stage capitalism is toxic. I’m not saying you should make ANYONE any money. Even just picking up trash 30 hours a week. Do SOMETHING. Fix city benches. Repair books at the library. Repaint playgrounds. Be a kids soccer coach. ANYTHING. Just do a thing for society.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07bbr3 wrote
it's much simpler than that. people WANT to do things, believe it ot not. most people do anyway. they WANT to contribute. they just don't want to be threatened with starvation and homelessness if they don't do what the system deems worthy enough to be granted those things. we just have to find new ways to motivate people that don't include the get-rich scheme of the bullshit "American dream".
Clarkeprops t1_j07ch1f wrote
I disagree. Lots of people don’t want to do anything but self indulgent pursuits. Video games, partying, drinking, eating… nobody wants to be a server and everyone wants to be served.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07d27d wrote
they do that because this system has no place for them. because it's all geared towards profits right now. it's because all we offer is money as a carrot, and exposure and starvation as the stick. there are better and more efficient motivations out there. it just has to be tailored more. personalized. we are in a position where we can do that now our technology has advanced beyond the need of currency. we can even, if we wanted to, preserve a social hierarchy without money, royalty even.
ProfessorUpham t1_j07g52v wrote
/u/ShowerGrapes knows what’s up.
Laziness is neither evil nor inherent to being human. It’s just another thing people do. Robots doing shitty jobs will mean people can focus on tasks that make them happy. In the long term that would reduce laziness.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07mqx3 wrote
and it won't matter if the things people do are marketable or not i.e. are capable of making other people rich or not. we've been missing out because talented people have to work meager, soul-sucking jobs. i'd gladly tip my hat to a few more "lazy" people to have a decent life while gaining new art and philosophy. van Gogh sold exactly one painting to his brother, and the system drove him insane. he persevered anyway but his brand of insanity is the exception, not the norm.
besides, if the nebulous concept of being lazy is a genetic thing, can we really blame people who are lazy for being lazy?
ProfessorUpham t1_j07gqss wrote
I would quit my job and do all of these things if I had my daily material needs met. It makes me cry thinking that I can’t do them. Instead I have to work 9-5 weekdays, and after 20+ years living this way has made me incredibly depressed. You would probably call me lazy, but a well educated psychologist might call me extremely burned out and systematically unmotivated.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07nyea wrote
i'm in the same boat. spent over 20 years in the software engineering industry, making assholes who wouldn't give me the time of day richer, helping to cement the system as it is, glaring problems and all. i am now completely burnt out by it. lately I've been cooking a bit, making barely enough to get by, writing and helping my family and friends and it's been much more rewarding.
everything is geared toward moving up the social, corporate, political and luxury-goods ladders, trading increases in pay for shinier stuff and more glamorous niehborhoods, more expensive toys and fancier clothing. slow down and you appear to be stuck. corporate America is now becoming the norm. because it seems to work for them. that's only because it has an extensive weeding-out process.
Clarkeprops t1_j07rix6 wrote
I wouldn’t call you lazy at all. That’s the whole point of UBI. And under a basic level of conditions, I think it’s a great idea. In practise, the COVID benefits were exploited and millions was defrauded to people that were already millionaires.
It’s a great idea, but in practise it works horribly. So many people cheat. Personally I think that’s why Russia is full of remorseless cheaters. They come from a system where the only way to get enough is be corrupt.
ShowerGrapes t1_j09mfzr wrote
UBI is silly. any number, they'll game the system. instead of ubi, give everyone a place to live (even if it's a shared space, enough food to eat and medical help if they need it. that way the system can't figure out how to "top" your ubi money
Clarkeprops t1_j09rsa2 wrote
But who builds the place, who grows the food? Who pays for all of it?
ShowerGrapes t1_j09w17b wrote
who does it now?
Clarkeprops t1_j0anbkw wrote
The people consuming it.
ShowerGrapes t1_j0bf0t5 wrote
why do you think the same people won't do it?
Clarkeprops t1_j0br89b wrote
Because they’re not capable of building housing and rigging it up to code.
If you want a society of self sufficient non specialists, you get Mennonites.
If you want to live in a mid-high density building in a city, you need concrete engineers, crane operators, plumbers, electricians and about 40 other professions. Their time isn’t free.
Even building a house requires permits, and the land to build it on. Technically you could learn it all yourself and it’s fine if it’s to code, but you’re looking at 200k minimum in property and materials just in the middle of nowhere.
ShowerGrapes t1_j0bs1s6 wrote
you're suggesting the people who currently build houses won't be able to do the same? wtf are you talking about. why would that change? keep all code and all that bullshit. we already have specialists. why would they go away? are you talking about some alternate reality? why would any of that go away?
ShowerGrapes t1_j0bs6hy wrote
>you need concrete engineers, crane operators, plumbers, electricians and about 40 other professions.
we'd still have them. nothing is "free". just like when we always had to do "work" we'll always have systems in place for people to benefit from the work they do. people benefited from the work t hey did before currency was invented. they'll continue to after currency is discarded .
Clarkeprops t1_j0btbia wrote
You just said “give everyone a place to live” like there’s some house printer that can make extras.
Who exactly are you suggesting will be giving the houses, and who will pay for it?
ShowerGrapes t1_j0btlfq wrote
who pays for it now? who makes the houses now? none of it would change. and no, not everyone needs a house. nowhere did i say we should build everyone a house. a place to live isn't necessarily a house. a house is something you'd need to work toward.
Clarkeprops t1_j0f8ge0 wrote
“Give everyone a place to live” -your words
WHO is giving out these places to live?
ShowerGrapes t1_j0g89ui wrote
the same people making houses today, would continue to make them.
Clarkeprops t1_j0gsd53 wrote
You know you’re not answering my question though.
Who is GIVING out these places to live?
ShowerGrapes t1_j0gsq1m wrote
you're talking about the transition from a capitalistic, profit based system to one more humane. i'd imagine the people who most benefited from the system should be the ones to bear responsibility for fixing it.
Clarkeprops t1_j0inbju wrote
Elaborate.
ShowerGrapes t1_j0bt8uo wrote
people seem to think the "economy" as we define it has always existed. there were thousands of years after the invention of organized farming and before the invention of currency where farms were built, houses constructed, innovations made and necessary work done by people with zero hoarding mentality and almost no social hierarchy. before farming, tribes manage to work together for a hundred thousand years without currency and without millionaires.
it's not only possible, it's the original way we did things.
we can have both now. we've reached the point where we can reorganize society. keep the hierarchy for people who want that sort of thing but also eliminate poverty. all we need to do is find new ways to motivate people. it can be done.
Clarkeprops t1_j0f8r45 wrote
We can’t go back to a barter and trade economy. How are you going to pay for your internet? Do a 6 hour shift driving AT&T’s truck for them?
We don’t live in a village with a blacksmith and baker. Todays society can’t ever function without currency
ShowerGrapes t1_j0g84hx wrote
it's true we can't go back to barter and trade but it's also true that with technology today, we no longer need currency to function. we're getting there anyway, by small steps. we're "disrupting" industries, putting people where they need to go, doing what they need to do, what needs to be done. uber, fiverr, etc.
things still need to be done and there's no reason why the people who could do it best and want to do it, will still do it. we can also tie jobs to quality of life, if we wanted to.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07bn6x wrote
that's the reality of why we doin't provide basic necessities to people today: it would be a lot more difficult to hoard wealth and lord over people if the threat of starvation wasn't a motivating factor. you'd have to pay more for your luxuries because people won't be forced to be part of your luxurious lifestyle. where would we get servants from? well, guess what, there are people who WANT to serve. it just isn't money that motivates them.
SnipingNinja t1_j0adl6d wrote
We need a benevolent AI to rule over us all
ShowerGrapes t1_j07bu8s wrote
thank you, this is a better reply at least.
ShowerGrapes t1_j070lyv wrote
i know where you're going with this. you want it to be black and white, either everyone works slaving away at rigidly structured and segmented social ladder of a society or no one does anything at all and everyone just sits on their ass all day.
this is a strawmen. no one is suggesting that. how you reply next will decide whether i keep discussing this with you or not.
Clarkeprops t1_j072l30 wrote
Nope. You definitely don’t know where I’m going with this. No slaving. No rigid structure. No social ladder. Just don’t be a lazy parasite and expect everyone else to work for you. That’s what billionaires do now, and they’re fucking cunts.
If you want input, you should output. You want the benefit of others work? Then find a way to contribute. Don’t want to participate? That’s fine too. Have a house in the middle of nowhere and be self sufficient. No slaving, rigidity, or any of it. Entirely up to you.
ShowerGrapes t1_j073wkl wrote
>Have a house in the middle of nowhere and be self sufficient.
you sound like an entitled shithead. yeah, just go and get a house somewhere. jesus you have no clue.
Clarkeprops t1_j075npf wrote
Oh I’m sorry, does having a house require someone else to build it for you? You mean you don’t know how to do that? I guess you’ll need someone else to put in that hard labour. If only there was a way to provide value and easily exchange that value for other goods and services…
In all seriousness, you currently live somewhere that you didn’t build, and don’t maintain. You don’t generate your own power, or refine your own fuel.
What are you suggesting the new paradigm is? I’m certain you haven’t thought it out at all.
Let’s hear it.
ShowerGrapes t1_j07aupy wrote
yeah i was brought into this fucked up system just like you. did you think i wasn't somehow? did you imagine the system we've been slaving that's existed for thousands of years somehow precludes me? and again, and for the last time, no one is suggesting that people don't have to do a single thing. that's just a straw man argument you want to argue against instead of the reality, and it's a lazy one. your entitled ass can't see past the stuff you were provided with. you're a useless child of rich parents, i can tell.
I'm done with your lazy privileged ass, sorry. wasted enough time on your straw men arguments. you're a shill whether you know it or not. the system helped you and so you're happy with it. you better hope you die before the system is upended because people like you will suffer when it happens. and it's coming. good luck hanging on to your privilege.
0913856742 t1_j078okl wrote
Your analogy isn't exactly applicable - in Star Trek they developed replicator technology which basically meant abundance for all. People totally could hangout on the holodeck all day. It's just that now they have created an environment where everyone who does work wants to be there, there is no need to work. At least, from what we see from the Starfleet point of view. Maybe we just don't see all the people on earth who spend their time in holonovels.
Clarkeprops t1_j0794lc wrote
No, they can’t just hang out. Have you even seen the show? The ship takes constant maintenance by people with a LOT of training.
That’s my point. NOBODY can just hang out. Unless you want to live like a caveman, all of these things around us are the product of someone’s hard work. Even with the craziest AI, it doesn’t just happen. The phone doesn’t just get delivered to your hand. Peoples work is required. People have to put in effort. Why are you an exception?
0913856742 t1_j07bbfv wrote
Friend, you need to calm down. From the tone of your other posts, you sound very angry at something but I have no idea what.
The point I was trying to get across, is that everyone in Starfleet wants to be there, even if there's no monetary reward. In this fictional future, the real prize is social prestige. And that changes everything.
The equivalent would be if someone was developing the next AI system, or the next iPhone, not out of the hope to reap massive profits, but because they felt it was something that could advance the species.
There's a shift from the very narrow goal of profit to the much more grand ideals of improving us as a civilization. That's the difference.
SnipingNinja t1_j0af29e wrote
Imagine if things were made for the sake of public good instead of monetary gains like you said, there wouldn't be any scams, maybe some trolls but not scams, iPhone wouldn't be locked down either, every device would've the best chipset, etc
0913856742 t1_j0afykw wrote
Yeah, and we also could've started addressing climate change decades earlier. Sometimes it feels like the profit motive poisons us both metaphorically and literally.
SnipingNinja t1_j0alsec wrote
For sure, so many problems could've been solved if profit was not the main driver of… everything
ShowerGrapes t1_j09muc4 wrote
the star trek show is about voluntary military service aboard a ship with a strict social hierarchy, it does not represent all life on earth on the show. you don't see every facet of life in the universe on that show either.
replicators give you everything you need and instant travel means everyone is where they want to be at any time of the day and they're doing what they want to be doing. in the future we will figure out how to achieve all this, how to motivate people, basically, without money, we just haven't figure it out yet.
ShowerGrapes t1_j09n2o7 wrote
we could have that future now if we really wanted it
ProfessorUpham t1_j06n1r5 wrote
You seem lost, /u/Clarkeprops
The point of this subreddit (r/singularity) is that AI will one day be smarter than humans. What happens to society after that? We’re here to speculate. The current version of society is kind of irrelevant.
Clarkeprops t1_j06nn6j wrote
It’s not. And there will ALWAYS be work for humans to do. What that is will shift, but jobs will always be a thing. Even in a world like iRobot where all menial tasks are covered, there will be PLENTY for humans to do. Being lazy is and always has been lamentable. There is a way for you to contribute to the society you choose to live in, and opting out makes you a shitty person. Volunteer, make art, care for the elderly, make things for people. Design better ways to do things. Be an activist for change.
All those things are jobs, and not helping out makes you shitty and devoid of value.
Prodigal_Malafide t1_j088ejq wrote
There are a SIGNIFICANT number of jobs out there that only exist because somebody's nephew or SIL needed a job once upon a time. A great many jobs in the corporate world are "empty suits ", that don't actually contribute anything meaningful other than checking a box. These jobs, and many others, do not contribute to society in any waybata all and are, in fact, a net drain. Why do they deserve a high salary for nothing when the actual workers are struggling?
Modern society has never been about how much you contribute. It is only about maintaining the social and economic hierarchies that benefit those in charge.
Clarkeprops t1_j08rz72 wrote
There aren’t that many of those jobs, and they’re often just a form of compensation to some CEO higher up. “I’ll do extra stuff if you give my nephew a job here”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments