Submitted by jamesj t3_zlcwu3 in singularity
rdlenke t1_j075dlp wrote
Reply to comment by Clarkeprops in The problem isn’t AI, it’s requiring us to work to live by jamesj
> 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
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments