Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

rdlenke t1_j079jtl wrote

Reply to comment by Clarkeprops in The problem isn’t AI, it’s requiring us to work to live by jamesj

> 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.

8

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.

0

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?

2

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.

1

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?

3