Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

green_meklar t1_j0aajem wrote

Reply to comment by 0913856742 in The problem isn’t AI, it’s requiring us to work to live by jamesj

>What happens if the type of labour you have to sell does not pay you enough to survive

Then why doesn't it? How did you get into that sort of situation?

>the labour that you are most adapt at / talented at / interested in pursuing, are economically unviable

That would be unfortunate but I don't see how it creates any obligation on the part of anyone else, much less AI companies specifically, to pay taxes just to increase your work options. There's a big missing gap in reasoning there.

>Or what happens when technology has advanced to the point where you don't need everyone to work in order to provide the means of survival?

That depends how we choose to run our economy. Which is my point: The article's suggestions about how the economy works and how we should run it don't seem to be well thought out. Beyond that, if you have a specific line of thought stemming from this, I think you'll have to spell it out explicitly because I can't guess where you're going with this (or if I do, it'll probably be a very uncharitable guess).

>If in my city there simultaneously exist hundreds of vacant properties for lease and who knows how many homeless people who will die this winter due to exposure, don't you feel there is something flawed about this system?

Very much. However, 'our current stupid system' and 'the stupid system suggested by the OP's article' do not constitute an exhaustive list of options.

1

0913856742 t1_j0afofr wrote

> Then why doesn't it? How did you get into that sort of situation?

Journalism. Teaching. Parenting.

>That would be unfortunate but I don't see how it creates any obligation on the part of anyone else, much less AI companies specifically, to pay taxes just to increase your work options. There's a big missing gap in reasoning there.

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. How much stress, mental illness, and wasted human potential is that?

>(or if I do, it'll probably be a very uncharitable guess).

>...

>Very much. However, 'our current stupid system' and 'the stupid system suggested by the OP's article' do not constitute an exhaustive list of options.

Instead of being snide, why don't you just say what you think?

You seem to be very eager to blame the individual instead of examining the problems inherent in our current economic system.

1

green_meklar t1_j0ra3fu wrote

>Journalism. Teaching. Parenting.

That doesn't really answer the question.

>How much stress, mental illness, and wasted human potential is that?

You're not addressing my point. You don't have to like stress, mentall illness or wasted potential, I don't like it either, but I don't see how that would automatically create obligations on the part of anyone else. (Besides your parents insofar as they created you and consigned you to some sort of existence in the world.)

>Instead of being snide, why don't you just say what you think?

I did say what I think. The article presented some reasoning that didn't make sense to me and I pointed out why it didn't make sense.

>You seem to be very eager to blame the individual instead of examining the problems inherent in our current economic system.

I'm quite interested in examining the problems, I've examined the problems plenty, however it turns out that the principles and solutions are counterintuitive and the vast majority of people would prefer to perpetuate bad (but intuitive and cathartic) ideological nonsense instead. That's why it's important for people to work through the problems themselves and understand what's going on, rather than just listening to more propositions thrown around out of context.

I don't really see how I was 'blaming the individual', other than blaming the article writer for posting bad ideas about economics, of course.

0