Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

28nov2022 t1_j5lr182 wrote

Reply to comment by AdorableBackground83 in In case the non physical job apocalypse happens, what will you guys do? by pehnsus

I don't see AI workforce as much different from slave labor. It's free labor, which boosts productivity. Actually, the period which had slavery in the US was one of economic prosperity, not unemployment.

−2

AdorableBackground83 t1_j5lv536 wrote

You’re right. AI will in effect be free labor.

In fact productivity is now inverse to employment. And the more a company automates the more productive capacity they will have. No one is questioning that.

What I (and others) are questioning is how will we be able to financially support ourselves at least in the short term when job opportunities continually become scarce, cost of living expenses continue to rise, and our basic survival gets drawn into question.

Remember most people work jobs they likely hate because they have to get a paycheck to put a roof over their head and put food on the table.

Automation takes away those paychecks. And that’s where the problems I fear will happen if our idiot leaders do nothing to adapt to this new reality.

15

DukkyDrake t1_j5m48x1 wrote

> You’re right. AI will in effect be free labor.

Not possible unless the cost of compute and power is also free. It will be an enormous force multiplier.

8

TheSecretAgenda t1_j5m8xe6 wrote

I don't have much hope. Our current leadership is still having a hard time getting past the idea that the internet is a series of tubes.

6

28nov2022 t1_j5m2g1q wrote

I can't imagine the scenario of everyone being penniless. If productivity increases then GDP will increase too!

There should be enough taxes to provide a safety net and reeducation to those displaced.

Of course no one likes being forced to change job or to depend on the government.

The labor market always evolves, jobs are lost and created, it's just playing in hyper speed because of this new incoming labor force.

3

Nanaki_TV t1_j5mdxxc wrote

This is a common misconception about slavery and why a revolution was unnecessary to end it. It was more feasible and profitable to pay them.

4

28nov2022 t1_j5mi9xo wrote

What? That's a curious theory, why would states fight to defend something that's unprofitable?

I guess it's plausible. The south lagged behind in industrialization. Slave owners maybe became too reliant on their slaves and plantations and so did not develop other industries. As well as paying for slave's needs 24 hours a day for unwilling work, versus paying workers 8 hours a day for good work.

2

Nanaki_TV t1_j5mjy9r wrote

The US was not the only country to have slaves and was one of the few to use violence to end it. It’s complicated and politics of today have muddied the conversations around why the Civil War was fought. It wasn’t merely state’s rights, it wasn’t just slavery. But slavery could have ended with market forces realizing that their laborers were more productive and happy with a fair wage.

4

rixtil41 t1_j5m75s8 wrote

I dought you view the clothes that you ware is a slave to you. If you define a slave is anything that can not give consent that you can apply that to alot of things.

0