Amusing to read the author saying “if you ask everyone on Earth what jobs they’d like to see automated, and take the union of that, it’s everything”, and then read the HN comments and see a worked example precisely demonstrating it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49380336
The future is not: The computers do the boring work and we do the fun work. The future is: the computers do the work and we have hobbies.
> we prefer solipsistic convenience over human relationships
If we would not like to be with other humans, we would not have sex with them, dance with them, play chess with them, go into a restaurant with them, smoke a bong with them, climb on and then basejump from a mountain with them.
>The future is: the computers do the work and we have hobbies.
I highly doubt that. There is no precedent for people being kept around by their rulers, without getting some (real) use out of them. We'be been engineered into existing or not existing with various policies, one child, no abortion etc. We're manufactured as needed, and we mostly exist on a need basis. This isn't a comfy perspective and people tend to not want to see it this way, but that doesn't change it for what it is.
I personally highly doubt we'll all be kept around without people in power getting some real use/benefit out of us as a whole. Way simpler to "accidentally" wipe a good bit of what in their view would then be "useless eaters".
I wish more people would go beyond the "how it looks" and "negative perspective" and think at the actual risk. Especially with no historical precedent for what they are hoping for.
According to Castaneda, what you call a "ruler" is merely a person who has already succumbed to the warrior's second enemy (fear, power, clarity, death). Such failed figures may disrupt the natural flow of things for a time, but ultimately, all that remains of them is a Wikipedia lemma. New tools and environmental conditions, by contrast, have a profound impact on human evolution.
Even assuming the end-state of all this is Trekonomics -- consider the amount of retired folks that generally just sit around and watch TV. I think a massive culture-shift is in order before we can even consider a healthy society consisting of 0 essential employment.
1) We make a list of things all humans without work need daily, to survive.
2) We calculate how many work hours are needed to make these things.
3) We divide these hours by the number of humans who have no work (and therefore can not buy these things).
4) Every one of those humans works that number of hours to get these things.
5) Over time, we improve the workflow, getting the amount of work hours closer towards zero, but people still get the same things.
6) Above that, free markets and luxury, as people desire, with the usual rules keeping the playing field clean.
The difference to the system we have now is that now the system wants (or needs, due to compound interest) people to work AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. My plan wants people to work AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE BUT AS MUCH AS NECESSARY.
... Nope? You're the one telling us that's the future awaiting us thanks to intelligent computers. Figuring out how we're supposed to be going from an increasingly concentrated wealth and power capitalist society to post-scarcity socialism isn't on me. Short of total economic collapse and humanity suddenly doing a 180⁰ and being able to get along on a global scale, why would the billionaires and authoritarian surveillance states currently holding the power willingly decide to let it go for everyone's benefit?
Yes. And I’ll be waiting for you on the terrace of a Dutch coffee shop, gazing at the evening sun over the sea, with a chessboard on the table, a joint in my left hand and a cup of coffee in my right, while jazz plays.
Hard disagree. Most normal people do not want to see others’ jobs automated unless it provides obvious benefits. Nobody likes self-checkout lines, but they’re “automated.” I like talking to interesting Uber drivers.
Pharmacists though? Yeah replace them with face-ID prescription vending machines…
I like self-checkout lines, as do I'm pretty sure most people I know. And I’ve never met a person who consistently enjoys Uber driver conversation; in fact I’ve often seen it used as the canonical example of a human interaction people hate.
People didn't like the early self-checkout machines which were horribly slow and inaccurate. Current models are quite slick and many people prefer them.
>Nobody likes self-checkout lines, but they’re “automated.”
I strongly prefer self-checkout. If self-checkout is available, I will use it. Most people I know have the same preference (to varying degrees, I am a bit extreme in that I will wait for self-checkout even if normal checkout is open and there is no queue).
I like self-checkout lines. I also don't want pharmacists replaced with face-ID prescription vending machines. It's possible that I'm not "normal", but I feel normal.
Maybe someday people will rediscover Frank Herbert's other universe, the ConScientency, and realize how much forward thinking he was (again) with the idea of the "BuSab".
The entire solipsism section rings incredibly false.
> Thus when selling we emphasize human qualities like experience, reputation, trust, relationships, etc., and when buying we want cheap, fast, and convenient.
False. Just obviously false.
> We think of our own work as meaningful, but we think of most everyone else’s work in instrumental terms
Also false!
Every single line becomes drivel because the "truths" the author states in this section should start with "Some percentage of people", if it remotely wants to make grounded propositions.
Amusing to read the author saying “if you ask everyone on Earth what jobs they’d like to see automated, and take the union of that, it’s everything”, and then read the HN comments and see a worked example precisely demonstrating it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49380336
> “Drudgery” and “meaningful work”.
The future is not: The computers do the boring work and we do the fun work. The future is: the computers do the work and we have hobbies.
> we prefer solipsistic convenience over human relationships
If we would not like to be with other humans, we would not have sex with them, dance with them, play chess with them, go into a restaurant with them, smoke a bong with them, climb on and then basejump from a mountain with them.
>The future is: the computers do the work and we have hobbies.
I highly doubt that. There is no precedent for people being kept around by their rulers, without getting some (real) use out of them. We'be been engineered into existing or not existing with various policies, one child, no abortion etc. We're manufactured as needed, and we mostly exist on a need basis. This isn't a comfy perspective and people tend to not want to see it this way, but that doesn't change it for what it is.
I personally highly doubt we'll all be kept around without people in power getting some real use/benefit out of us as a whole. Way simpler to "accidentally" wipe a good bit of what in their view would then be "useless eaters".
I wish more people would go beyond the "how it looks" and "negative perspective" and think at the actual risk. Especially with no historical precedent for what they are hoping for.
According to Castaneda, what you call a "ruler" is merely a person who has already succumbed to the warrior's second enemy (fear, power, clarity, death). Such failed figures may disrupt the natural flow of things for a time, but ultimately, all that remains of them is a Wikipedia lemma. New tools and environmental conditions, by contrast, have a profound impact on human evolution.
Even assuming the end-state of all this is Trekonomics -- consider the amount of retired folks that generally just sit around and watch TV. I think a massive culture-shift is in order before we can even consider a healthy society consisting of 0 essential employment.
Agreed, that will take a few generations. We can start today and tell every kid that the work-all-day-cake is a lie.
Who are we expecting to provide us with that plentiness of time and resources so we get to smoke a bong while they run the world, exactly?
The basic plan (figure out the details yourself):
1) We make a list of things all humans without work need daily, to survive.
2) We calculate how many work hours are needed to make these things.
3) We divide these hours by the number of humans who have no work (and therefore can not buy these things).
4) Every one of those humans works that number of hours to get these things.
5) Over time, we improve the workflow, getting the amount of work hours closer towards zero, but people still get the same things.
6) Above that, free markets and luxury, as people desire, with the usual rules keeping the playing field clean.
The difference to the system we have now is that now the system wants (or needs, due to compound interest) people to work AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. My plan wants people to work AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE BUT AS MUCH AS NECESSARY.
> figure out the details yourself
... Nope? You're the one telling us that's the future awaiting us thanks to intelligent computers. Figuring out how we're supposed to be going from an increasingly concentrated wealth and power capitalist society to post-scarcity socialism isn't on me. Short of total economic collapse and humanity suddenly doing a 180⁰ and being able to get along on a global scale, why would the billionaires and authoritarian surveillance states currently holding the power willingly decide to let it go for everyone's benefit?
Because people die and new people get born, and those will grow up one day playing games with their house roboter.
[dead]
Yes. And I’ll be waiting for you on the terrace of a Dutch coffee shop, gazing at the evening sun over the sea, with a chessboard on the table, a joint in my left hand and a cup of coffee in my right, while jazz plays.
See the guidelines about going for the most charitable interpretation of other people’s comments.
[dead]
Hard disagree. Most normal people do not want to see others’ jobs automated unless it provides obvious benefits. Nobody likes self-checkout lines, but they’re “automated.” I like talking to interesting Uber drivers.
Pharmacists though? Yeah replace them with face-ID prescription vending machines…
I like self-checkout lines, as do I'm pretty sure most people I know. And I’ve never met a person who consistently enjoys Uber driver conversation; in fact I’ve often seen it used as the canonical example of a human interaction people hate.
People didn't like the early self-checkout machines which were horribly slow and inaccurate. Current models are quite slick and many people prefer them.
>Nobody likes self-checkout lines, but they’re “automated.”
I strongly prefer self-checkout. If self-checkout is available, I will use it. Most people I know have the same preference (to varying degrees, I am a bit extreme in that I will wait for self-checkout even if normal checkout is open and there is no queue).
I like self-checkout lines. I also don't want pharmacists replaced with face-ID prescription vending machines. It's possible that I'm not "normal", but I feel normal.
> Pharmacists though? Yeah replace them with face-ID prescription vending machines…
What? Pharmacists are a pretty important failsafe IMO. I trust the pharmacist as much as the doctor, maybe more in some cases.
Maybe someday people will rediscover Frank Herbert's other universe, the ConScientency, and realize how much forward thinking he was (again) with the idea of the "BuSab".
The entire solipsism section rings incredibly false.
> Thus when selling we emphasize human qualities like experience, reputation, trust, relationships, etc., and when buying we want cheap, fast, and convenient.
False. Just obviously false.
> We think of our own work as meaningful, but we think of most everyone else’s work in instrumental terms
Also false!
Every single line becomes drivel because the "truths" the author states in this section should start with "Some percentage of people", if it remotely wants to make grounded propositions.
Who is this absolute misanthrope?