Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

panguardian t1_j0q21u2 wrote

Reply to comment by Emberashh in How would the economies be if AI takes most / all the jobs? by Charming-Coconut-234

This is the standard line. I've researched and sampled studies and there is no data that realistically supports this point. Studies show that robots will take more jobs than it makes.

11

Emberashh t1_j0qdq49 wrote

Which is why I noted that theres going to be growing pains. Just because a robot can take a job doesn't mean its actually appropriate or desirable for one to do so.

−2

Gubekochi t1_j0qfnwt wrote

I'd argue that it most likely is both appropriate and desirable unless human interaction is at the core of the job in question. Society and economy should be reworked so having a job isn't the unique criteria to determine one's worth. We should recognize that human life is inherently valuable and move to a society of leisure where we have more time to connect with friends and family and improve who we are through learning and pursuing our interest/actualization.

TL;DR : fully automated luxury communism

3

Emberashh t1_j0qj22d wrote

>Society and economy should be reworked so having a job isn't the unique criteria to determine one's worth.

Most jobs aren't being taken on that basis to begin with. Economic prudence takes precedent, and its the jobs that get abandoned when economics are no longer a factor that are likely to be at their best automated.

But theres nuance there. Many jobs would only be so readily abandoned because they're managed poorly. The service industry is rife with this, and while robots could replace these jobs, it actually isn't likely going to be desirable to do so, and that would eventually rebalance the industry towards sustainable employment and management practices.

And more than that, theres no shortage of people that do inherently find worth in simply achieving at whatever their job is, and they're not wrong for doing so. These are people that would still be doing their jobs even with all of the economic exploitation that capitalism induces being removed.

And as always, I like to point out that Star Trek got this vision right. Computers and robots do not do everything, and theres a strong cultural bent towards recognizing the inherent value in a humans labor regardless of what it is they're doing.

2

panguardian t1_j0rwbe2 wrote

Depends what you mean by "appropriate or desirable". I believe profit is king in the adoption of automation. If a general purpose robot can be programmed to perform multiple tasks, then I fail to see what will stop business owners embarking on mass automation.

2

Emberashh t1_j0rwl8t wrote

>Depends what you mean by "appropriate or desirable".

On part of society as a whole, not just business owners.

Keep in mind that the idea that these people can't be held accountable is propaganda spread by them. They want you to spend your energy doing anything but hold them responsible. Don't fall for that crap.

1

panguardian t1_j0rytj7 wrote

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean in most of your post.

The decision to begin the process will not be made by society as a whole, because society as a whole is not in a policy-making position.

0

Emberashh t1_j0rzh3p wrote

Its not a question of who gets to decide to begin automating. Its a question of what society is willing to tolerate.

And fyi, your brainwashing is showing yet again in your inability to concieve of the idea that business owners don't get to unilaterally do this.

They'll try, and many will fail when the automation fails to maintain a profitable business or when they're forced to abandon it.

1

panguardian t1_j0so81e wrote

Wow. You descended. Bye.

0

Emberashh t1_j0sobv1 wrote

Yeah Im sure confronting yiur cognitive dissonance is uncomfortable.

2