[veritas_veritad]

The cant of this article is kind of grossing me out. I don't disagree with the predictions of this, but I reject the notion of people as being "useless" because they can't interface with technology. Such a position is a paperclip maximizer (https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer) of efficiency. There are other worthwhile things.

Are artists useless unless they can produce design? Are "idiot" friends who make us laugh but are generally low-achieving "useless"?

[TechWriterTom]

They are economically useless - not useless as people. In fact, that's kind of the point. Here's a quote from Andreessen that highlights that potential:

“Imagine six, or 10 billion people doing nothing but arts and sciences, culture and exploring and learning. What a world that would be.”

[jimrhods23]

“Imagine six, or 10 billion people doing nothing but arts and sciences, culture and exploring and learning. What a world that would be.”

This kind of reminds me of the people I've met that want to start a company, but don't seem to realize that 99% of it is going to involve tasks that are not fun or enjoyable.

For a successful society, we need people doing work that nobody else wants to do, so we have can have successful artists and people that want to explore.

[TechWriterTom]

I think being a great scientist or artist revolves around doing repetitive tasks that aren't not fun or enjoyable. I believe people want to do difficult jobs, as long as they're meaningful.

[jimrhods23]

True, but what about the jobs that aren't meaningful, but still need to be done? and what about the people that aren't capable of being an artist or a scientist?

[TechWriterTom]

Any job that matters is meaningful. But that still leaves many working a bullshit job. That's no fun. As for people who aren't capable of becoming artists or scientists, which I think would be a small % of people, well I hope they have UBI and can live happily.

[veritas_veritad]

Thanks for the clarification