[breuleux]

In the past, human workers were displaced. The value of their labour for certain tasks became lower than what automation could achieve, but they could still find other things to do to earn a living. What people are worrying about here is what happens when the value of human labour drops to zero, full stop. If AI becomes better to us at everything, then we will do nothing, we will earn nothing, and we will have nothing that isn't gifted to us. We will have no bargaining power, so we just have to hope the rich and powerful will like us enough to share.

[CamperBob2]

If anything like that had actually happened in the past, you might have a point. When it comes to what happens when the value of human labor drops to zero, my guess is every bit as good as yours.

I say it will be a Good Thing. "Work" is what you call whatever you're doing when you'd rather be doing something else.

[breuleux]

The value of our labour is what enables us to acquire things and property, with which we can live and do stuff. If your labour is valueless because robots can do anything you can do better, how do you get any of the possessions you require in order to do that something else you'd rather be doing? Capitalism won't just give them to you. If you do not own land, physical resources or robots, and you can't work, how do you get food? Charity? I'd argue there will need to be a pretty comprehensive redistribution scheme for the people at large to benefit.

[nuancebydefault]

What we see through history is that human labour cost goes up and machine cost goes down.

Suppose you want to have your car washed. Hiring someone to do that will most likely give the best result: less physical resources used (soap, water, wear of cloth), less wear and tear on the car surface and less pollution and optionally a better result.

Still the benefit/cost equation is clearly in favor of the machine when doing the math, even when using more resources in the process.

What is lacking in our capitalist economic system is the fact of hiring people to perform services is punished by much higher taxes compared to using a machine, which is often even tax deductible. That way, the machine brings only benefits to the user of the machine (often a more wealthy person), less much to society as a whole. If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.

[CamperBob2]

If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.

We did. Save up a few bucks, nothing out of reach, and (as you suggested yourself!) you can afford to buy your own machine. Here you go: https://xcancel.com/carrigmat/status/1884244369907278106

You'd have received no such largesse from the Marxists. You're welcome.

[Capricorn2481]

Forgetting the offhand implication that $6,000 is not out of reach for anyone, this will do nothing. If we're really taking this to its natural conclusion, that AI will be capable of doing most jobs, companies won't care that you have an AI. They will not assign you work that can be done with AI. They have their own AI. You will not compete with any of them, and even if you find a novel way to use it that gives you the gift of income, that won't be possible for even a small fraction of the population to replicate.

You can keep shoehorning lazy political slurs into everything you post, but the reality is going to hit the working class, not privileged programmers casually dumping 6 grand so they can build their CRUD app faster.

But you're essentially arguing for Marxism in every other post on this thread, whether you realize it or not.

[CamperBob2]

Yeah, there's always some reason why you can't do something, I guess... or why The Man is always keeping you down, even after putting capabilities into your hands that were previously the exclusive province of mythology.

Perhaps other sites beckon.

[Vampiero]

> If only someone could find a solution to this tragedy.

Well, someone earlier in the thread said to abandon Marxist thought because it's obsolete. So I don't know how to help you!

[nuancebydefault]

I prefer to not use -ist's and -ism's. I read that Marx wrote he was not a Marxist. Surely his studies and literature got used as a frame of reference for a rather wide set of ideologies. Maybe someone with a deeper background on the topic can chime in with ideas?