But I’m sure somebody will blow this off as “it’s only three examples and is not really representative”
But if it is representative…
“then it’s not as bad as other automation waves”
or if it is as bad as other automation waves…
“well there’s nothing you can do about it”
Anecdotally I was in an Uber yesterday on the way to a major Metropolitan airport and we passed a Waymo. I asked the Uber driver how they felt about Waymo and Uber collaborating and if he felt like it was a threat to his job.
His answer was basically “yes it is but there’s nothing anybody can do about it you can’t stop technology it’s just part of life.”
If that’s how people who are being replaced feel about it, while still continuing to do the things necessary to train the systems, then there will be assuredly no human future (at least not one that isn’t either subsistence or fully machine integrated) because the people being replaced don’t feel like they have the capacity to stand up to it.
The world changes and jobs cease to exist. Historically there hasn't been a great deal of support for those who lose their jobs to change.
While there are issues that are AI specific, I don't feel as if this is one of them. This happens for many reasons, of which AI is just one. In turn, I think this means that the way to address the problem of job loss should not be AI soecific.
If it turns out that AI does not create more jobs than are lost; that will be a new thing. I think that can happen, but on a longer timeframe.
When most jobs can be done by AI, we will need a societal change to deal with that. That will be where people need a livelihood, not necessarily a job. I have read pieces nearly a hundred years old saying this, there are almost certainly much earlier writings that identify this needs to be addressed.
There will undoubtedly be a few individuals that will seek to accumulate wealth and power who aim to just not employ humans. I don't think that can happen on a systemic scale because it would be too unstable.
Two of the things that supports wealth inequality is 1) people do not want to risk what they currently have, and 2) they are too busy surviving to do anything about it.
A world where people lose their jobs and have no support results in a populace with nothing to lose and time to act. That state would not last long.
We change the world. It's not happening to you; you're doing it. You're doing it right now with your parent comment - you're not an observer on the sideline, you're in the thick of it, doing it, your every action - my every action - has consequences. Who will we be in our communities and societies?
> I have read pieces nearly a hundred years old saying this
You can read pieces 100 years old talking about famine, polio, Communist and fascist dictatorships, the subordination of women, etc. We changed the world, not by crying about inevitability but with vision, confidence, and getting to work. We'd better because we are completely responsible for the results.
Also, inevitability is a common argument of people doing bad things. 'I am inevitable.' 'Human nature is ...' (nature being inevitable). How f-ing lazy and utterly irresponsible. Could you imagine telling your boss that? Your family? I hope you don't tell yourself that.
You’re shouting into the wind friend - My post even told you that would be the response “there’s nothing we can do”
Humans are reactive and antisocial so the idea of a “common good” would require two things humans can’t do: Create sustainable commons and act as though we are all equal
Any position that assumes it’s possible is not even aspirational it’s naive
Look at all the things that have been done and are done. I can look at my life, as can most others (and hopefully, you too). If that's not your experience, I promise you there is far better out there - not perfect, but good and better.
> Humans are ... antisocial
The well-established facts are that Homo sapiens and related species are 100% social animals; we live in groups and do not survive alone. We're not like wolves or bears; chimpanzees live in groups, not alone in the jungle. Our means of living, surviving, and thriving are all built for doing it only in groups, including empathy, cooperation, and altruism - universal human traits. (We even like to talk with strangers from unknown locations whom we'll never meet!) Isolated humans suffer severe mental breakdowns, such as in solitary confinement (which is considered torture).
Why do people like to argue for social nihilism and isolation? It's hard to name any respected leader or scholar who has claimed it - among leaders, even the worst murderers claim to do it for social good. For some people arguing nihilism/isolation may be externalizing fear or trauma and especially a feeling of isolation, a very human and social thing way to process those things (though there are healthy ways). Sometimes people want to seem or feel more serious or stronger by saying something more dangerous or dark.
Regardless, as I said, our discussion isn't idle speculation. We are actors; our words have impact; we are responsible for the impact we have on the people around us, our communities, our world. Again, who will we be?
I don't want to speculate or cross bounderies, but if you feel that dark and isolated I have good, but challenging news: Despite what some loud voices of the time say - people relentlessly seeking power and saying anything, no matter how absurd, to get it - we are social, humans have good instincts (and bad ones), and we thrive by embracing the good ones.
Freedom and democracy trust in our good instincts (which must be why its enemies promote nihilism), and have produced societies unmatched in freedom, justice, prosperity, and safety. Part of that is the ability to cooperate on a large scale - a consequence of building on good instincts: look at NATO, an alliance held together by its values, by trust and cooperation, and the most powerful military force in the world by far.
> The well-established facts are that Homo sapiens and related species are 100% social animals
You are 100% correct. I was collapsing a concept too far for the metaphor. The more precise way I should have days it was:
“Humans aren’t eusocial”
It’s going to require the whole of humanity to shed the tribal affiliations in order to survive the transition to the post human world. The human species can’t expand our cortexes fast enough to becoming eusocial and so can be modeled as antisocial on the scale necessary to maintain anything but the remnants of a species.
Also to be clear I don’t personally feel in a dark or whatever place that you’re describing. I am a beautiful family and thriving friend groups and extremely engaging work I’m actively causing all of this to happen so I’m telling you this is a warning not because I’m trying to argue with you I’m telling you what’s happening and you should do something to prevent it.
I’m simply saying if you desire for the plurality of humanity to be the primary driver for action on the planet, then humans need to organize at the scale required to manage the global externalities of the machine automation wave that is going to absolutely decimate the majority of the population inside capitalism.
That is not my opinion that is a fact of life and until people recognize that it’s going to be a absolute bloodbath both metaphorically and literally between capital powered by robotic forces/ labor and the rest of people who have no work and are unable to survive in such a society.
There is totally something you can do. There are so many things you can do. The only thing that you can't do is go back to the way things were.
That technology advances and that causes issues is inevitable, but we can't go back. What we can do is work towards adapting the world as it develops into something we want.
If you took my post to mean there is nothing we can do then perhaps you missed the phrases "address the problem of job loss" or "we will need a societal change" or "this needs to be addressed".
> The only thing that you can't do is go back to the way things were.
I totally agree.
> That technology advances and that causes issues is inevitable
That such things happen is inevitable. But we can control how it advances, and what issues and trade-offs we face.
See above regarding 'inevitability'. It also strikes me as a way to avoid making a specific claim and supporting it - it's like invoking a higher power.
There will always be value in doing work that other people don't want to do themselves or that requires expertise and skill that isn't conveyed all that well through books or pictures. The economy used to be full of stable masters for horses and carriages, and manual typists, and street lamp lighters, and television repairmen, and any number of jobs that don't exist anymore.
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/i-was-forced-to-use-ai-u...
I bookmarked the series which looks exactly like what everyone in tech is saying ISN’T happening:
https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/s/ai-killed-my-job
But I’m sure somebody will blow this off as “it’s only three examples and is not really representative”
But if it is representative…
“then it’s not as bad as other automation waves”
or if it is as bad as other automation waves…
“well there’s nothing you can do about it”
Anecdotally I was in an Uber yesterday on the way to a major Metropolitan airport and we passed a Waymo. I asked the Uber driver how they felt about Waymo and Uber collaborating and if he felt like it was a threat to his job.
His answer was basically “yes it is but there’s nothing anybody can do about it you can’t stop technology it’s just part of life.”
If that’s how people who are being replaced feel about it, while still continuing to do the things necessary to train the systems, then there will be assuredly no human future (at least not one that isn’t either subsistence or fully machine integrated) because the people being replaced don’t feel like they have the capacity to stand up to it.