Yes i completely agree with this. As many employer say to employees this can be done by AI then what is the use of you guys. These kind of situtation are there
But are they wrong? Should a warehouse have guys carrying around boxes on their back or have a forklift? How many people really want to carry boxes for a job for minimum wage?
Every tool for thousands of years has eliminated jobs. I don’t think the quality of life is down, compared to say the dark ages.
> How many people really want to carry boxes for a job for minimum wage?
There are a lot of people outside the realms of "HN" and adjacent lands for whom having any kind job is necessary for survival.
> Should a warehouse have guys carrying around boxes on their back or have a forklift?
While we can optimize for efficiency -- why should we? for the sake of improved quality of life for those who can already afford it, via an ever increasing wage gap? why do we need to replace them? so a manager can pocket a few extra grand at bonus time? so there can be a few bigger numbers on a spreadsheet somewhere?
what if some of those people end up dying? do you think you could live with that? i know couldn't.
So you would rather promote preventable toil under the theory that there are enough otherwise unemployables that they would literally die otherwise? That there is literally no other useful task that may be performed? I mean we have crumbling infrastructure but strong backs are apparently utterly useless for doing work there....
The rationale sounds a lot more like thought terminating clichés and an emotional rationalization for not wanting to see the world change on you, than any depiction of reality.
> So you would rather promote preventable toil under the theory that there are enough otherwise unemployables that they would literally die otherwise? That there is literally no other useful task that may be performed?
That is absolutely not what i was trying to say.
If you watch any episode of Question Time here in the uk you'll be basically guaranteed to get someone asking about job opportunities. about lost jobs. about the fact that they're struggling to provide for their family because they need a job.
that's what people care about outside of people who have too much money already circles. providing for their family. i care about those people. they want work. they want jobs. they don't want disruption and change and progress. they want stability and to provide for their family.
so, again, why do we need to always optimize for efficiency / the bottom line? why can't we first give a shit about the people who want provide for the family.
Well now the tools are butting up against the limits of what humans can do, and the people they are going to displace aren't just picking up boxes.
Workers who will be replaced now are already specialized and highly educated in a specific skill. Remember when Obama said that displaced miners and factory workers should "learn to code"? Well where do coders and other highly educated knowledge workers go once we get displaced? I am not disparaging miners more just wondering like... can you squeeze much more cognitively and emotionally out of workers?
It feels like we are closing in on the endgame of 100s of years of improving the tools.
As someone trying to hire juniors the danger is this: they all just depend on AI now and don't think for themselves or add anything to it. And I have to tell them, if you just pass through my instructions to an AI you're worth $20/month. You're not even checking the responses. Some take this to heart, some don't. In other words it takes more maturity to realize how to be valuable in the AI world, since education trains people to complete rote tasks and they have to break that mindset to be valuable now.
Every tool for thousands of years has eliminated jobs. I don’t think the quality of life is down, compared to say the dark ages.