[delichon]

If I replace a crew of ten ditch diggers with one guy and an excavator, I have replaced lower-value human capital with higher-value mechanical capital for that task. Does the replacement enrage you in that case, or just the phrasing?

Should we be using spoons instead of excavators, and abacuses instead of computers, in order to maintain a high value on human capital?

[kennywinker]

Depends, was ditch-digging a well paid job that people enjoyed? Did your business grow 10x and you offered excavator training for those 10 ditch-diggers to become machine operators?

[delichon]

Ditch digging is a crap paying job that most people hate, they just need it for food and stuff. After the mechanical resource arrived, I didn't need the other nine guys and just let them go, since I didn't suddenly get 10x the business. How does that change the calculation? Should I have kept paying them until I could find them work?

[bluefirebrand]

You don't have to keep paying them, but you probably shouldn't sneer down at them and call them "low value human capital" or whatever

[phs318u]

Exactly. What most humans value highly (though not always highest) is being treated with dignity.

[kennywinker]

> Should I have kept paying them until I could find them work?

Yes.

[agentultra]

People might think twice about digging a ditch if they had to do it with a shovel and hard labor. Might appreciate it more. Price a ditch accordingly.

Now we have more ditches than we need, the environmental damage from building the machines, extracting fuel, burning that fuel... never been cheaper to dig a ditch but who the hell needs one? Business shuts down, people lose jobs, the market re-adjusts... but the damage remains.

Capitalism isn't the end of economics. It's certainly not the most efficient means to ensure the needs of everyone are met and that the environment in which we depend is kept safe from destruction. Great at maximizing the production of ditches and paperclips though.

Although technology doesn't necessarily need to displace labor. We didn't invent compilers and stop hiring and training programmers. We hired more programmers. We invented better compilers and new programming languages.

The language that AI folks are using and the choices and policies they support show that they're not philanthropists or even interested in capitalism. They're trying to monopolize their businesses and remove competition. They don't see the value in labor and innovation and competition.

[catigula]

Baby's first Milton Friedman copy paste reductio ad absurdum.

Why have any labor protections whatsoever? Are we to use horses instead of cars?

[delichon]

Yes, I agree with Friedman that excavators are better than spoons. Could you explain why that implies that I'm a baby who opposes all labor protections?

[Henchman21]

You've put 9 people out of work so you can make more money. I think we should send those 9 hungry people round your place for an explanation. Why do you deserve more than anyone else?

It isn't necessarily the language that is the problem, its your transparent motives that place you above others.

[fzeroracer]

Do you view yourself as lower-value human capital? Why or why not?

[delichon]

I am far lower-value capital for tasks like digging ditches, moving things from point to point and proof reading documents than available non-human capital. Now non-human capital out performs me on many more tasks than a few years ago. I don't like it, but don't find it helpful to deny.

[fzeroracer]

I didn't ask if you were lower capital for digging ditches or moving things. I was asking if you were low value for your current job or not. Why shouldn't you be replaced?

It's incredibly easy to make these arguments about how it's good to replace humans until it comes around to you.

[delichon]

It's incredibly easy to presume hypocrisy to avoid engaging with an argument. Yes, I was let go and replaced with nobody, and they now use AI much more heavily. One year ago next week. How does that change the arugment? If that's a hard question it may be easier to presume that I'm lying.

[JohnFen]

> Does the replacement enrage you in that case, or just the phrasing?

Neither. It's the inhuman attitude that people have little inherent value that enrages me.