[triceratops]

> And no, automation isn't a panacea either, because an economy not just requires workers to do work, but also people having money to buy things

Automation is the whole reason people have money to buy things. Before we had automation everyone lived on farms and sewed their own clothes. Only noblemen could afford to pay for clothes. Your intuition is plain wrong, I'm sorry.

AI may take away purpose if it takes away literally everyone's jobs. The wealth and productivity of the economy doesn't go away. It becomes more concentrated. De-concentrating it is a political problem.

[mschuster91]

> Automation is the whole reason people have money to buy things. Before we had automation everyone lived on farms and sewed their own clothes. Only noblemen could afford to pay for clothes. Your intuition is plain wrong, I'm sorry.

Every industrial revolution to this day produced insane amounts of job losses and suffering. In fact, that's how we got the labor rights almost a century ago. Affected workers literally got shot up over labor action.

And I'm sick and tired of that cycle always repeating and governments not giving a single shit about helping affected people and redistributing the wealth gain.

[triceratops]

> And I'm sick and tired of that cycle always repeating and governments not giving a single shit about helping affected people and redistributing the wealth gain.

You're right. And I suggested a way to make it happen this time.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48239005

[CamperBob2]

Every industrial revolution to this day produced insane amounts of job losses and suffering.

(Shrug) Things were worse before. That's the part of the argument that the Luddites and their fellow travelers simply can't hand-wave their way out of.

This implies that at every stage, the best choice for the most people was to move ahead with the revolution, instead of trying to stop it.