[4yfr]

It’s not collapsing anything, rather its calling into question the true value of all economic activities.

Which is actually healthy.

The real question is - should society have jobs for the sake of jobs? Or should society go all in on finding the optimal mix of inputs for production? Why not go a step further - what’s the optimal mix of businesses in the economy? Do we really need as many as all that exists?

Frankly software firms have been able to get away with being insanely bloated because of the very favourable economics of the business.

[strogonoff]

What’s this new trend with allegations how people have jobs for the sake of having jobs?

People have jobs because this is an organised way for us to provide value to other humans and give our lives meaning; a way for us to express ourselves; to earn money that puts food on the table and helps raise our children.

[apothegm]

That last one in particular is turning AI into an enemy for a LOT of people, and it’s hard to blame them.

[bluefirebrand]

I am in a sort of soft agreement

I do think that we could stand to work a little less, and probably most people would choose to work less given the option. That said, work is important. People who are chronically unemployed always sort of become broken, in my experience anyways.

[strogonoff]

I do remember that we are promised to work less thanks to this tech, and yet somehow the opposite happens. We have to work more, and we are paid less (if we are able to get a job).

> People who are chronically unemployed always sort of become broken

The causal link may be unclear but I recall there was research showing that at different ages people decline faster once they retire. Sense of purpose is a real thing.

[fluffybucktsnek]

I would argue that only the latter is truly a job. The other points are things we have tied to jobs (like hobbies), but, perhaps, we should strive to decouple from them so that we can pave a way that doesn't need dedicating one self to jobs to survive.