Washing machine.
Also, lighter work loads and less time consuming are different arguments - unless you mean no technology has ever resulted in neither, which is a rather bold statement.
Its crazy to me that no one is saying "if rhe AI is doing all the jobs maybe we can spend more time with the family and children we supposedly love."
7 days ago by Daftydux to c/showerthoughts
Fallibilist 47 points 7 days ago
JustPlainDave 45 points 7 days ago
Counterpoint: The cotton gin. It was supposed to make slavery obsolete, but actually reinvigorated the practice of slavery by making slaves able to do more work.
JustPlainDave 16 points 7 days ago
What new job creators?
damnthefilibuster 7 points 7 days ago
Before washing machines, people would hand off washing to professionals. Now the expectation is that the person who can afford it must wash things themselves. More time spent on that.
SchmidtGenetics 14 points 7 days ago
Pretty sure every piece of technology past the wheel can be considered to save humans time with their tasks.
Fallibilist 4 points 7 days ago
Better technology frees more time for other tasks. Whether that's work or leisure depends on the individual. Everyone has the same 24 hours a day independent of how you use them. Most people don't just sit and do nothing. To even suggest that things like an electric stove, washing machine, lawnmower or a bicycle aren't saving people real time on tasks they'd have to do either way is ridiculous.
Mouselemming 3 points 7 days ago
In olden times before washing machines people were expected to change into clean (washed) underclothes daily, and an apron got washed when dirty, but their main clothing went a long time between cleanings. Even longer than the clothes on the chair, like months.
Similarly, expectations of manicured pool-table lawns with the advent of lawnmowers.
Better stoves/ovens I'll totally grant you. I have enough trouble adjusting from my old "runs hot" oven to my new "runs cold" oven, I can't imagine trying to bake a cake in a wood or coal oven.
And the horse that preceded the bicycle took more maintenance, not less.
Valmond 1 point 5 days ago
Seems like we still must work the same amount regardless of how much we'd "like" to do other things though. What you're talking about happened, but happened a long time ago.
SchmidtGenetics 4 points 7 days ago
Why constantly add more tasks? There’s only finite amount of maintenance on a house or things that need to get done.
gandalf_der_13te 1 point 5 days ago
human innovativeness ensures there's always new things that people want to do.
plantfanatic 11 points 7 days ago
Dish washer, laundry washer, laundry drier, lawn mower, a vehicle, there’s thousands dude.
wonderingwanderer 2 points 7 days ago
All things that save time at home, not at work.
plantfanatic 4 points 7 days ago
Do people not do laundry for work? Mow lawns? Drive? Anything you could use for personal use can also help with work… what about a restaurant? No washing machines there apparently….
Do you have any specific examples that are solely “home saving” pieces of technology? Or do other peoples jobs not exist past your desk?
wonderingwanderer 0 points 7 days ago
The whole point is that those technologies don't save the workers time at all, because the time saved just gets filled up with more work. The business owners are the one who benefit from the increased productivity, not the workers.
The workers don't get more free time as a result of the technology. In many cases, they take a pay cut because the technology makes their job "easier" or "less skilled." So they still work 8 or more hours a day, and they still make barely enough to get by on (if they even make that much), while their boss only gets richer for their efforts.
This is the entire point that seems to be going over your head.
[Edit: "easier" and "less skilled" were in scare-quotes because they don't represent my personal point of view, but it's how the employers justify it. Thought that would be obvious.]
hyperion626 7 points 7 days ago path: 0 26171668 26172135 26172275 26176259, hotness: undefined, score: 7, children: 3
kestrel7_7 2 points 7 days ago
Tbh scythes are pretty fun to use.
plantfanatic 3 points 7 days ago
Is there a piece of technology that doesn’t?
Even making your own wheel would cost your time first…
Sordid_Seraphim 5 points 7 days ago
_When you don't actually read what the person your responding to said. _
Sordid_Seraphim 2 points 7 days ago
Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming
I can't speak on their behalf but I do agree, what does actually improve things is labor laws because otherwise they're just going to do more work at a higher efficiency.
kestrel7_7 4 points 7 days ago
This is a good point, and it's often much longer workhours. People used to have to stop when it got dark, because candles and oil lamps were too expensive, but not with electric lights. Mules refuse to work more than about six hours a day, but trucks will keep going as long as you refuel them.
tburkhol 18 points 7 days ago
Exactly. The system is set up so that people work for barely enough to survive. Introducing better tools doesn't give labor more free time, it gives their bosses more money. We've seen this with every technology since the cotton gin now: that's why no one imagines that AI will give people more time with their families.
surewhynotlem 10 points 7 days ago
Then supply and demand must follow.
Demand for human labor lowers. So they hire fewer people and capture the savings themselves.
It's never about spending more time with the family. It's all about paying less for labor.
JoMiran 3 points 7 days ago
I worked my way out of poverty so although I agree with you, I think the wording needs specificity.
You cannot work your way out of poverty by working harder at a poverty job. You have to switch jobs and grow your skill set until you become a valuable enough commodity to trigger competition for you.
That just gets you out of poverty.
rockSlayer 70 points 7 days ago
AI is meant to automate the boring stuff so we can make art and write stories. Instead, it's been used to make art and write stories so all we're left with is the boring stuff
rockSlayer 39 points 7 days ago
The ruling class doesn't care.
JustPlainDave 18 points 7 days ago
It's a tool used by lazy and/or untalented people to take work from actual artists.
ReCursing -6 points 7 days ago
No it isn't. Well it is but lazy and untalented people have been doodling for ever, actually creative and talented people are using it too. And no, I'm not going to "prove it" because whatever I post you will say it's crap, even if it's actually by Picasso.
JustPlainDave 6 points 7 days ago
Doodling isn't lazy. You're actively creating art whether it's good or not. AI cannot create art, it can only copy art. If I copy Picasso, should my "art" be respected the same as Picasso's?
I am an artist, went to school for it and everything. You wouldn't be able to "prove it" because I actually know art. AI "art" isn't creative, it's just worse mimicking than a person could do.
blackshirt 4 points 6 days ago
Greed, greed ruins everything.
GraniteM 2 points 5 days ago
Suppose that, at a given moment, a certain number of people are engaged in the manufacture of pins. They make as many pins as the world needs, working (say) eight hours a day. Someone makes an invention by which the same number of men can make twice as many pins as before. But the world does not need twice as many pins: pins are already so cheap that hardly any more will be bought at a lower price. In a sensible world, everybody concerned in the manufacture of pins would take to working four hours instead of eight, and everything else would go on as before. But in the actual world this would be thought demoralizing. The men still work eight hours, there are too many pins, some employers go bankrupt, and half the men previously concerned in making pins are thrown out of work. There is, in the end, just as much leisure as on the other plan, but half the men are totally idle while half are still overworked. In this way, it is insured that the unavoidable leisure shall cause misery all round instead of being a universal source of happiness. Can anything more insane be imagined?
--Bertrand Russell, In Praise of Idleness
BetaDoggo_ 4 points 5 days ago
This is about it. If you can produce 2x output per worker you're not going to give each worker half days, you're going to cut down your workforce until supply once again matches demand. As this cycle repeats jobs become more and more competitive as workers fight for placements at these more efficient firms. They'll pursue advanced degrees and extra certifications to stand out. This produces a lot of stuff, but ultimately creates a warped standard of living. Higher productivity ironically makes time spent not working or pursuing prerequisites to work more expensive.
BarneyPiccolo 35 points 7 days ago
If AI is doing all the jobs, then those who used to do those jobs are now unemployed and broke, but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, at the homeless camp.
GreenKnight23 4 points 7 days ago
but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, at the homeless camp.
ended more wholesome than I thought.
what I thought,
but at least they can spend more time with their family, outdoors, in the mass grave after starving to death.
SkyNTP 11 points 7 days ago
OP sounds like an insufferable shill spouting "they are just looking for the criminals and illegals" while everyone is being lined up at gunpoint outside of the gas chambers of the concentration camp.
Asafum 28 points 7 days ago
Why would "they" (the CEOs, tech bros, owners) be saying that?
They own the means of production. They seek to profit from it entirely. They fight tooth and nail to not be taxed for anything whatsoever. In what universe would they "give" us anything? If our current system demands 80 hours of work/week to afford to live a normal life then the world of AI will still demand that 80 hours of work/week, but now with new and improved Less Jobs!™©®
The future will not be a utopia. I'm thinking more cyberpunk with less technology. A lot of extremely poor people and a few megacorps.
Goodeye8 8 points 7 days ago
My heart doesn't put food on the table and I do it only through selling my labor, which is what capitalists buy from me. So in very significant way they do own me because without them I can't afford to live.
wonderingwanderer 23 points 7 days ago
That would require that it come with UBI, which... seems doubtful at best...
Grimy -4 points 7 days ago
I don't even think UBI is a solution. It's basically a cast system with extra steps. What we need is violent nationalization of any company with more than a handful of employees. We won't get what we need though.
wonderingwanderer 13 points 7 days ago
Capitalism is already a caste system. UBI would just ensure the lowest rungs don't starve or lack housing/healthcare/other essentials.
Not sure how you're connecting "UBI → caste system," so you'll need to show your work on that one.
If we can fix our government so that it actually works for the people instead of the corporations, then I'd say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits. That can all be done without violence.
Your "violent nationalization" sounds poorly thought out. How do you go from "violence → nationalization"? I don't really see a logical progression from A to B.
And what about C, as in, what comes after that? Okay, you nationalized the companies. Now what, who controls it? The government? What happens if people keep electing corrupt officials? And what benefit will nationalization do if you're against UBI anyway?
And that's all without even touching on the vagueness of "any company with more than a handful of employees." How do you define that? An LLC with 6 or more employees? That could include most mom&pop shops. So you just want to murder old people and take their livelihoods, entrust it to the state, and what, profit?
Grimy 1 point 7 days ago
I mean violent both because violence would probably be needed and because it would need to be done at great speed.
Currently, there's a clear path to go from poverty to middle class. It's easier for some depending right now but not an impossibility. If jobs become a luxury, there won't be a middle class.
Rapid job loss + UBI doesn't lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us. Granted that's already the case, but UBI doesn't solve much currently. We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs, we need to level the playing field so there isn't much rungs about it.
No, clearly, I don't mean mom&pop shops. It would be more apt to go with profits I guess, past a certain level, you get a medal and your company gets nationalized.
I'd say we should nationalize every publicly-traded company, install price controls, use the revenue to fund UBI, civic infrastructure, and social assistance programs; and then balance the sheets so that each company barely breaks even without extracting any profits.
That's basically what I'm trying to say, but UBI alone is basically a bandage that hides the wound and stops a minimum of bleeding. Imo, it's more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.
wonderingwanderer 6 points 6 days ago
Rapid job loss + UBI doesn't lead to anything except rich people lording over the rest of us.
Rapid job loss with no UBI leads to the same thing but worse. I'm not saying we should rely on their generosity. The government should tax the fuck out of them and find an equitable way to distribute the UBI, because ultimately those funds are just what the wealthy oligarchs extracted from society to begin with.
We have welfare to take care of the bottom rungs
We do? Where do you live, the Nordics? My country doesn't currently take care of the bottom rungs at all...
we need to level the playing field so there isn't much rungs about it.
And UBI would be one piece of that, I'm not saying it alone would solve everything. But if the job market shrinks because corpos automate everything and lay off the majority of their employees, then UBI will become not only necessary but also feasible in a way that it wasn't pre-automation.
Imo, it's more of a trap then anything else. Something to pacify the masses once it gets bad so the rich can keep their game going.
I'm not suggesting it as a standalone stopgap measure. It should certainly be one part of a more comprehensive reformation of how the economy is structured. But if they're going to replace all the jobs with machines, then they're going to need to guarantee everyone a livelihood or else "pacifying the masses" will be the least of our worries, unless you mean it in the more euphemistic and gruesome sense...
fodor 22 points 7 days ago
People have always asked that question about tech, my friend. You just weren't listening.
But AI is snake oil. It won't reduce work. It'll just fuck up things that currently work and let the billionaires get richer. Vaporware. That's it. That's why nobody asks about newfound free time. Cuz it's fake.
Tollana1234567 7 points 6 days ago
its primarly currently used an excuse to lay people off, and hire less people back if at all.
MeatballMam 20 points 6 days ago
They're probably not saying that because they are too busy asking the far more important question of "If Ai takes all the jobs, how can I afford to feed and shelter the family and children I love"
You do understand why people work right? Very few people work just for funsies. They work so they can afford to eat, pay rent, pay for utilities, and be able to afford essentials like clothing, health insurance, transportation.
Almost everything we need to actually live and function costs money. You primarily get money by having a job. So if someone gets laid off, they're probably very busy trying to find another source of income so they can actually keep their children alive and healthy.
Prior_Industry 2 points 6 days ago
Why would the owners willingly give up those chains? If AI removes the need for work and money, then Elon Musk is just another guy on the street. Can't see billionaires accepting that.
I think its way more likely a Elon Musk would harness AI and Robotics to create personal fiefdoms whilst the rest of us live in the "bad lands"
Prior_Industry 1 point 5 days ago
Not unless you can afford the pro plan
postscarce 3 points 6 days ago
But why do we need to work to earn money? Because if those jobs didn’t get done we couldn’t survive. What OP is asking, I think, is if those essential jobs were automated, nobody would need to work, so why aren’t we talking about that?
LordCrom 3 points 6 days ago
I have yet to see AI pick up garbage,now a lawn, fix a toilet, make a bed.... AI won't take all jobs, just the ones that actually paid well because it required mental skills and experience e.g.coding, graphics.... We will fight for the low paying manual labor Jobs and there will not be enough of those to satisfy demand, so wages will decrease.
Its a dystopian future for us.
postscarce 1 point 5 days ago
All that stuff is coming. It’s taking longer than people would have expected, but it’ll happen sooner or later. You’re right that we seem to be stuck with the dystopia, though. We’ll fight over an ever dwindling pool of work until there’s nothing left, and then we’ll die or live at the sufferance of those in charge. The only hope is complete systemic change, but that seems further away now than it has ever been, mainly because not enough people even care. They’re pacified by their streaming content and drip fed carefully cultivated outrage-bait to keep them from even imagining that uniting is a possibility.
OriginalTangle 1 point 6 days ago
The ai won't take all the jobs! There will be at least a few thousand prompt engineers!
freely1333 1 point 6 days ago
The oldest profession might just be the longest lasting one
FreshParsnip 19 points 7 days ago
That will only happen if universal basic income is implemented. Currently, the worry is nobody will be able to afford to live
matlag 4 points 6 days ago
Universal basic income will never happen under current trend. What will happen is more like oligarchs setting up charities for the commoners: they keep you alive, and in exchange, they can do whatever the hell they want, including abusing kids they'll force you to have and raise.
nanometer1625 18 points 6 days ago
In order to work less (fewer hours or more time off), we need legislation that restricts work hours and requires companies to grant a minimum amount of time off. I agree with the sentiment that AI could free us up for more leisure, but in the absence of legislation, companies will just squeeze more productivity out of each worker without granting more leisure time.
NuanceDemon 3 points 6 days ago
Legislating capitalism is like cupping your hands under a tap and hoping the sink below never gets wet.
Boiglenoight 14 points 7 days ago
Imagine you’re rich. You’re investing in AI, in robots. You’re not investing in people. Imagine a world without people, but machines that serve without complaining or expecting anything in return.
The rich are dangerous right now.
jumping_redditor -8 points 7 days ago
sounds beautiful, what's the catch?
SparroHawc 17 points 7 days ago
The catch is that you won't be one of the few people that are still around.
Boiglenoight 13 points 7 days ago
You’re not rich.
BetaDoggo_ 12 points 5 days ago
That's not how the economy works. Unless there's no human work to do at all, most will just be pushed out of their comfier thinking jobs into physical labor jobs.
story 9 points 5 days ago
run a business. it's unsustainable to be kind to your employees because your competition won't. capitalism is fractal, you can understand it at every level by comprehending any individual level. you need secrets, cleverness, ruthlessness and sustainability.
hanrahan 10 points 6 days ago
i have been , hell go all the way back to Bertrand Russel, he does as well, see his treatise "In Praise of Idleness", famous economists like Maynard Keys projected we'd all be broking 15 hrs a week now for the same pay.
Productivity increases have gone to the very wealthy and we've voted for it, over decades, over and over and in the face of all that evidence ? we'd fuck in' do it again, Leopards Eating My Face is full of examples. Solutions ? there arent any, the world has to many hateful and stupid people easily led by physcopaths and grifters . Not just the US, it's near ubiquitous.
brucethemoose 9 points 7 days ago
It’s just a tool, another piece of technology to increase efficiency with some liability.
But if such advances aren’t leading to quality of life advances for workers, that’s a societal issue sucking all the gained efficiency away, like how software uses more and more processing to do the same things as computers get faster.
It means the system is fucked up.
QueenHawlSera 8 points 7 days ago
That's because we haven't updated our system to work with AI
AI should in theory automate the mundane so we can focus on art, instead it's being used to automate the art to avoid having to pay for it.
When AI replaces jobs, we don't celebrate not having to do the job because we only have our essentials covered when we work. We have a system that socializes the losses and privatizes the profits.
If we have Universal Basic Income, so we all got paid when AI does labor, people would be able to enjoy their lives free of stress. Unfortunately we live in a society laugh track where socialism is seen as a negative thing, as a way of rewarding the lazy at the expense of the hard working (When really that's what capitalism does)
Unless this perception of socialism can be changed, we will never get Universal Basic Income or Single Payer Healthcare
9point6 8 points 7 days ago
There's two main reasons:
If the thing that takes the labour away from the workers is owned privately, it will not benefit the workers.
If we do not drastically change how the economy works, people not being able to work to exchange their labour for income means they starve and die
9point6 2 points 7 days ago
Well even under the current framework, we just need enough people to consistently vote for left wing (i.e. not liberal and obviously not conservative) candidates, who will seek to protect workers from this situation through a variety of ways (e.g. stronger social security to eliminate the need to labour for survival, nationalisation of the companies taking the labour so the public benefits, wealth redistribution from those who have already enriched themselves on the back of others' work)
Failing that, history gives some examples of more extreme measures that can be employed
blattrules 7 points 7 days ago
Every job lost at the expense of AI needs to be taxed and those taxes applied to UBI.
bss03 1 point 5 days ago
One of my secondary school teachers once remarked that you need at least 3 hugs a day. She also qualified that by saying you get to decide what counts as a hug, because some people are more comfortable with handshake (or analogous) than a hug.
bss03 2 points 5 days ago
Yeah, that's one of the reasons the "Free Hugs" persons at PLUR-positive festivals and events exist. They want to give hugs to the people that want them but are scared to initiate. The sign is supposed to puncture the anxiety cloud, but it doesn't always work.
I hope you get all the hugs you want, even if you never find the "courage" to go in for one.
volvoxvsmarla 2 points 5 days ago
Having a 5 year old, 3 hugs a day is insane. I get more than 3 hugs in the first minute of my kid waking up. I'm already scared knowing their cuddliness won't last forever. The first time I've spent one day/night away and I got so touch deprived by 5 pm I almost started cuddling my friend.
SkavarSharraddas 6 points 7 days ago
For that you'd need to get rid of the concept of "work for a living" so that instead economic productivity is taxed and paid out to all citizens as a universal basic income. Arguably that's a long overdue change, because less human labor needed due to automation should be a good thing, not threaten workers' livelihood. But (similar to Covid) that would also put a light on those whose work we as a society value and need to keep going and the current discrepancy of how little a lot of them are paid vs the societal uselessness of a lot of those with a lot of money.
Xuntari 5 points 6 days ago
We tried that at my job, who are pushing AI down our throats.
I'm not sure how they can say with a straight face that they now expect us to do 300-700% more work (their estimate) for the same pay and the same hours as before, but they apparently can... Just capitalism things I guess.
They also ridiculed the person who asked in front of the whole company.
TheLeadenSea 5 points 7 days ago
If the AI is doing all the jobs we don't need a large young workforce and thus there is no underpopulation crisis
agamemnonymous 5 points 7 days ago
Because they still need to earn money for housing, food, medicine, etc.
If we lived in a world where machine productivity was used to meet everyone's basic needs, they would be saying that. But we don't. So machines doing more jobs doesn't free us from work, it just makes finding work more difficult.
ulkesh 5 points 7 days ago
In your hypothetical... will we, whose job AI replaced, get paid still? If not, then fuck AI replacing jobs because I won't have the time you think I'll have to spend with family since I'll be frantically trying to find a job to pay the bills.
ulkesh 3 points 7 days ago
So my question goes unanswered, cool.
Until there is a democratized and efficient method of converting energy to matter which would eliminate hunger and homelessness, living will cost money. If that reality is problematic for you then by all means please try to change it.
I’d just like to not have my family starve after our finances dry up, while I’m spending so much time with them now.
ulkesh 3 points 7 days ago
You literally said "Ok, we will just do jobs as a function of being alive forever. Glad its settled." as if that somehow was an argument against my original point. You didn't address my original point. And now you're saying "There will always be work to do."
Seems you're arguing with yourself. So I'll bow out and let you get to it. I regret replying to this inane thread. Have fun.
uhmbah 5 points 7 days ago
At this time, governments and corporations do not value people. Citizens and workers. Instead of the government supporting citizens, they're now at War with citizens by taking the rights away. Corporations, don't want to pay us or treat us humanely. They are eager to replace us.
Nobody is going to pay us to do nothing.
Randelung 5 points 6 days ago
I've taken that position at work. Since nobody's telling me otherwise, I'm taking some of that efficiency gain for myself. Tickets are still resolved quicker, but I profit despite the job sucking now, being nothing but code review. If I don't get some of the benefits, I'm going back to doing things by hand.
selokichtli 5 points 6 days ago
I guess because nobody who works closely with AI would seriously believe they can run shit by themselves.
Mr_Dr_Oink 5 points 6 days ago
Speak for yourself. I have been a 4 day work week advocate for eons.
tigermountain 5 points 6 days ago
How could we maximize productivity if we allowed people leisure?
BarneyPiccolo 2 points 7 days ago
Billionaires make pretend money from stock increases in their portfolios, and then they borrow real money against those phantom funds.
They don't really have to sell a product to consumers, they just need to manipulate the markets to keep increasing. There are lots of ways to do that without actually selling to broke citizens - layoffs, austerity programs, announcement of technology breakthroughs, fraud, PR campaigns, etc.
makeshift0546 4 points 7 days ago
I do this every day. I work a lot less and get more done.
aesthelete 4 points 6 days ago
See the pandemic if you're interested in knowing how much people want to spend time with their families.
alsimoneau 3 points 5 days ago
People don't love their families though. We saw that during COVID when parents went nuts because they were force to stay home with their kids.
WindyRebel 4 points 5 days ago
I loved having us all home together, and I actually grew closer to my kid during COVID. Our relationship got stronger as father and son because he saw me so much more since I wasn’t in an office and commuting for like 10-12 hours of my day. It was so fun to do little science experiments and teach him some fun life lessons.
I’m an outlier though. I love being with my wife and kid, and they love being with me. So many parents are always bitching about their kids or spouses and then pawning the kids off on others. Our house is the hangout house and so many of my son’s friends feel safe stopping by just to say hello on their way home from school.
I guess this is why I have successfully made a career switch to teaching. I genuinely think kids are pretty cool and worth our time!
dragonlover 2 points 5 days ago
In america
Tollana1234567 1 point 5 days ago
exactly, parents use K-12 schools as daycare and parenting, disciplining. thats why some grow up dysfunctional in some form or another(usually way after HS).
also getting pets for the wrong reasons during covid, to cope, and when its lifted they were back at the shelter eventually.
lastlybutfirstly 1 point 5 days ago
We see it every summer when parents ship their kids off to summer camp.
GreenCrunch 3 points 7 days ago
Yeah, but now you've been laid off because the AI "does your job" and food and housing aren't free.
BarneyPiccolo 2 points 7 days ago
Buy stock in Homelessness, it's going to be booming!
GreenCrunch 1 point 7 days ago
investing now on polymarket
the_riviera_kid 3 points 6 days ago
AI bros dont understand the concept of "love".
MedicPigBabySaver 2 points 6 days ago
Bicentennial Man says "yes".
Pollo_Jack 3 points 5 days ago
Because no one thinks the owners of the tech would be so benevolent.
humanspiral 3 points 7 days ago
US system is one of oligarchist and geopolitical supremacism. Under that system, there is no room for crumbs to trickle down to citizenry, and more free time, and easier survivability, would be crumbs that reduce your manufactured hatred towards your fellow man.
The principle of comparative advantage and market access to the most options is not evil. Championing labour supremacism may be a lesser evil than fascist oligarchist militarism of technology, but it's still a distortion that harms everyone who doesn't directly benefit from any follow through on the championing. Unions today cooperate with the oligarchy in order to make life shit for non union members, and their goal is primarily to protect membership jobs more than expanding membership.
Categorically dysfunctional corrupt politics when championing power supremacism of any group as a bandaid for oligarchist, militarist supremacism.
The only solution to achieving your headline is UBI, where whoever is profiting in society pays taxes to give people choice/freedom over their time, including pursuing richness and paying more taxes in the process. UBI is redistribution of power. Not so much wealth. https://naturalfinance.blogspot.com/...
Duamerthrax 2 points 5 days ago
The techbros advocating for the ai don't have families they love. At best, they have trophy family.
Fallibilist 2 points 7 days ago
A so called "solved world" is the best case scenario when it comes to AI but it's not guranteed nor can anyone give you a timeline for it.
JustPlainDave 2 points 7 days ago
The cotton gin was supposed to make slavery obsolete.
MithranArkanere 2 points 6 days ago
AI doesn't exist. LLMs aren't doing anyone's jobs.
They help search for stuff, like finding molecules and DNA strands in medicine. Finding a book out of an entire library. Boilerplate code. Frequently asked questions. That's all they do. Parroting, searching, and other menial tasks that can be done thanks to prediction.
People may save time thanks to them, but they still have to do their jobs.
When an "AI" appears to show any kind of competency outside of being a glorified search engine, it's because they have an underpaid human behind it actually refining the results.
bss03 2 points 5 days ago
Bah. The best search results were clearly more than a decade ago. Even a decade ago too much SEO manipulation (and search engine collusion) was showing up in the search results we saw.
I don't agree that the best search was regular expressions and Boolean combinators ala AltaVista. Early Google was quite the improvement (and still had some advanced operators), and even the first release of Bing was almost as good. Anyone remember the Bing v. Google challenge MS encouraged people to do? I picked my own niche interests and while Google won, Bing put points on the board.
I think it was sometime after AdWords and DoubleClick merged when things went downhill. I don't remember the exact timeframe, but eventually the advertisers and SEO parts started directing search from the inside, things steadily decreased in quality. Adding "reddit" to the end of a search was a entry-level way to fight against that, not a return to old or new peak search quality.
story 2 points 5 days ago
you are VERY young, then. i have success-tinted glasses from 2004, nothing delusional about it. learn about regular expressions and be amazed, you can even call it AI if it keeps you interested in it
SnarkoPolo 2 points 5 days ago
HELL no! We can work even more overtime and make even more money for our billionaire masters!
CheesyFingers 2 points 7 days ago
You can't afford to.
jaykrown 1 point 5 days ago
AI will do all the white collar jobs, robots will continue doing more of the tedious manual work. What will be left is insane competition for jobs that are like custom maintenance, nursing, etc. But the question becomes, what does a society look like with over 30% of workers no longer needing to work because AI is doing it, while about 30% of worker's positions are still extremely necessary?
Zozano 1 point 5 days ago
People fail to realise we have already reached the threshold for nonessential jobs; that's why people can make millions from being an influencer.
The competition for jobs is so tight that its a luxury to have a job; think about how fucked up that is.
jaykrown 2 points 5 days ago
I'd just rephrase what you wrote to be correct, "it's a luxury to have a high paying job that you enjoy doing". And then I'd say "a lot of jobs are worked due to necessity".
And then to top it off I'd say "AI is making those high paying jobs that people enjoy doing less necessary, while leaving the harder manual jobs for everyone to scramble to compete for".
Tollana1234567 1 point 5 days ago
the only ones making millions as influencers, are usually people that are already well off, or rich.
Daft_ish 2 points 5 days ago
I dont like this argument because they always default to, "we pay the most taxes" when they rightfully should. No one man does billions of dollars worth of work. No one person can claim they are inherently orders of magnitude better than the next.
Numbers get misportrayed and people who dont understand them get fooled.
churrodestroyer -2 points 7 days ago
Bernie Sanders says if AI is coming for workers, it should bring a four-day workweek with it | Fortune https://fortune.com/...
People are saying that if AI makes us more productive we should get our time back. They just don't capture the news cycle.
showerthoughts
@lemmy.world
44042
4160
5739
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
go to feed...
showerthoughts
@lemmy.world
44042
4160
5739
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
go to feed...
No technology has ever resulted in lighter workloads for the average person. Different, and sometimes less strenuous, but never less time consuming.
save