6 ms·
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 mi
by aminok 10y ago
Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example.
- ouid 10y agocould you elaborate on how this is meant to be a response to my comment?
- aminok 10y agoIsn't that obvious? I'm not sure how I could be more explicit..
- ouid 10y agono, I failed to perceive the connection. I'm sorry.
- aminok 10y agoHumans cannot be made obsolete by technology because we come to own the technology.
- aylmao 10y agoProblem is "Humans" is not a singular. "CEO of multibillion corporation" won't be made obsolete by technology because he/she comes to own the technology. Everyone else, could.
- aminok 10y agoI'll just quote my own comment from further up the comment chain: "Computers and horses don't have property rights or the means to exercise them. All of this automation is augmenting humans because we do. We've gone from 122 million people owning smartphones in 2007 to 2.5 billion people owning them at the beginning of 2017 for example." The last sentence is particularly relevant to your point.
- reddytowns 10y agoThe first neathenderals to figure out how to use tools didn't have property rights, but the tools still augmented them. We are not so different from them, and faced with an overwhelming opposing power, (tech + extreme wealth) we don't have much of a chance, either.
- aminok 10y agoNeanderthals faced a different species of humans whose culture they were not capable of integrating into. Humanity right now forms one unified global culture through which ideas and technology freely flow. The rising tide of technology is lifting all boats (massive wage growth globally). Moreover, it's not clear that your premise is accurate. Neanderthals constitute 3 percent of Eurasian human genes, meaning that their genes were evolutionarily successful (3% * 6 billion > 100% * 100,000), and this is ignoring the success of their close kin, with whom they already shared >99% genes.
- reddytowns 10y agoWe are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. Given human nature, I would guess they'd primarily will be concerned with fighting among each other, and would care very little about harming the masses, if we got in between them and something they wanted. How a "unified global culture" is going to fix that, I haven't any idea. (And you believe were in a unified global culture, really? From North Korea to Sweden, really?) Your second point is baffling to me. Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. If you can call neathenderals successful, then I don't know what you are actually arguing for.
- aminok 10y ago>We are about to face a few individuals with technology will hold massive power over everyone else. There are plenty of counterindications to that. For instance, many forms of technology are becoming increasingly widely adopted, at a rapid pace. I gave the adoption of smartphones as one example. >Why not include mice, they have 97.5% of our genes, as being successful? Why not all mammals? Oh, except horses, of course, because you said in a previous comment we are different from them. I would say the success of human beings is by some metrics a success for mice, mammals etc as well..
- dang 10y agoWe detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595041 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13595041 and marked it off-topic. We've also banned this account for seriously abusing HN, which you can read about here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13600908.