6 ms·

But, some already operate at their peak. Then, you automate that and they can only shift to unemployment. The conversation shouldn't be about replacing the most

by 0xedd 2y ago

But, some already operate at their peak. Then, you automate that and they can only shift to unemployment. The conversation shouldn't be about replacing the most skilled workers. The conversation should be about what happens to the average worker. That has an average IQ level. That can't learn something to compete with the automation. These people have families. These people will suffer.

MichaelZuo 2y ago
Has anyone claimed technological changes will impact every group and subgroup on a literally equal basis? Some will have better prospects and others will have worse. Since roughly half the population must have below median average prospects by definition.
- starbugs 2y ago
  > Has anyone claimed technological changes will impact every group and subgroup on a literally equal basis? No, but too much inequality is not sustainable. Since in a democracy everyone has an equal vote, there will be a force that balances things out over time one way or another.
  - RGamma 2y ago
    Democracy won't survive the tech trillionaires. At that point you can buy the executive.
    - mschuster91 2y ago
      We already are at the point where the ultra rich just buy politicians. Hell, we were ever since oil production was mainstreamed and the oil tycoons were able to tell the US to go to wars for oil.
      - golergka 2y ago
        Are your sure these were the oil tycoons and not voters who remembered 70s gas issues?
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    How does this relate to the parent? Plus the point seems confused, far from every adult impacted by technology has a vote.
wolverine876 2y ago
> The conversation should be about what happens to the average worker. That has an average IQ level. That can't learn something to compete with the automation. There are many tropes to unpack, including that IQ is somehow fixed and people's fate, and that even the "average" person "can't learn something". Also, it of course glorifies and cements the power of the wealthy who think they are smart and very special and deserving of everything. Also, history has shown that people overwhelmingly that people can learn higher skilled jobs en masse. Just look at universal literacy - did anyone say, 'the average person can't learn to read'. The US has long believed that anyone can achieve and succeed with hard work. That's been my experience, but that the limit is almost always in opportunity.
- DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
  That's a good point but things do change. Malthus was correct about humanities past but won't about the future (from his point in time). Even aside from that, Learning takes time for everyone. At a certain point we're automating new tasks faster than humans can learn them. Scaling works against humans too. Say it takes 1 year to train a human in something, and 1 year for a robot/AI. well it might take 1 year for the first AI, but copying software is easy. Training the next person takes another year. Even if it's parallelized and you save some time, the cost of training the marginal additional person is was larger.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    A lot of that subconciously assumes the doomsday outcome - machines and automation will sweep people aside, and then the reasoning becomes circular. > At a certain point we're automating new tasks faster than humans can learn them. That assumes the pace of automation is increasing, but similar concerns have been around for a long time, going back to the industrial revolution. Read Dickens or HG Wells (though a specific cite doesn't come to mind), or look at the 1927 silent film, Metropolis. But right now businesses can't find enough employees. > Say it takes 1 year to train a human in something, and 1 year for a robot/AI. well it might take 1 year for the first AI, but copying software is easy. Training the next person takes another year. Even if it's parallelized and you save some time, the cost of training the marginal additional person is was larger. That's how automation works. Then the people go on to the higher skilled jobs that the machines can't do, including designing, manufacturing, operating, and servicing the machines. Cars made the entire horse industry redundant; calculators and computers put lots of human calculators out of work. Yet today, with a much larger population, employers can't find enough workers. If things like that didn't happen, then productivity wouldn't increase and we would be able to afford more shelter, food, healthcare, education, etc.

by 0xedd 2y ago

MichaelZuo 2y ago

Has anyone claimed technological changes will impact every group and subgroup on a literally equal basis? Some will have better prospects and others will have worse. Since roughly half the population must have below median average prospects by definition.

starbugs 2y ago
> Has anyone claimed technological changes will impact every group and subgroup on a literally equal basis? No, but too much inequality is not sustainable. Since in a democracy everyone has an equal vote, there will be a force that balances things out over time one way or another.
- RGamma 2y ago
  Democracy won't survive the tech trillionaires. At that point you can buy the executive.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    We already are at the point where the ultra rich just buy politicians. Hell, we were ever since oil production was mainstreamed and the oil tycoons were able to tell the US to go to wars for oil.
    - golergka 2y ago
      Are your sure these were the oil tycoons and not voters who remembered 70s gas issues?
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  How does this relate to the parent? Plus the point seems confused, far from every adult impacted by technology has a vote.

wolverine876 2y ago

> The conversation should be about what happens to the average worker. That has an average IQ level. That can't learn something to compete with the automation. There are many tropes to unpack, including that IQ is somehow fixed and people's fate, and that even the "average" person "can't learn something". Also, it of course glorifies and cements the power of the wealthy who think they are smart and very special and deserving of everything. Also, history has shown that people overwhelmingly that people can learn higher skilled jobs en masse. Just look at universal literacy - did anyone say, 'the average person can't learn to read'. The US has long believed that anyone can achieve and succeed with hard work. That's been my experience, but that the limit is almost always in opportunity.

DonsDiscountGas 2y ago
That's a good point but things do change. Malthus was correct about humanities past but won't about the future (from his point in time). Even aside from that, Learning takes time for everyone. At a certain point we're automating new tasks faster than humans can learn them. Scaling works against humans too. Say it takes 1 year to train a human in something, and 1 year for a robot/AI. well it might take 1 year for the first AI, but copying software is easy. Training the next person takes another year. Even if it's parallelized and you save some time, the cost of training the marginal additional person is was larger.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  A lot of that subconciously assumes the doomsday outcome - machines and automation will sweep people aside, and then the reasoning becomes circular. > At a certain point we're automating new tasks faster than humans can learn them. That assumes the pace of automation is increasing, but similar concerns have been around for a long time, going back to the industrial revolution. Read Dickens or HG Wells (though a specific cite doesn't come to mind), or look at the 1927 silent film, Metropolis. But right now businesses can't find enough employees. > Say it takes 1 year to train a human in something, and 1 year for a robot/AI. well it might take 1 year for the first AI, but copying software is easy. Training the next person takes another year. Even if it's parallelized and you save some time, the cost of training the marginal additional person is was larger. That's how automation works. Then the people go on to the higher skilled jobs that the machines can't do, including designing, manufacturing, operating, and servicing the machines. Cars made the entire horse industry redundant; calculators and computers put lots of human calculators out of work. Yet today, with a much larger population, employers can't find enough workers. If things like that didn't happen, then productivity wouldn't increase and we would be able to afford more shelter, food, healthcare, education, etc.