6 ms·

There is a sort of conceit here that tech is everything. There doesn't need to be "no jobs", it could just (or mostly) be the tech sector that is impacted and j

There is a sort of conceit here that tech is everything. There doesn't need to be "no jobs", it could just (or mostly) be the tech sector that is impacted and jobs are displaced. In the history of concentrated sector losses, the US public hasn't been kind to those displaced. The world marches on, no matter how important we think we are.

dmantis 4d ago
You are right, my answer was meant for parent's "“AI agent, here’s our assets, make money”" and "If every year 50% of the job disappears, how long until there is no human-ai team, just ai.". I mean it in a broader sense than just IT workers. The world will be fine without us if that's where it all stops. If at some point most enterprises run as "agent, make me money" without any humans, then money is a dead concept.
- HEmanZ 4d ago
  Does no one own the companies?
  - dmantis 4d ago
    Why does that matter? b2b sector doesn't make any sense if there is no "clients" at some end point. There is no money in the end of the chain if everybody is jobless. And if 99% of the population don't have magic numbers, the magic numbers concept just doesn't make sense. The whole modern society and capitalism exist on assumption of meritocracy: an entrepreneur takes the risks and provides the organization and gets the reward. If there is some perfect machine that always brings profits, there is no risk. Everybody can make such "organization" saying "/goal make me money". The current model also assumes that if you learn and work hard enough, then you get a success of some level. That assumption of the meritocracy also breaks. If there is no organizational work, nor risks, nor meritocracy, nor "fair reward for hard work" the whole model fades. There are might be different rational choices. One is probably to liquidate the owners of the companies; nationalize the model's output and distribute the profits, for example. Still many questions about everyday life for completely jobless society will arrive then. It might be something else, but people generally do what they see fair, and they also want to eat something. Ownership is a fragile idea, Russian Empire shows that pretty clearly. It exists only when most of the society agrees that the ownership is fair or when you have enough force to maintain it against those who don't, which is not the case when the majority is on the other side.
    - HEmanZ 4d ago
      You are packing so many assumptions into here about how the world works that are just wrong, I have no way to really respond. Your strongest point is “will people stand for a world with no jobs, where only a percentage of the population owns most things?” And the answer is who knows, people stand for a massive amount of inequality right now, and technology for suppressing the masses is getting much better every year. It’s a big unknown imo, and probably contingent on too many things to predict at all.

dmantis 4d ago

You are right, my answer was meant for parent's "“AI agent, here’s our assets, make money”" and "If every year 50% of the job disappears, how long until there is no human-ai team, just ai.". I mean it in a broader sense than just IT workers. The world will be fine without us if that's where it all stops. If at some point most enterprises run as "agent, make me money" without any humans, then money is a dead concept.

HEmanZ 4d ago
Does no one own the companies?
- dmantis 4d ago
  Why does that matter? b2b sector doesn't make any sense if there is no "clients" at some end point. There is no money in the end of the chain if everybody is jobless. And if 99% of the population don't have magic numbers, the magic numbers concept just doesn't make sense. The whole modern society and capitalism exist on assumption of meritocracy: an entrepreneur takes the risks and provides the organization and gets the reward. If there is some perfect machine that always brings profits, there is no risk. Everybody can make such "organization" saying "/goal make me money". The current model also assumes that if you learn and work hard enough, then you get a success of some level. That assumption of the meritocracy also breaks. If there is no organizational work, nor risks, nor meritocracy, nor "fair reward for hard work" the whole model fades. There are might be different rational choices. One is probably to liquidate the owners of the companies; nationalize the model's output and distribute the profits, for example. Still many questions about everyday life for completely jobless society will arrive then. It might be something else, but people generally do what they see fair, and they also want to eat something. Ownership is a fragile idea, Russian Empire shows that pretty clearly. It exists only when most of the society agrees that the ownership is fair or when you have enough force to maintain it against those who don't, which is not the case when the majority is on the other side.
  - HEmanZ 4d ago
    You are packing so many assumptions into here about how the world works that are just wrong, I have no way to really respond. Your strongest point is “will people stand for a world with no jobs, where only a percentage of the population owns most things?” And the answer is who knows, people stand for a massive amount of inequality right now, and technology for suppressing the masses is getting much better every year. It’s a big unknown imo, and probably contingent on too many things to predict at all.