Top
Best
New

Posted by colesantiago 1 day ago

Life After Work(www.mechanize.work)
34 points | 89 commentspage 2
moribvndvs 1 day ago|
One issue with historical comparisons is that a pool of labor (such as child labor) were freed to transition to some other workforce. If AI hyperscales to a point of generally out-competing human work forces, then we have nowhere else to go but the dwindling havens where AI and automation cannot touch for now. If we live in post-scarcity equitable society–and we assume human society can cope without a struggle or purpose– this is great. If we don’t, this is an unmitigated disaster.
cool_man_bob 1 day ago||
> In our lifetimes, we may see fully realistic virtual reality, abundant fusion power, cognitive enhancement through brain augmentation, mind uploading, relativistic space travel, unlimited personalized entertainment, full control over our genomes, ultra-luxurious hypersonic air travel, and extremely pleasurable drugs that carry no major side effects.

Promised before. It was a lie then, it will be a lie now.

Seriously though is this sort of stuff just nostalgia bait for people who were naive enough to believe it the last time?

sp4cec0wb0y 1 day ago|
This is for people who read "Ready Player One" and thought it was a utopia. Those who soy over their tech fetishisms.
Dnguyen 1 day ago||
I think the author assumed things will be spread fairly across the board. I don't think wealth gain will be evenly distributed. The other issue I have with the article is that the author assumed unlimited resource to build the robots. Resources will be limited. Building those robots won't be a nice green field either. I think there will be a lot of dirty waste by products that will be a major health concern for the human.
suriya-ganesh 1 day ago||
> The answer lies in recognizing that wages are just one source of income. People also earn income from investments....

I already can see the slant that, this whole article is going to be about. Capital holders are going to be the only people matter. Everyone else is trivial. i.e. the top 5% who hold 80% of all wealth in the world.

>Consider Qatar as a point of comparison. Migrant workers make up roughly 94% of the country’s workforce, yet only Qatari citizens, who make up the remaining 6%, are eligible to receive most government welfare benefits.

My father was one among those 94%. Stayed away from my family for more than a decade, only visiting us for 2 months every 2 years. Leaving with tears in his eyes every time. Qatar shouldn't be a point of comparison for capitalism. With no way for naturalization, a strong monarchy, and Labor oppression. I think it's the opposite of free trade capitalism as preached by the west.

What I got from this article was. More money for me, and none for the peasants, but that's okay because they or their work don't matter anyway.

myth_drannon 1 day ago||
"Migrant workers", call a spade a spade. Slave labour it is. 6500 of them died building stadiums for the soccer World Cup
constantcrying 1 day ago||
The article is equating automation technologies to the laborers in Qatar and humans in General to the Qatari.

The comparison is bad and yes the article is ridiculous, but it does not argue for human oppression or capital accumulation in a small minority of humans, it argues that in fact such an accumulation will be meaningless.

suriya-ganesh 1 day ago|||
> But there is a risk that those who own negligible amounts of capital prior to full automation will be out of luck. With nothing but their wages to survive on, they may live dreary lives, and perhaps even starve. However, at least for citizens of high-income democracies, this risk seems to be quite small.

And then the article goes on to explain, how historically governments have always redistributed wealth from rich to the poor.

The wealthy were incentivized to provide for the bottom of the population only because there was need for labour for the wealth to stay alive. but then, going by the article's analogy when there is no need for labour, there is no need for the bottom 75% as well.

constantcrying 1 day ago||
You are arguing with the article, not with me.
suriya-ganesh 1 day ago||
Yes.
haritha-j 1 day ago||
We already know what happens when a minority gains massive riches over the rest and also has the ability to gate keep said riches. Its called nations, and thats why an entire people will starve in an impoverished Somalia while another will revel in excess in Switzerland. Look no further than nations to see what the effect of life after work is.
djoldman 1 day ago||
> It’s natural to feel anxious as we approach the inevitable automation of all human labor.

These are absolute assertions about the near future absent any rationale or reason whatsoever that contradict the minimal evidence that actually exists.

Is this the pinnacle of AI hype? Time will tell.

kyoob 1 day ago||
Who will take the coal from the mine? Who will take the salt from the earth? Who'll take a leaf and grow it to a tree? Don't look now, it ain't you or me
botanical76 1 day ago|
Can you explain the subtext here?
mdrzn 13 hours ago||
These lyrics are from the song "Don't Look Now" by Creedence Clearwater Revival. The lines are a poetic way of saying that the work of taking coal from the mine, harvesting salt, and nurturing a tree is the task of other people, often those in the "working class", not the "you" and "me" of the song, who are implied to be in a privileged position
cadamsdotcom 1 day ago||
Bottom of article: “we’re hiring”

Selling a job by saying that soon we won’t need to work.. I think some connections were missed..

OkayPhysicist 1 day ago||
As much as I agree with the premise of liberation from toil, I don't think the author presents a compelling argument as to how you get from "most of the capital sits in the hands of a small group of oligarchs" today to "the fruits of AI productivity are broadly shared". Historically, capital-heavy innovations have made a small group of people very rich. I have zero doubt without very decisive action, the default is absolutely a "whoever has capital at time of singularity has capital forever".
triceratops 1 day ago|
> a tenfold increase in GDP represents a very conservative estimate of how much full automation could increase economic output. If this modest increase were reflected proportionally in US tax revenues we could resolve all current Social Security funding shortfalls

This would require a fundamental rewriting of Social Security funding law. Right now it's funded solely by payroll taxes. Read: mass automation will be utterly devastating for Social Security because there will be no paychecks to withhold taxes on.

If the author's predictions actually come to pass, it will look a lot like a wealth tax. The current political and economic elites are extremely allergic to anything resembling that.

> Progressive income taxation is a central pillar of government revenue in most high-income countries around the world. If the rich could effectively coordinate to eliminate income redistribution, they would have abolished this system long ago

Hopelessly naive. Rich people are rich because of their assets. Not their income.

More comments...