you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 41 points 2 years ago (9 children)

Even mindless and repetitive tasks require instances of problem solving far beyond what a.i is capable of. In order to replace 41% of the work force you’ll need a.g.i and we don’t know if thats even possible.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Let's also not forget that execs are horrible at estimating work.

    "Oh this'll just be a copy paste job right?" No you idiot this is a completely different system and because of xyz we can't just copy everything we did on a different project.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Or salesmen. "Oh, you have that another system to integrate with? No, no change in estimates, everything is OK."

    Then they have a deal concluded etc, and then suddenly that information reaches the people who'll be actually doing it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Its not replacing people outright its meaning each person is capable of doing more work each thus we only need 41% the people to achieve the same task. It will crash the job market. Global productivity and production will improve then ai will be updated repeat. Its just a matter of if we can scale industry to match the total production capacity of people with ai assistance fast enough to keep up. Both these things are currently exponential but the lag may cause a huge unemployment crisis in the meantime.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    In this potential scenario, instead of axing 41% of people from the workforce, we should all get 41% of our lives back. Productivity and pay stay the same while the benefits go to the people instead of the corporations for a change. I know that’s not how it ever works, but we can keep pushing the discussion in that direction.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    You and I know damn well that a revolution is the only way that's gonna happen, and there aren't any on the horizon.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

    What do u replace it with after a revolution? Communism doesnt work capitalism is flawed democracy is flawed but seems to at least promote our freedoms. I think we defiantly need a fluid democracy before we can start thinking about how we solve the economic problems (well other than raising minimum wage that's a no brainer) without undermining exponential growth.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • Capitalism isn't just flawed, it's broken. For every prosperous nation like the UK or Germany, there's half a dozen Haitis and Panamas.

    By "communism", I presume you mean Marxist-Leninist state socialism, which indeed fails miserably. However, it isn't the only alternative to capitalism. Historically, there have been several communes during the Spanish and Russian civil wars that worked fine and didn't have a central leader, let alone a dictatorship. Although they died because of military blunders, this model is currently being followed more or less in Chiapas by the Zapatistas.

    In these places, workers' councils ruled. Direct face-to-face democracy by neighbours were how most things were done. I recon that this is a fairly nice arrangement.

    Democracy's flaws come from subversion by the wealthy and the fact that republics don't let people really participate, but rather choose people who participate in their place.

  • source
  • parent