upvote

points

by treis2 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby smallmancontrov2 hours ago|
next
[-]
The article explicitly addresses this. Crushing inequality was often a side-effect of industrial advancement, and while it always went away in the past it took a lifetime to do so.
reply
upvoteby mrguyorama1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
>Crushing inequality was often a side-effect of industrial advancement, and while it always went away in the past

Historically, inequality is only significantly reduced through events of extreme destruction, like the Black Plague and the world wars.

In other words, a society that ever lets massive inequality happen is just doomed. High inequality reliably stays that way until insane global black swans mildly correct it.

reply
upvoteby smallmancontrov1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
The USA is in the fortunate position of being able to look to our past for the best example of inequality crisis management: we didn't wind up with a Stalin or a Hitler because we had a Roosevelt. We could use another.
reply
upvoteby stratos1231 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
When automation happened historically, people whose job were displaced suffered a lot and eventually pivoted to different jobs. Having to relearn all of your career skills is already quite bad in practice, but a bigger problem is that it only works if you can learn the skills for job B before it, too, is automated. That'd require AI progress to hit a wall and stay there for at least years, ideally for decades. If this doesn't happen, then there simply won't be any white-collar jobs to pivot to, and shortly after that, no jobs to pivot to at all.
reply
upvoteby harimau7771 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Historically that's not accurate. Automation eventually resulted in more jobs, but for the people actually living through the automation it was VERY bad.
reply
upvoteby interstice1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
Each time people found something else to do that someone would pay them for. This doesn't automatically mean there is an infinite supply of that - unless you believe in it as some kind of fundamental law.
reply
upvoteby wiseowise1 hours ago|
prev|
next
[-]
> We won't all be unemployed if AI takes over white collar work.

So you wouldn’t mind going from 6 figure salary to working as a cashier at Walmart, figuratively speaking? Because I sure as hell mind, given mortgage and family obligations.

reply
upvoteby treis1 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Obviously I'm not immune from the anxiety everyone feels and it's going to be bad for some people. That doesn't change that historically the jobs aren't from programmer to cashier. They're from shoveling shit or screwing caps on toothpaste tubes to software engineering.

The trajectory of the West has been good for a long time and the rate of improvement is increasing.

reply
upvoteby 8note1 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
you could still go work on the oil patch

most people arent making a six figure salary, and have mortgage and family obligations

reply
upvoteby wiseowise1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Did they massively improve working conditions, or your software job is as bad as working in an oil patch? Mine isn’t.

> most people arent making a six figure salary, and have mortgage and family obligations

Maybe not most, but there’s sure lot of white collars making six figures. I don’t know what kind of teenage big tech bubble you’re in for the rest, but more than 70% of my colleagues have mortgage and families.

reply
upvoteby kjkjadksj2 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
Farms mechanized but we luckily had other jobs on hand to sponge that up. What used to be a farmhand is now a gas station worker selling zyn to a wallmart worker who sells food to the gas station worker.

However, AI is coming for them too. This time it really is different. The whole business pitch is the elimination of any safe harbor. All human labor to be automated. Why have 8 billion humans in that environment? Scary times ahead. We will probably end up culled by the machine.

reply
upvoteby bwanab1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
In my now long lifetime, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "This time it really is different" for it to turn out that it really wasn't all that different. Maybe this time it is, but I'd put my bet on isn't.
reply
upvoteby bigbadfeline1 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
> In my now long lifetime, I can't tell you how many times I've heard the phrase "This time it really is different"

This isn't an argument and it shows a fundamental lack of understanding of risk and game theory.

Besides, it's always been different, in the sense of boiling frog temperature going up. The present case is more different because this time, the rate of rising is high enough to make the frogs uncomfortable... and you're trying to calm them down and keep them in the water:

> Look frogs, the temps've always been rising, "many times I've heard the phrase "This time it really is different" for it to turn out that it really wasn't all that different."

> Maybe this time it is, but I'd put my bet on isn't.

Bro, it's not about betting... you have to try hard to learn something about risk.

reply