Submitted by jamesj t3_zlcwu3 in singularity
0913856742 t1_j05000v wrote
This is the result of us existing in a market-based social order - it creates this culture where the pursuits that give our lives meaning become so intertwined with the pursuits that secure us the resources for survival, that these two are often considered to be one and the same. And I think this is the case whether we're discussing artists or electricians or doctors or whomever.
We need a culture shift in the way we understand the relationship between work and value and what to do with the one life we have on this earth. If we cannot clearly separate monetary pursuits and meaningful pursuits in our minds, we'll be condemned to always view ourselves in terms of monetary value, even though something deep within us says we have inherent value as humans. It stops us from making progress as a global civilization, and traps us in the mindset of "that's how it's always been".
overlordpotatoe t1_j05jy1y wrote
Yup. It leads to situations where people will fight against the automation of work that nobody even wants to do because that's seen as an easier fight than figuring out some way for increased efficiency to benefit everyone. These technologies are inevitable. We need to work to make them a positive thing.
jamesj OP t1_j05r8a9 wrote
Yes, I think this is a direct result of a difficulty in understanding exponential progress. In the early part of the curve people think it will never happen. At the beginning of noticeable exponential growth they think it will never be good enough. Then while it is exploding they want things to just stay the same.
overlordpotatoe t1_j05tdlm wrote
Yeah. I can understand finding it scary, but the pessimism exhausts me, especially since it's so pointless. Nobody has any solutions, just fear and hate.
Kaining t1_j06681y wrote
> because that's seen as an easier fight than figuring out some way for increased efficiency to benefit everyone.
Lets face it, that's not really the case. We know where the money is, we knows who do not wants it to move around. I got a spoiled cousin that illustrated the problem very easily once. "If we don't have poor people, how can there be rich people (like me)"
The answer is in places like r/antiwork, r/latestagecapitalism. It's just frowned upon to talk about those anywhere but there.
Exponential progress that benefits everyone ? Automate the shit out of everything ! Exponential progress that benefits the usual ruling class ? Well, please no because we ain't far of a massive global conflict to cull the population then.
ShowerGrapes t1_j06j56v wrote
you can still have well-fed, housed and clothed poor people receiving adequate medical attention.
blueSGL t1_j094ea4 wrote
> "If we don't have poor people, how can there be rich people (like me)"
it's the same argument as those 'if we don't have pain and suffering how can you truly enjoy yourself'
or more simply "removing the toil removes meaning"
and that is a brainworm that far too many people have.
SnipingNinja t1_j0a3f7u wrote
This is even burrowed deeper than the you need to work ideology, I think you can still somewhat convince people that they don't need work but trying to convince that they don't need suffering to be happy is far more difficult ime
overlordpotatoe t1_j068dkt wrote
The thing is, though, that it's happening whether we like it or not. We're wasting our time and energy fighting against the technology.
fritzlschnitzel2 t1_j060roy wrote
Well said. A lot of people probably don't even know what they want to do but only what they have to do. I have people around me without any real interest (that they know of) because their life revolves around their work and careers.
0913856742 t1_j077i3b wrote
I hear ya bud. I always feel like it's such a lack of imagination, and loss of potential, how we have the tools right now (such as implementing a UBI) that could be a stepping stone towards creating a culture where we don't reduce our lives' meaning down to 'worker'.
SnipingNinja t1_j0a3h1j wrote
Isn't that most people?
fritzlschnitzel2 t1_j0c58og wrote
I don't know, is it? This is what i observe in my surroundings but i also have friends that really did pursue a genuine interest. Trying to make a living with something they really want to do. But they are a minority..
SnipingNinja t1_j0c7ukf wrote
Yep, my experience is the same, most people spend their lives on work that they don't really enjoy, only a minority try to pursue what they enjoy.
sheerun t1_j06kebt wrote
People forget universal income is not end of world order, just making sure everyone can have stress-free life when it comes to meeting basic needs like food or hosing. If we can get past this stress, people can be more relaxed, happy, and productive. Instead of waling around with crippling anxiety and depression.
Accomplished_Ad_8814 t1_j05ojb5 wrote
>If we cannot clearly separate monetary pursuits and meaningful pursuits in our minds
Money is just a handy abstraction of value, and value measures meaning. The problem in our society relates only to meaning, not money.
redtrx t1_j067q7e wrote
No money is an abstraction of exchange value, that is value in relation to capitalist exchange of commodities. This is distinct from actual use value, let alone ethical notions of 'value' and 'meaning'.
Accomplished_Ad_8814 t1_j06aa0i wrote
It being an abstraction of "exchange value" leads to effectively being an abstraction of value, as it creates a reference system to compare things to each other. And the "use value" is implied.
Arne-lille t1_j05u2s7 wrote
That is brilliant
jamesj OP t1_j05yemr wrote
Money isn't always an efficient measure of value, though.
[deleted] t1_j061wxl wrote
[deleted]
Accomplished_Ad_8814 t1_j062rju wrote
No, but that's orthogonal. Crypto (whether in its current form or as CBDCs) will allow to (efficiently) monetarize all social value (i.e. simply formalize it).
mocha_sweetheart t1_j063krh wrote
Why not just have a moneyless classless stateless society? A system with no hierarchies where resources are equally distributed. Like the Venus Project
Accomplished_Ad_8814 t1_j068mkg wrote
Hmm (I'm not the one downvoting btw) resource-based economy sounds good, though the use of AI doesn't come without its own philosophical problems. But it's efficient, yes. Ultimately I think we're moving towards becoming (gradually diminishing) nodes of a super computer. The problem with meaning remains however: what do we prioritize? this defines where money flows to in our current system and where resources flow to in a highly efficient resource-based economy.
Utoko t1_j066u0s wrote
Our society values work and money over meaning and fulfillment. This needs to change. We need a culture shift to prioritize what truly matters in life.
jamesj OP t1_j053gw8 wrote
Well said!
j_dog99 t1_j098hge wrote
What a completely solipsistic argument. So the reason we work is to sustain our own lives, and also the economy of the collective of all lives. Similarly the reason why we procreate, is to create more workers to do the same. By this logic then, we should stop procreating! Every little thing we do and take pleasure in is rooted in sustaining The biological collective welfare of the species. So most of these things should be abolished as well. Where do you draw the line?
0913856742 t1_j09mzk5 wrote
Sorry, I don't follow your logic. All I am saying, in the context of commenting on OP's article, is that a broader potential for human wellbeing exists outside of the bounds that free-market capitalism has set for us.
A concrete example: being forced to learn skills for a type of labour that you don't care about simply to trade for the resources to survive.
What I am saying, is that since this paradigm has been in place for so long, that creates an attitude that this is how it will always be. In the context of the article, AI is only an issue because it is perceived as taking away peoples' way of securing those resources necessary for survival. My argument is that if we had systems that didn't make your ability to survive conditional on the labour you are able to sell - i.e. implementing a universal basic income - then greater overall human wellbeing can be achieved. I hope this clarifies my stance for you.
j_dog99 t1_j0bl5jv wrote
>A concrete example: being forced to learn skills for a type of labour that you don't care about simply to trade for the resources to survive.
Your entire stance seems to rest on the assumption that a mystical future AI will somehow manifest the ability to relieve humanity of all such work. This may never happen. And in free market societies no enforces anybody to learn anything. And what if someone changes their mind?
>AI is only an issue because it is perceived as taking away peoples' way of securing those resources necessary for survival
I get it, and I agree hypothetically that in its ideal AI would be more of a benefit than a threat, But the pushback is that the reality of AI today is that it's just another tool The markets will use to exploit the only real intrinsic value the human has: as a worker
0913856742 t1_j0ccz7b wrote
Don't be obtuse. It doesn't need to rest on the 'mystical nature of AI' - it's already happening now.
What happened to all the factory workers in the American midwest when all those manufacturing jobs got automated and outsourced away? We saw a massive increase in drug overdoses and suicides. What should've been the correct action to take here? How about professional drivers killing themselves because they can't compete with Uber?
It is a very hard sell to tell someone who has been working a profession for decades to just learn to write code, or to retrain yourself to some other thing in order to stay market competitive. Job retraining programs aren't a guarantee either. How would you like it if you were on the cusp of retiring, but because your job was outsourced or eliminated by market forces, everyone just told you, suck it up buttercup, go learn how to do something else?
There are myriad examples like this that have happened and continue to happen without the need for an all-powerful AGI. All you need is market forces that seek to maximize profit and minimize cost. My stance is that the free market is a dehumanizing machine that always demands more, more, and more in order for the privilege of just existing.
j_dog99 t1_j0d8epv wrote
Maybe you are missing my point, although it's not a peachy one. I'll agree that MBI is an important stop-gap as automation takes over many jobs. But in the long run the most important adaptation will be a cap on procreation and a massive reduction in the human population. Market capitalism or Communism alike, the driving force behind human economy has been population. If we are to evolve beyond frogs, we will need less tadpoles
0913856742 t1_j0dc8j3 wrote
I do believe I am not understanding the argument you are making.
The original article discusses the problem AI poses in a capitalist system - namely, that if it gets good enough to eliminate jobs, people won't be able to make the money they need to survive.
My original comment was expanding on this point, that capitalism pushes us to view ourselves through our economic value first, instead of human beings with intrinsic value, and I argue that we should build systems - capitalistic or otherwise - that allow us to see ourselves as more than just economic inputs.
And so it is in this context why I am confused as to where your argument fits in? As I am re-reading your posts, I believe the point you are making is that an ever-increasing population creates the demand for people to sell their labour? And if we ever want to evolve beyond merely selling our labour to survive, we need to have less people, so there would be less market demand for production of goods and services? Something like this?
j_dog99 t1_j0dgfc9 wrote
My argument is very simply that your 'cultural shift' to embrace the value of the individual, is empty. The value of the individual derives from the useful work that they contribute to the collective. And the main function of the market-driven economy is to reward that value. With AI and automation, that value has been watered down, and the only way to restore balance is to decrease the population to a number appropriate to the demand of society. Having a bunch of people 'just living' and being paid to breed more of the same? Sounds like a bad dream, not a cultural improvement
0913856742 t1_j0dhfgw wrote
I believe I see the crux of our disagreement: you do not believe that human beings have inherent value. Would it be fair to say that if someone did not contribute to the collective - let's say, because they couldn't find gainful employment - then this person has no value?
If that is the case then I believe that we disagree fundamentally. It is my belief that all humans have intrinsic value, and it is up to us to build systems that allow all people to flourish no matter who they are or where they come from.
JVM_ t1_j058g5f wrote
Who gets to live in NYC, or who gets the beach houses if everyone has the same income levels?
overlordpotatoe t1_j05kf4s wrote
Nobody said anything about everyone having the same income levels, but clearly if most people are unemployed because of automation but we also have more efficient production chains than ever because of that same automation, some kind of basic support system for people who are no longer needed as workers is necessary and viable.
BigShoots t1_j06dxc5 wrote
In an ideal world, there needs to be legislation that if human jobs are replaced by AI, the companies doing the replacing will need to pay into a UBI fund according to their profits.
We don't live in an ideal world though, so good luck with that.
ShowerGrapes t1_j06jfkl wrote
UBI will not help anything. as soon as you set a baseline amount, it can be circumvented. we just need to provide everyone with a simple place to live, even a room, food and medical attention when necessary. everything else you'd have to work for.
0913856742 t1_j058vwl wrote
What do you mean?
[deleted] t1_j05eezm wrote
[deleted]
Chanchumaetrius t1_j06fp79 wrote
> Who gets to live in NYC
"Gets to" lmao. I wouldn't live in NYC for all the tea in China.
ShowerGrapes t1_j06jhd1 wrote
yeah, who would want to live in the best city in the world?
JVM_ t1_j06kztu wrote
I your not as aggressively negative in real life as you are on Reddit
ShowerGrapes t1_j06w8pl wrote
you read this as aggressively negative? if so, it's a reflection on you pal.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments