Your entire viewpoint is based on the idea that there will always be jobs no matter how advanced ai and automation becomes. This is the idea that needs to be addressed, not the shrubbery surrounding it. It’s meaningless to say that new jobs have always been found and that rapid advancement in technology has not seemed to doom us so far. That’s like saying we haven’t run out of oil yet so why would we ever run out. The number of tasks that a human can do is finite. When machines saturate that set of tasks, something really bad will happen. But even long before, there will be massive problems as we approach it.
I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.
If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.
You are confusing yourself. Zoom all the way out. Look at automation in its ultimate, final and inevitable form: machinery that can do anything a human can. If you don’t think AGI is possible then the discussion ends here. The only question that needs to be addressed is whether or not humans can live well in the presence of that technology. Economically, what would the effect be? When the internet came, phone books disappeared. This was predicted. It’s economics, not a question of technology. So what are your predictions for when humans are no longer the exclusive source of intelligent signal processing, which we have been for all of history? If you look at this question honestly and carefully then the answer you find will not make you an advocate for ai and automation. Not unless you hate yourself and mankind.
The semantics of that word are endlessly talked about and debated. It’s completey irrelevant to anything and everything besides English literature people. It’s so frustrating to see so many people spinning their wheels on it, wasting energy that could be used for meaningful discussion. What is also frustrating is the use of that word to put people down. Anyone who thinks that automation is bad is a “Luddite.” Those “luddites” actually have an increasingly good point.
“When a politician says his opponent is mistaken, that's a straightforward criticism, but when he attacks a statement as "divisive" or "racially insensitive" instead of arguing that it's false, we should start paying attention.”
At one point he reflects on the “high water mark of political correctness during the early 1990s.” Really funny to read that in 2018. Whether you are a liberal or not, everyone would agree that political correctness has grown tremendously since then. Wherher it was for good or bad depends on your politics. In any case, very interesting to consider.
I mean, divisiveness for its own sake is bad - I wish more people felt like we were 'in this together' more of the time instead of engaging in identity politics about which group deserves what. So I see where the point is coming from, but it's not a totally content-free argument to make, to accuse someone of being divisive. It doesn't mean they're wrong, but calling someone divisive could be a valid criticism in its own right.
No. The argument is that, when statements are labeled "divisive" rather than "wrong", that's telling you that there is something that, socially, you're not allowed to say (which was the topic of the essay that the quote came from).
I never made one in the first place. I still don’t understand why it wasn’t immediately obvious to everyone else that Facebook was toxic and a bad idea. I truly don’t understand how other people did or recognize that. It was blindingly obvious to me.
I already know you won’t be convinced by what I’m saying. Just respond with your strongest counter-argument to my central point about the finite nature of human jobs, or in other words what will happen when machines can do everything we can. Just give me your strongest counter-argument about that. I will then explain why that’s wrong, and we can continue until you see that you’re wrong. I will be extremely patient about it.