I agree with him. This AI is taking away hard work and jobs from writers, artists, and many others. And if you think your job is safe, think Twice. There should be balance. You know the worst part? The CEOs think that AI can replace all workers without understanding anything so that they can show profits.
@nixCraft taking away hard work and jobs is always a net positive, the fetishising of labour needs to stop. If steam machines were invented today y'all would be crying about them taking away hard work from manual laborers.
That's the point. Work is something that is done because it's needed, not because it's wanted. The moment you want to stop automating your work because that would leave you without it you're no longer a worker that provides needed services, you're holding the society hostage to still pay you.
You are correct to say "work is done because it's needed, not because it's wanted." (Though some do enjoy work, usually not wage labourers)
What you miss is: "work is done because it is needed... as the only semi-reliable way to stay alive"
Taking these jobs from ppl for "profit" and leaving those people to adapt or die is but one cruelty of capitalism. Until we break this contradiction, automation will not benefit workers. They will just have to find work elsewhere, or die.
@pansocial @nixCraft profit in this case is just net value provided to society. Yes, people whose work is no longer needed will need to switch to other jobs, that's what always has to happen in cases like this lest you have a system where people do work that is no longer needed just to continue to pull resources from society, effectively transforming from workers to parasites. Avoiding this is one of the reasons capitalism actually works unlike the alternatives.
Helping people switch to other jobs? I'm all for it. Trying to hinder progress that will benefit the whole of society just so the workers that it would replace can continue pretending to be needed? No, thanks. How did it go, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
As for automation not benefiting workers, that's absolutely not the case. Everyone wins when jobs get automated and their results become cheaper and more widely available. For those who lose jobs because of it it may still be net negative, but they're a tiny fraction of all workers across the system.
Profit is not "net value provided to society", these profits do not belong to society, they belong to business owners. How profit is redistributed into the economy, or not, is up to them. And they hoard a shit ton.
If AI replacing jobs = cheaper prices, you might be correct.
When they fire humans to replace them with AI the cost of labour/production has gone down.prices can remain constant. This means revenue has stayed the same in this case.
The mentally ill trying to convince you that we can live in "harmony" with nature are just that, mad as the hatter.
Watch the documentary "Life After People" and accept the fact that man and nature are at a constant war, and nature keeps winning every battle.
Those who are building an Elvish Society dwelling in trees, drinking the dew from flower petals and foraging for berries - sure, that's how humans existed up until Civilization - some millions of years.
Today, estimates are that we need add a few more BILLION people to Earth's population to KEEP what we have, or the level of technology across all industries going to decline.
The reason for this?
Useless fuckers who advocate for socialist utopia like Universal Minimum Wage. Who contribute nothing, the so called Public Charge.