There is a big difference between tech as augmentation versus automation. Augmentation (think Excel and accountants) benefits workers while automation (think traffic lights versus traffic wardens) benefits capital.
LLMs are controversial because the tech is best at augmentation but is being sold by lots of vendors as automation.
Traffic lights are good, actually. As are elevators that don't require attendants.
@TruthSandwich You may note that he never said they were bad.
@TruthSandwich Is that really better? A man loses his job, and you have one less awkward interaction during the day. The service itself is deteriorated by the lack of a knowledgeable guide who can answer questions.
It got cheaper, yes. But better? Only for the owner of the building.
More importantly, though, (and back to the point), "good for capital" is only bad when the capital in question is bad. But capital can be good too, like the tax money from the general public, or charities, or schools. The OP's use of traffic lights as an example flies in the face of your claim that it was implied to be bad.
Yes, it's absolutely better because society benefits from the value created, not the person working. When value can be created with less work, or with none, we all win. Work is bad, actually!
This change is not just good for "capital", it's good for all of us. Even the former elevator attendant, although he's forced to change with the times.
The strongest argument you can make is that the benefit of this change lands unevenly.
@TruthSandwich If we had UBI, that might be true. But since work is a necessity of survival in the modern world, losing work is definitely bad.
More importantly, though, the automation in this example expressly does not benefit society. It increases society's unemployment rate so the owner of the building can reduce his expenses. One person wins.
If it actually benefited society, we'd have seen rents go down when elevator operators were retired, or seen that money reinvested into infrastructure or maintenance.
And that's really the crux of the problem: Automation makes things cheaper and easier to produce... and yet the prices at the supermarkets keep going up.
So, that goes back the original point: Whether or not "benefiting capital" is good depends very much on *who* the capital is. When it's society, it's good. When it's one person or family, it's bad.
@LouisIngenthron @TruthSandwich Louis totally nailed the point. Nothing more to add besides +1
@carnage4life @LouisIngenthron
That's ok: I have plenty to add.
At best, what you offer is an argument for an improved social safety net (which I don't oppose), not against automation.
Having elevators is a societal good as it allows taller buildings and for access to them even for those who can't walk up a dozen flights of stairs.
(1/)
@carnage4life @LouisIngenthron
But having to hire someone to sit in that box all day and pull the lever in either direction is not a societal good; it was just a cost associated with the good and we're better off without it.
The people once employed in this menial job were freed to do other work: work that was actually productive. This is a societal good, because it's the productivity that has value, not the work necessary for it. The less work, in fact, the better.
(2/)
@carnage4life @LouisIngenthron
As for the rest, there are too many mistakes for me to briefly correct. We should not expect cheaper elevators to be directly reflected in rent prices, for example, nor is inflation actually a bad thing, since it benefits borrowers over lenders.
(3/3)
@LouisIngenthron
No, but he implied it by saying they're "good for capital", which is false.
It's good for all of us when menial tasks, like running an elevator, are replaced by automation.
Yes, yes, the elevator attendants have to find some other low-paying unskilled job to replace their old one, but this is still a win for all of us.