Hello lemmy! ^^
I was given this debate topic for an ethics class and since I really like this “small” tech savvy community that we have I wanted to know what were your thoughts.
I personally love the idea of replacing jobs so we can focus on the things we love and care (ranging from developing games to spending time with loved ones).
But on the other side I am rather scared that our society will not be able to follow the rapid growth of technology and put in place good regulations to avoid widening the gap between the top% and the rest of us
Thanks for your answers ^^
While this is an interesting topic, ethically I can’t answer you because this was a homework assignment. If we gave you our answers, we’d be denying you the experience about how to arrive at your own.
Oh, I don’t want a deep ethical answer. Just raw thoughts. I get the part where I would be denied the experience of finding my own answer if you give yours. But if we didn’t have any outside input, how would we be able to produce any thoughtful work?
But if we didn’t have any outside input, how would we be able to produce any thoughtful work?
This is the critical question. How do you properly form your own opinions and apply them?
You have general opinions. You likely believe killing someone is wrong, but you likely would be willing to kill someone attacking you to save your own life. So there are nuances to beliefs.
Lets take your topic here: Should we encourage AI/robots (automation) to replace human labor?
Imagine a world where automation does, lets say, 50% more work than it does today. So if you go into a fast food restaurant with 10 workers today, in our hypothetical future there are now only 5. If you saw that evolution, would you believe its a good thing or a bad thing? Why?
There needs to be a mechanism through which the wages lost moving out to the citizenry continues to move out towards the citizenry.
If I employ 1000 people and now I can buy 100 AI robots at 1/10th the cost of a worker that do the job to 10 workers each… It’s good that a company is progressing society by creating this ease of workload, but it is bad that this ease translates to more people having fewer wages.
This is the fundamental problem.
The obvious answer is taxation and civil programs. But the haves have all the power in saying how it should go.
So it’s either UBI or guillotines.
When’s the homework due?
We can talk after that.
A thought, though. What happens to the human workers? And what kind of society are talking (I presume capitalist)
It happened before: computers, internet, smartphones, other machines were invented, productivity has only give up. And yet, we’re still working 8 hours per day (and earning less than before).
AI will get people fired. More people need work = lower salaries, more profit.
It would be great if we could all just work less, but they won’t let that happen.
Yeeep. UBI is essential to make “everybody works less” viable in our present society. And heavy taxation of corporate profits at a minimum is essential for UBI.
It should probably replace us where it can, the assumption is that the displaced will be able to do other more productive work increasing productivity overall. Though if we are unable to find other work this would probably lead to either a universal basic income or laws mitigating its use. It could lead to hardships if it ever could really displace us in mass. It seems so far though it isn’t quite at a replacement level and is prone to errors itself. Probably act more as a complement to current jobs in olace of total replacement
Lots of people are talking about this in terms of money… And we do live in a strongly capitalist society.
UBI or similar could be useful.
But… Money was created to find a way to compare one workers “value” to real world goods. When the worker doesn’t need goods (no AI needs 4 chickens and a bushel of grain a week) the workers value doesn’t need to be compared. There is less foundational value in money.
We could move away from net worth measured in hoarding money, and start taking about attending currencies such as social worth. Someones worth could be earned in being useful/helpful to society and we as a society could choose to give more resource to that person. Just an example, but a line of thought to go down
A totally separate area for discussion. I believe (most) people have a general need for purpose. Without “work” as we know it, lots of people could find themselves devoid of purpose. I have a feeling some of the ills of today’s world are because people are not finding social purpose in the work we do. Who really deeply cares about being the middle manager of a packaging company? I believe some of today’s mental health plagues are linked to this.
Remove even more “work” and do people find purpose in other things? Does that help or hinder?
Lots of people think with UBI we’ll all turn to art and culture. But frankly there’s only so much art each one of us can look at in a lifetime. What happens when too many people are sitting making boobs in clay? Do sculptures loose their artistic and cultural value? Is art and culture alone, enough to provide the whole of society with purpose?
Which is the greater of two evils? People being required to slog through monotonous work, or people having nothing to do at all?
With UBI, its assumed to be part of a surplus economy is my understanding? Use some of the remaining surplus to pay workers who want a marginally improved quality of life (no billionaires to limit wealth hoarding).
Offer child care to those who wish to have a career, maintain a community garden, teach part time, etc.
Optionally or additionally, provide enough funding to allow for passion projects.
Fund open projects for those who want to work together to push the limits of humanity.
If I didn’t have to slog and worry about keeping a roof over my family’s head and food on the table, I’d be dedicating all my spare time to space exploration instead of making APIs for some company.
Overly simple and likely impossible to implement, but there are ways to enable finding a purpose outside of art and culture.
Hey, as a former lecturer, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and see this as research.
How would this sudden mass unemployment affect the world? One angle to look at this from is the point of view of the average person.
If people’s needs are still met, then they’ll be able to live happy and fulfilled lives, with more time for happiness and leisure.
If people’s needs are not met, however, they’ll suffer.
It’s probably worth keeping in mind that history has shown that whenever big advances in technology have taken place (the Industrial Revolution, industrial automation, computers) there are people who always jump to the worst possible conclusion. The reality is always that some people are worse off, but most people are better off.
If society would move to a more socialist structure then ethically it could work well how ever under capitalism it won’t go well for the workers.
I got laid off because my company thinks their shiny new AI will cover my productivity… I’m betting you can guess how I feel?
Yea getting fired sucks, hope the company hr and ceo’s come to regret this, and all the best landing on your feet!
If we can assume some solution to the economic problems caused by this (UBI, for example) then I’d give an enthusiastic hell yeah. Why should we have to do unnecessary busy-work when there’s technology that could alleviate us of it?
AGI means humanity gets to retire. Retirement can be pretty awesome, it’s the goal many people work toward in the first place.
Not without taxing the shit out of them.
