Strong disagree. There is a lot we can do all about it. Starting with voting and promoting politicians who want to do something about it (yes, voting matters). Then, starting a discussion about the social use of work and labor. If these entry-level jobs can be automated, what quality were they exactly testing new hires for? Let’s make it an interviewing step instead.
Maybe make the entry level job one hierarchical layer higher. Instead of data entry, manage a fleet of data-entry AI agents.
And, also, wonder about the place of labor in our society. If not directly talking about basic income, talk about funding for more education, more training, on of the various modalities that exist: private or public funding, private or public college, in-company training, training through non-profits, etc.
The AI wave comes with huge social implication, and it is collectively that we will decide whether it makes individual situations worse or better.
I’'m not saying that “it is impossible for something to be done”.
I am saying that, “when you are communicating it to the masses in this method, you are not communicating the people who have the ability to actually do something about it”.
It’s a problem with the mainstream.
We would all have to work together to change its course, and even something as simple as me saying that “we are not the people who can do anything about it” gets opposition.
You would not work with me, therefore, there is no “we” to fight against this.
Do something, anything at all about it, in real life and not just on the internet.
And get, like, I don’t know, five people to do it with you.
Do that much, and I’ll admit I’m wrong.
I mean, I try to be a reasonable person. I tend to be calm and collected and to withhold judgment until all of the information is in.
In this case, all of the information is in.
People will bitch about it forever on the internet, but will never, ever do anything in real life about it.
5 people is not a really huge ask.
Get five people to congregate with you at the footsteps of a company that is using AI to make employment decisions and protest it.
That seems like a reasonable thing, right? And five people is enough to make a hubbub about it, at least with the company, right? So that’s a reasonable metric, right?
But if you can’t do that much, which is reasonably attainable for an individual, then you’ll just have to accept that I’m right, no matter who upvotes or downvotes who in the thread.
People who have don’t have power shouldn’t be talking about bad things they can’t change, because you’ll make other powerless people feel bad. Powerless people should just shut up.
Isn’t that basically what you’re saying?
I’m going to let you in on a little secret here.
The people you are telling about this are not the people who have the power to do anything about it.
So all you have accomplished by sharing this is making people who are completely powerless feel bad.
Congratulations, you’ve made things worse.
Strong disagree. There is a lot we can do all about it. Starting with voting and promoting politicians who want to do something about it (yes, voting matters). Then, starting a discussion about the social use of work and labor. If these entry-level jobs can be automated, what quality were they exactly testing new hires for? Let’s make it an interviewing step instead.
Maybe make the entry level job one hierarchical layer higher. Instead of data entry, manage a fleet of data-entry AI agents.
And, also, wonder about the place of labor in our society. If not directly talking about basic income, talk about funding for more education, more training, on of the various modalities that exist: private or public funding, private or public college, in-company training, training through non-profits, etc.
The AI wave comes with huge social implication, and it is collectively that we will decide whether it makes individual situations worse or better.
I think you misunderstand.
I’'m not saying that “it is impossible for something to be done”.
I am saying that, “when you are communicating it to the masses in this method, you are not communicating the people who have the ability to actually do something about it”.
It’s a problem with the mainstream.
We would all have to work together to change its course, and even something as simple as me saying that “we are not the people who can do anything about it” gets opposition.
You would not work with me, therefore, there is no “we” to fight against this.
deleted by creator
The fact that you are arguing with me about this is evidence that I am correct.
deleted by creator
Fine then.
Prove me wrong.
Do something, anything at all about it, in real life and not just on the internet.
And get, like, I don’t know, five people to do it with you.
Do that much, and I’ll admit I’m wrong.
I mean, I try to be a reasonable person. I tend to be calm and collected and to withhold judgment until all of the information is in.
In this case, all of the information is in.
People will bitch about it forever on the internet, but will never, ever do anything in real life about it.
5 people is not a really huge ask.
Get five people to congregate with you at the footsteps of a company that is using AI to make employment decisions and protest it.
That seems like a reasonable thing, right? And five people is enough to make a hubbub about it, at least with the company, right? So that’s a reasonable metric, right?
But if you can’t do that much, which is reasonably attainable for an individual, then you’ll just have to accept that I’m right, no matter who upvotes or downvotes who in the thread.
deleted by creator
Does your “we” include you?
People who have don’t have power shouldn’t be talking about bad things they can’t change, because you’ll make other powerless people feel bad. Powerless people should just shut up.
Isn’t that basically what you’re saying?
Edward snowden can’t just bomb the NSA. But at least he left his family and nationality to expose it.