←back to thread

209 points Luc | 8 comments | | HN request time: 0.424s | source | bottom
1. m3kw9 ◴[] No.43937586[source]
This is good news actually, while you have less jobs, hopefully new ones are created, people in the future don't have the option to work slave like jobs.
replies(4): >>43938584 #>>43939059 #>>43940020 #>>43941922 #
2. cogidub ◴[] No.43938584[source]
hopefully
replies(1): >>43939056 #
3. ◴[] No.43939056[source]
4. gruntbuggly ◴[] No.43939059[source]
I see this thinking thrown around often, but I don't see how net new jobs would be created by efficiencies. Amazon wouldn't adopt robots if it created more employment overhead downstream. Sure, there will be robot maintainers, but not at a replacement level of the roles replaced. Companies adopt technologies because they reduce the net amount of human input (cost) required, right?
replies(1): >>43939113 #
5. marcellus23 ◴[] No.43939113[source]
Well, the industrial revolution has been a story of continuous efficiency gains and increasing automation, but somehow there's still enough jobs.
replies(2): >>43940084 #>>43942421 #
6. gruntbuggly ◴[] No.43940084{3}[source]
Certainly, for 95% of americans that's been true recently, but ai seems more positioned as a qualitative than a quantitative shift. maybe my defining it in terms of efficiency is incorrect. Moreover these types of mundane tasks are a product of that industrialization. so i'm puzzled by the thinking of 'more efficiency to fix the pains brought on by efficiencies'
7. stemlord ◴[] No.43941922[source]
i think at least one unemployable generation of low skill workers will be sacrificed before this kind of thing becomes good news
8. paradox242 ◴[] No.43942421{3}[source]
I'm sure the cows say the same to one another all the way up to the gates of the slaughterhouse.