←back to thread

209 points Luc | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.237s | source
Show context
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 #
1. 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 #
2. 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 #
3. gruntbuggly ◴[] No.43940084[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'
4. paradox242 ◴[] No.43942421[source]
I'm sure the cows say the same to one another all the way up to the gates of the slaughterhouse.