Bill Gates Thinks AI Taking Everyone’s Jobs Could Be a Good Thing

Chas said:
Do you want the NICE answer? Or do you want the HONEST answer?

Warning. Nobody EVER wants the HONEST answer. And if they say they do, they're still secretly hoping for the NICE one.
Click to expand...
I'm guessing the honest answer is people can fight for increasingly disappearing jobs or they can starve. The nice version of that is I don't know, bootstraps? Considering how we're the richest country in the world and are capable of whatever we put our minds to, some would see that as a shitty solution. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the options the way you seem to be presenting them.

With government involvement = more bloat, more incompetence, more power taken away from people, but the POTENTIAL for many people not to starve
No government involvement = dwindling jobs, dwindling pay + rights, people starve

Gee, I think I'll take the flawed solution over no solution at all. I think that's where we differ.

Chas said:
Of course, the second someone else imposes their will on someone else, you no longer have anarchy.
Click to expand...
Uh, what? So if there's no rule of law and a gang decides to invade a home and take everything they have, now that's not anarchy? What would you call a state where there's no government, no authority, everybody does their own thing, which INCLUDES plenty of people imposing their will on others, in a small scale semi-chaotic fashion?
 
Last edited:
Chas said:
Incorrect. It's mob rule. It's a giant popularity contest.

In an anarchy, everyone just goes off and does their own thing. Simple lack of a centralized controlling body.

Of course, the second someone else imposes their will on someone else, you no longer have anarchy.
Click to expand...
Yes you're right, unfortunately I have to add, as mob rule is actually worse than everyone doing their own thing. Mob rule gets us witch hunts.

Chas said:
No, I'm talking about social programs, healthcare, welfare, etc.

Every time they start involving themselves, we wind up with atrocities like the VA, The "Affordable" Care Act, Social Security...need I go on?
Click to expand...
You can't dismiss something based on one bad example. Like the example of the US, where politics is basically an extension of the corporate elite.
Welfare and social security worked damn well in western europe until "some idiot" invited in a ton of economic migrants many of whom refuses to integrate.. But I'd argue that even in spite of the migrants the welfare state is holding up pretty well in germany.
Just because a knife can be used to carve someone's eye out doesn't mean it's not a very useful and necessary tool otherwise.
 
Last edited:
Well what if in the future when everyone owns a robot, you the owner is recieving the salary the robot is making. :p Then you can slouch at home all day long. ;)
 
RPGWiZaRD said:
Well what if in the future when everyone owns a robot, you the owner is recieving the salary the robot is making. :p Then you can slouch at home all day long. ;)
Click to expand...
I know you meant that as a joke, but that's actually not far off from how we should treat robots / automation. Make them work for us and not instead of us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WhoMe
like this
M76 said:
I know you meant that as a joke, but that's actually not far off from how we should treat robots / automation. Make them work for us and not instead of us.
Click to expand...

I made it with a semi-sarcastic grin on my face although I do think that's how it will go in future when robotics advances further. In one way it's not really bad thing letting people focus more on other creative or engineering or administration sort of jobs (I wouldn't expect a robot working in a factory to give a very high salary either, it's likely to stay similar eventhough the robot works more effectively so for the company it's win-win and it won't complain working 24/7 a day and it won't need vacation other than some servicing! but perhaps there will be people revolting in future how robots also have a soul *shrugs*).

Of course it clashes heavily with current generation's thought of how lazy people will become if robots will do the work for them and they still get pay for sitting at home but yea, seems like the only solution.
 
Last edited:
Automation is just a small piece in a larger globalization puzzle...you use the skills of a tiny minority (those who design/build the machines) to allow the vast majority to be put to work with little training or skills. And the lie proposed is that with it all, people will be able to pursue other interests; arts, new inventions, self improvement. But those same social safety nets are pulled down by their inherit nature. You end up supporting the dead weight of the population, who then brings everyone down with them.

(insert rant)
People like Bill Gates go to third world countries and ask themselves "these poor people, we must get their quality of life up to some standard ... no matter the cost" then watch in amazement as every bit of their resources results in the same conditions but more mouths to feed. The rest of us plebs are now being told we should also shoulder the costs, we should take in these wonderful people, again, no matter the cost. And please, don't have kids 1st worlders, there's already enough population in the world... Which is of course genius, we should absolutely stop reproducing the genetic lines that created everything that society stands on and totally keep pushing the ones that never have. You hear it enough, whether in some heart-tugging video, an article from some xyz-studies professor in CA (someone who benefits the most from the systems created by their ancestor's achievements) and some of the crazier mindsets don't seem so crazy.
Bill (+Melinda) Gates' vision is either A. a short sighted one with catastrophic consequences for the world population B. a very purposeful one aimed at widening the gap between the haves and have-nots; not only in resources but in genetic fitness as well.
 
lilbabycat said:
Automation is just a small piece in a larger globalization puzzle...you use the skills of a tiny minority (those who design/build the machines) to allow the vast majority to be put to work with little training or skills. And the lie proposed is that with it all, people will be able to pursue other interests; arts, new inventions, self improvement. But those same social safety nets are pulled down by their inherit nature. You end up supporting the dead weight of the population, who then brings everyone down with them.

(insert rant)
People like Bill Gates go to third world countries and ask themselves "these poor people, we must get their quality of life up to some standard ... no matter the cost" then watch in amazement as every bit of their resources results in the same conditions but more mouths to feed. The rest of us plebs are now being told we should also shoulder the costs, we should take in these wonderful people, again, no matter the cost. And please, don't have kids 1st worlders, there's already enough population in the world... Which is of course genius, we should absolutely stop reproducing the genetic lines that created everything that society stands on and totally keep pushing the ones that never have. You hear it enough, whether in some heart-tugging video, an article from some xyz-studies professor in CA (someone who benefits the most from the systems created by their ancestor's achievements) and some of the crazier mindsets don't seem so crazy.
Bill (+Melinda) Gates' vision is either A. a short sighted one with catastrophic consequences for the world population B. a very purposeful one aimed at widening the gap between the haves and have-nots; not only in resources but in genetic fitness as well.
Click to expand...

Eugenics much? :eek:
 
When human labor is no longer a scarce resource, how are people who do not have other forms of capital (i.e. wealth) to survive without a major restructuring of the economy?
 
heatlesssun said:
But a social experiment nonetheless. The concept of universal human equality was not the norm at the time and is something that we still struggle with today.
Click to expand...


And the money has to come from SOMEWHERE.

Otherwise...well...dogfooding and diminishing returns.
 
tetris42 said:
I'm guessing the honest answer is people can fight for increasingly disappearing jobs or they can starve. The nice version of that is I don't know, bootstraps? Considering how we're the richest country in the world and are capable of whatever we put our minds to, some would see that as a shitty solution. I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but these are the options the way you seem to be presenting them.

With government involvement = more bloat, more incompetence, more power taken away from people, but the POTENTIAL for many people not to starve
No government involvement = dwindling jobs, dwindling pay + rights, people starve

Gee, I think I'll take the flawed solution over no solution at all. I think that's where we differ.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but if it comes down to having my rights stripped, I'll fucking starve or find a way to actually earn a living.
The problem is, nowadays, people don't immediately get that corner office and get paid to browse porn all day on company time while banging 10's. So they give up. That's what I see.

The job market needs to evolve.
The government does NOT need to come in and start doing Universal Welfare Hand-Outs.


Uh, what? So if there's no rule of law and a gang decides to invade a home and take everything they have, now that's not anarchy? What would you call a state where there's no government, no authority, everybody does their own thing, which INCLUDES plenty of people imposing their will on others, in a small scale semi-chaotic fashion?
Click to expand...


No, because the second a person or group begins imposing their own order/will on any others, it ceases being anarchy and becomes an actual form of government.
Note: Not necessarily a *GOOD* form of government (tyranny and kleptocracy seldom are).
 
M76 said:
You can't dismiss something based on one bad example.
Click to expand...

ONE bad example? I gave you SEVERAL of the most prominent boondoggles.

How many more have to be pointed out before people realize that the government is REALLY shitty at social programs?
And how many people DIE in the mean time?

Welfare and social security worked damn well in western europe until "some idiot" invited in a ton of economic migrants many of whom refuses to integrate.
Click to expand...

This is why Italian regions are going bankrupt, drug companies are actually PULLING meds out of the market in Germany,
Why highly specialized medicines are entering the market at prices STARTING at "completely unaffordable" and moving on up from there.
Why the UK's NHS is demanding that doctors be open 12-16 hours a day 7 days a week or the government refuses to pay them a dime for anything. Why demand so far outstrips supply that it ceased being funny years ago.
 
Chas said:
Sorry, but if it comes down to having my rights stripped, I'll fucking starve or find a way to actually earn a living.
The problem is, nowadays, people don't immediately get that corner office and get paid to browse porn all day on company time while banging 10's. So they give up. That's what I see.

The job market needs to evolve.
The government does NOT need to come in and start doing Universal Welfare Hand-Outs.
Click to expand...
I'm wondering if we're looking at the same problem. You're talking as though if everyone gets off their ass and hustles, the problem is solved. That's not the scenario we're looking at. We're talking about a scenario where there's simply not enough jobs for every able-bodied and willing person. How lazy someone is irrelevant so long as there are enough non-lazy people willing to work that still saturate the market. I appreciate how you don't want the government involved, however you're not proposing an alternative other than starvation. You seem to be setting up the logical premise that our only options are starvation or government intervention, so you think starvation is the appropriate course. It's like you're anti-solution. I'm not pro-government, I'm pro solution. If government intervention is the only chance of a solution (a premise you seem to be framing), then I'm for government intervention in this scenario.


No, because the second a person or group begins imposing their own order/will on any others, it ceases being anarchy and becomes an actual form of government.
Note: Not necessarily a *GOOD* form of government (tyranny and kleptocracy seldom are).
Click to expand...
A gang of people taking something from another is not a form of government. They don't make laws, they don't make policy, they don't govern. It's just some bandits taking shit.

If you look at the first definition of government, it says "the act or process of governing; specifically : authoritative direction or control", if you look at the first definition of governing it says "to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; especially : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in"

A gang of bandits taking shit doesn't fit that definition. They're not making policy. They're not continuously exercising authority over a group of people. Continuously being the key word there. They're not establishing laws and policy for everyone to follow. They're simply taking shit by force and leaving. Your definition of government means roaming nomads have a form of government. That's not how the majority of the population or the dictionary defines it, but whatever.
 
How does a Consumer economy/society actually work when 90% of the consumers have no money to consume with?
 
bugleyman said:
Eugenics much? :eek:
Click to expand...

Yeah, when we finally reach population thresholds we're totally going to worry about making sure the dumbest, laziest, and most violent still breed. The things we have a benefit of discussing today will be settled by necessity in the future. You can reach towards solving the problem now and feel bad about it... or you can let shithole countries balloon to a few more billion only to eventually leave your kids/grandkids to experience some large scale wars + famine, all because you didn't wanna feel like a bad guy today.
 
Chas said:
ONE bad example? I gave you SEVERAL of the most prominent boondoggles.

How many more have to be pointed out before people realize that the government is REALLY shitty at social programs?
And how many people DIE in the mean time?
Click to expand...

People are shitty at everything, face it. Corporations continually trim costs and maximize profit, have massive influence on the government (making them shittier). People are so stuck in their mindset they can't see past their nose. Governments do a great job organizing this massive shit fest into something that for the most part works, but ultimately are just as flawed as the rest of us.

You also seem to completely miss the problem, or are so arrogant as to think that somehow it won't affect you and yours. This coming AI automation is going to be unlike anything we have ever seen. White collar, blue collar and government jobs are all going to be dramatically impacted. Large and medium corporations will be able to run with a minimal human work force, while population is expanding.
 
Makaveli@BETA said:
Correct the human species is still too juvenile for this to happen.
Click to expand...

No. The fact that Star Trek (TNG at least) is, effectively, a post-scarcity economy. Combine that with replicators, transporters and effectively unlimited energy and you have a society where people CAN only work if they wish to.
 
Aireoth said:
People are shitty at everything, face it. Corporations continually trim costs and maximize profit, have massive influence on the government (making them shittier). People are so stuck in their mindset they can't see past their nose. Governments do a great job organizing this massive shit fest into something that for the most part works, but ultimately are just as flawed as the rest of us.

You also seem to completely miss the problem, or are so arrogant as to think that somehow it won't affect you and yours. This coming AI automation is going to be unlike anything we have ever seen. White collar, blue collar and government jobs are all going to be dramatically impacted. Large and medium corporations will be able to run with a minimal human work force, while population is expanding.
Click to expand...


Is automation going to change the job market?

Yes.

Is the job market going to have to adapt?

Yes.

Does this necessarily mean we're going to see a sharp contraction of available jobs OVERALL?

Not necessarily.

Does this mean we're going to see a sharp contraction in (or elimination of) certain classes of jobs?

YEP!

Again, the job market (and the people in it) is going to have to adapt. The era of dumb, grunt labor is effectively OVER. Adapt or die.
 
lilbabycat said:
Yeah, when we finally reach population thresholds we're totally going to worry about making sure the dumbest, laziest, and most violent still breed. The things we have a benefit of discussing today will be settled by necessity in the future. You can reach towards solving the problem now and feel bad about it... or you can let shithole countries balloon to a few more billion only to eventually leave your kids/grandkids to experience some large scale wars + famine, all because you didn't wanna feel like a bad guy today.
Click to expand...

If you genuinely believe that the principal reason to oppose eugenics is "not wanting to feel like a bad guy" then I think it's safe to assume that further discussion is futile.
 
or...

violent revolution by the displaced...

Technologies that benefit the few at the expense of the majority will end badly for the few...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top