|
Cicero posted:Yes, but it's presumably a lot easier to identify and eliminate biases like that when you're using essentially a single model across thousands of software deployments vs trying to identify and eliminate biases across thousands of individual brains. Discussion is one of the best ways to identify and eliminate those biases. So the best tool is out for the model.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again, maybe you go to doctor house MD and he is using his genius brain to think up brand new diagnosis and then curing them with brand new treatments. But most of real medicine is failable doctors trying to vaguely remember symptoms within the limits of human memory then poorly looking up the symptoms they don't remember then giving treatments based on whatever the research said the last time they looked at the research mixed with how they "feel" about it. you can pull up WebMD right the gently caress now and self-diagnose to your heart's content with the power of technology, and if you search around a bit and insist hard enough can almost certainly find a doctor willing to go along with whatever you say your problem is if you pick something not totally off-the-wall that'd need Dr. House to begin with. this isn't some miraculous futuristic Jetsons cure to illness, it's an extremely terrible means of diagnosis commonly used today by total nutbars Cicero posted:Yes, but it's presumably a lot easier to identify and eliminate biases like that when you're using essentially a single model across thousands of software deployments vs trying to identify and eliminate biases across thousands of individual brains. that would depend on who's doing the QA to check for those biases (it's the same closed institution of 98% young bougie white libertarian dudes that built the search engine in the first place), and how motivated they are to aggressively identify and correct that particular shortcoming (they think homeless people should just make a Kickstarter). you're proposing replacing thousands of doctors, some lovely, with an encyclopedia and a tech bro who can be in thousands of places at once. This is a real problem we have with software here and now, and it's only getting bigger as what San Francisco feels objective reality is starts pervading more and more aspects of everyday life. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:44 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:20
|
|
|
BrandorKP posted:Discussion is one of the best ways to identify and eliminate those biases. So the best tool is out for the model. Discussion is one of the best tools for the human mind, because conducting testing/inspecting/'debugging' are all somewhere between difficult to impossible there. This is not true for a computer model. Even neural nets, which are relatively opaque in their decision-making as far as computer programs go, are still easier to inspect and adjust than a human brain. An amusing example of this is Google reversing its image detection neural net and discovering that it thought that dumbbells pretty much had to have arms attached to them: https://research.googleblog.com/2015/06/inceptionism-going-deeper-into-neural.html Once you discover that kind of bias in machine learning, it's generally possible to undo it by adjusting your training data (e.g. in this case you would just feed the neural net more images of dumbbells sans arms). Contrast that with the obvious scalability problem with humans: with a herculean effort, you might be able to get enough serious training and education to undo a handful of biases in most doctors, but they simply don't have enough time to constantly be attending that kind of education while also, y'know, attending patients and studying the newest medical techniques and information (which they already struggle to do). With a computer model, you can train it endlessly at HQ and then push out the updated version everywhere overnight. Cicero fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:32
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:that would depend on who's doing the QA to check for those biases (it's the same closed institution of 98% young bougie white libertarian dudes that built the search engine in the first place), and how motivated they are to aggressively identify and correct that particular shortcoming (enh). you're proposing replacing thousands of doctors, some lovely, with an encyclopedia and a tech bro who can be in thousands of places at once. 1. Tech companies are usually actually less white than the national average. 2. Most techies are center-left, not libertarian. The libertarian ones are just unusually loud. 3. Medical regulations exist and tech companies would obviously have to play ball to operate in this sphere, like how Google's DeepMind is partnering with the NHS in the UK. 4. AI replacing doctors entirely is the extreme long-term scenario after they've already proven themselves augmenting doctors for a long time. We're not going to go from "no AI" to "all doctors replaced with AI" overnight.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:you can pull up WebMD right the gently caress now and self-diagnose to your heart's content with the power of technology, and if you search around a bit and insist hard enough can almost certainly find a doctor willing to go along with whatever you say your problem is if you pick something not totally off-the-wall exotic. this isn't some miraculous futuristic Jetsons cure to illness, it's an extremely terrible means of diagnosis commonly used today by total nutbars I have literally no idea how well or poorly WebMD compares to doctors when both are limited to only self reported symptoms with no diagnostic tests. I imagine both do really bad overall. Medical testing is a huge part of medical diagnosis. I do imagine doctors do better than laymen reading a random set of articles written by and for laymen but I bet both success rates would be extremely low. I don't understand why you would hold webMD as a cutting edge medical database system though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 17:54
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Discussion is one of the best tools for the human mind, because conducting testing/inspecting/'debugging' are all somewhere between difficult to impossible there. This is not true for a computer model. Even neural nets, which are relatively opaque in their decision-making as far as computer programs go, are still easier to inspect and adjust than a human brain. I disagree. It's even more true for complicated models. Complicated models are systematics. Lets say one uses the differential equations paradigm to make a stock and flow model of a business cycle in the oil and gas industry. Jesus there is a lot of subjectivity in that model. That model by design might have blind spots, massive, gently caress you in rear end if you use it to plan, blind spots. Those biases are best spotted through discussion between diverse people. Now take the deep learning paradigm, there are biases, human biases hidden in the data it uses to build itself. As you point out, humans have to identify and tweak the data to eliminate these. Discussion by humans is still the tool by which these models are corrected. The experience and education of human professionals is still nesissary, but the wide and quick spread of the sucessful models undermine that base of education (by making it redundant and expensive). We tend to trust these models more as they improve, meaning we are less likely to look critically for thier biases while becoming less able to. Critical discussion is as nesissary as it has ever been. All models suffer from one risk of forgetting: "that what I do not know, in no way I think I know." Discussion remains the only way to address that risk, and it is the deadliest sort of pride to write its nessesity off. Bar Ran Dun fucked around with this message at 18:35 on Feb 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:29
|
|
|
I don't understand the discussion but I will add my 2 cents anyway: Computers are programable and they are also re-programable. So you make a mediocre AI that drive cars, you fine tunned it, and each version gets better. v9.0 would be a more than decent driver, while 1.0 would be bad. And you can copy this software to millions, so it may take you personally 10 years to train 800 people to drive, but if you write a ai program that drive cars, it can empower 80.000.000 vehicles. Then humans die, and their experiences are gone with them. This is good. But software have this too. Instead of making Windows 99 and Windows 2001, you makes Windows XP, and it breaks with the existing code in a number of things, but it use everything that you have learn from old versions. So new software usually have a better start than a new human. You can write a program, then when its finished you can delete all source code. When you write it again, it will be a better program than the original. But if you have a children, kill it, the next children will not be better. Software have history and progression, but every new human is a blank slate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 18:58
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Again, maybe you go to doctor house MD and he is using his genius brain to think up brand new diagnosis and then curing them with brand new treatments. But most of real medicine is failable doctors trying to vaguely remember symptoms within the limits of human memory then poorly looking up the symptoms they don't remember then giving treatments based on whatever the research said the last time they looked at the research mixed with how they "feel" about it. The cold boring database doesn't look up medical studies on its own - the fallible doctors are the ones using the cold boring database to look them up. It doesn't matter how good the database is, because the I/O device that interprets your symptoms and complaints and turns them into search queries for the database is still a human being with medical training, and the I/O device that parses and analyzes the results of the query will also be a human being with medical training. The magic perfect database doesn't remove the human element or even meaningfully diminish the role of human doctors.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The cold boring database doesn't look up medical studies on its own - the fallible doctors are the ones using the cold boring database to look them up. It doesn't matter how good the database is, because the I/O device that interprets your symptoms and complaints and turns them into search queries for the database is still a human being with medical training, and the I/O device that parses and analyzes the results of the query will also be a human being with medical training. The magic perfect database doesn't remove the human element or even meaningfully diminish the role of human doctors. Reducing them to coding and data entry actually does seem like a meaningful diminishment of their role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Cicero posted:2. Most techies are center-left, not libertarian. The libertarian ones are just unusually loud. They are center-left in the way that most people in D&D are center-left, i.e. they vote Democrat but are ignorant of and infuriated by any perspective they don't personally share. Some of the worst racists on this forum would self-identify as "center-left." Point out that a techbro's medical AI is replicating biased assumptions like "black people don't feel as much pain" or "women are hypochondriacs" and you'll get an avalanche of pedantic defensiveness, not an "oh poo poo let's fix that right away." I mean, look at you. Did you go "oh poo poo let's think about steps the industry can take to avoid this extremely likely problem?" No, you defended the honor of tech bros. As I lay dying of the heart attack my AI doctor didn't detect because only male medical symptoms are the real ones, it will be a real comfort to me to know that only some of the men who designed the system were libertarians.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... Anyway are there studies showing positive effects on employment? I just don't buy the blanket theory that automation will doom is all to the bread lines. I also don't intend to minimize the need to compensate, like providing retraining and other social programs. It's just that the tone of these discussions always has a luddite feel.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... The whole modern economy exists to the automation of farming making other things possible for humans to spend their time doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:42
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... It only has that Luddite feel because folks are all too willing to ignore that costs and ineffectiveness of retraining or related issues such as rampant age discrimination or "lack of culture fit".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... In an ideal world automation makes jobs easier. It's nicer to drive a backhoe than to shovel out a ditch yourself. The problem is, as this thread has discussed, you convert ten ditch-diggers into one backhoe operator. You're also converting a task, in this case ditch-digging, from something an unskilled laborer could do to something that's skilled and gated, usually by expensive and time-consuming credentials. Automation creates jobs that middle-class people are comfortable taking, which would be a good thing for the middle class if there were enough jobs being created, but it leaves the uncredentialed behind. I've started saying "uncredentialed" instead of "unskilled" because a lot of jobs classified as unskilled labor are actually hugely affected by the ability and experience of the workers doing them, and ignoring that has caused the quality in a lot of industries to nose-dive, particularly retail. Suppose we found a way to create ten jobs with the invention of the backhoe - backhoe operation, backhoe maintenance, backhoe dispatch. Maybe we live in a nicer version of the world where increased efficiency prompts us to let people work shorter hours for the same pay. Our unemployed ditch-diggers still don't automatically get to do those jobs. Any time you have to go to school you have to find a way to support yourself while you're learning, so even if the ditch-diggers intend to return to the industry, some of them will be discouraged by the opportunity cost or end up staying in the jobs they got to live on while they were going to school. The lucky ones who complete their Backhoe Management certifications - maybe the government provided the retraining for free and they had the fortune to have family members who could support them while they were getting it - well, now they're competing in the labor market with all the young Backhoe Management grads who got those qualifications right out of high school, have low salary expectations, don't cost the company health plan much money, and are free to move anywhere for a job. Our highly credentialed ditch-diggers are still hosed. They've spent a lot of time and likely a lot of money only to become a bottom-rung candidate for the industry they used to have a steady job in. I don't think we should keep bad, backbreaking jobs from automating just to keep people employed. That doesn't address my goal of improving people's quality of life. If I had a magic wand I'd make it so when an industry automates there's an acknowledgement that this is sunsetting a specific job. The displaced workers are given lifelong pensions and sincere thanks, and can go off on their own much the way military veterans (ideally, in this awesome world I'm living in here) do - discounts on education and other economic ventures, and the security of the pension allowing them to take risks in a new profession or just retire and enjoy themselves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 20:58
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Suppose we found a way to create ten jobs with the invention of the backhoe - backhoe operation, backhoe maintenance, backhoe dispatch. I don't think there has ever been a time in all of human history where technology making a job obsolete was followed by people going on to work as support staff for the technology that made them obsolete. It's always people moving to new domains to do work that formally was not worth doing.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:I don't think there has ever been a time in all of human history where technology making a job obsolete was followed by people going on to work as support staff for the technology that made them obsolete. It's always people moving to new domains to do work that formally was not worth doing. In a stunning upset, Owlofcreamcheese fails to understand a hypothetical.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:In a stunning upset, Owlofcreamcheese fails to understand a hypothetical. But it's literally not a thing that has ever happened, will ever happen or even makes any sense. If a job can only be replaced by automation that requires the exact same number of people to run then it's not worthwhile automation. All real progress comes by taking jobs that people need to do then taking people off of them and people moving on to bigger and better things. If the idea is soon no jobs will require people then congratulations welcome to the church of the singularity.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:26
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But it's literally not a thing that has ever happened, will ever happen or even makes any sense. If a job can only be replaced by automation that requires the exact same number of people to run then it's not worthwhile automation. Yes, Owlofleadpaint, the entire point was "even if the impossible happened, the following problems would still exist." If you can link me to a post where you're not a blithering moron I'll buy you the avatar of your choice.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:But it's literally not a thing that has ever happened, will ever happen or even makes any sense. If a job can only be replaced by automation that requires the exact same number of people to run then it's not worthwhile automation. Do you also believe Erwin Schrödinger put a cat in a box with a flask of cyanide set to open on emission of a beta particle and a chunk of a radioactive substance that undergoes beta decay?
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:28
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:Yes, Owlofleadpaint, the entire point was "even if the impossible happened, the following problems would still exist." Because that isn't a good model for how progress happens. There isn't a race of backhoe people that once they lose a backhoe job they need another backhoe job and everything in their universe is backhoes. In all of history when large numbers of jobs are displaced by technology the people don't then go on to just cling to that same industry. New industries happen. Either because of the advancement (backhoes let there be jobs installing sprinkler systems) or more often unrelated things that were not priority to pay for are now worthwhile. (no one ran a nail salon until people had their needs covered well enough 'frivolous' things like that could be profitable)
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:44
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:It only has that Luddite feel because folks are all too willing to ignore that costs and ineffectiveness of retraining or related issues such as rampant age discrimination or "lack of culture fit". That's true, but we're talking about labor *elimination* at this point too. No one's really been able to explain to me what you do with the legions of people who have American HS level education (which is to say, barely trainable) and who suddenly find themselves unemployable. Even if you can train these people to be programmers (you won't be able to) we don't need legions of lovely front end web devs. The idea that "new industries" will save us (and will for some reason require massive amounts of human labor unlike every other industry) is asinine as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:45
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because that isn't a good model for how progress happens. There isn't a race of backhoe people that once they lose a backhoe job they need another backhoe job and everything in their universe is backhoes. In all of history when large numbers of jobs are displaced by technology the people don't then go on to just cling to that same industry. New industries happen. Either because of the advancement (backhoes let there be jobs installing sprinkler systems) or more often unrelated things that were not priority to pay for are now worthwhile. (no one ran a nail salon until people had their needs covered well enough 'frivolous' things like that could be profitable) I have explained what a hypothetical is twice now. If you're still having this much trouble, human interaction is not for you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Because that isn't a good model for how progress happens. There isn't a race of backhoe people that once they lose a backhoe job they need another backhoe job and everything in their universe is backhoes. In all of history when large numbers of jobs are displaced by technology the people don't then go on to just cling to that same industry. New industries happen. Either because of the advancement (backhoes let there be jobs installing sprinkler systems) or more often unrelated things that were not priority to pay for are now worthwhile. (no one ran a nail salon until people had their needs covered well enough 'frivolous' things like that could be profitable) Are you doing this on purpose? Because I'd like to think you are not genuinely stumped by someone putting forward a hypothetical situation to highlight an overarching social point. The problem with that is the fact that a lot of work in things like nail salons and other "frivolous" work is that it does not pay as well and is considered, by society, to carry less social cache than many other industries that have no vanished. You might create a thousand new jobs in another industry but often they will be more poorly recompensed and treated worse because it is considered a "bad job".
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 21:57
|
|
|
Planet money ran a show on retraining programs, the cause of displacement was trade, but I think it's still relevant. Displaced workers want what TB is talking about, and retraining programs have exactly the issues she describes. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...87BH0f0zL6G_DJw
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:08
|
|
|
edit: nevermind.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... I could've sworn I wrote something in the OP that mentions how automation has been breaking more jobs than creating.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 00:50
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:All real progress comes by taking jobs that people need to do then taking people off of them and people moving on to bigger and better things. If the idea is soon no jobs will require people then congratulations welcome to the church of the singularity. Nobody is worried about this and it's ridiculous to see this strawman come up every single time automation is discussed in any context. The threat is and always has been the loss of a meaningful number of jobs that are accessible to most of the population. If people need highly specialized skill sets just for a chance to enter a competitive labor market then we are hosed. Automation is gnawing at the middle and lower ends of the labor market, and it'll only take the unemployment floor going up by a few percent to trigger to a massive crisis.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
Just throwing this out there, has anyone tried automating capital and/or wealthy people?
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 01:53
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:Just throwing this out there, has anyone tried automating capital and/or wealthy people? Yes, actually. quote:For the past year, we as a society have been worried sick about artificial intelligence eating the jobs of 3 million truck drivers. Turns out that a more imminently endangered species are the Wall Street traders and hedge fund managers who can afford to buy Lamborghinis and hire Elton John to play their Hamptons house parties. At least quants will get hosed? quote:A report from Eurekahedge monitored 23 hedge funds utilizing AI and found they outperformed funds relying on people. Quants, the Ph.D. mathematicians who design fancy statistical models, have been the darlings of hedge funds for the past decade, yet they rely on crunching historical data to create a model that can anticipate market trends. AI can do that too, but AI can then watch up-to-the-instant data and learn from it to continually improve its model. In that way, quant models are like a static medical textbook, while AI learning machines are like a practicing doctor who keeps up with the latest research. Which is going to lead to a better diagnosis? “Trading models built using back-tests on historical data have often failed to deliver good returns in real time,” says the Eurekahedge report. I keep saying this, even if us regular people see it as impossible, there is a growing number of movers and shakers who really do envision a world where multi-national corporations only employ a few high-ranking, extremely well-paid executives each, and are pouring tons of money to make it a reality as fast as possible.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
anonumos posted:Has anyone written about my gut feeling that amounts to "not all automation"? I don't think automation is inherently zero sum. Many automated systems give rise to new industries, creating more jobs than destroyed. Naturally most such positive knock-on effects are less invisible or more obfuscated than the negatives, but... Automation has always destroyed more jobs than it has created, it has to by definition - If it didn't bring down costs then there would be no incentive to develop the automation in the first place. What's happened in the past is that other sectors of employment have opened up due to a sudden growth in available labor forces. Automation didn't create new work, but the fact that more workers were now available let other industries spring up to utilize them. The conventional wisdom that this process will repeat itself is probably wrong, because things are different this time. The past ~250 years of automation have for the most part just been putting a simple task into a large mechanical machine, and scaling it. The machines got more efficient and more sophisticated but they still just replaced simple tasks, e.g., tractors or textile factors replacing very simple but very labor intensive work. Then computers came along. The massive efficiency boons from computers extends to every imaginable corner of the workforce, from sophisticated robot arms that manufacture vehicles, to barcode scanners at a grocery store, to a basic spreadsheet that helps runs a small business. It was our luck that the computer explosion also brought with it a huge number of grunt-level white-collar jobs that involved sitting behind a keyboard, but they've been getting automated far faster than they've been created since then. But now in the last decade or so we've hit another explosion of software capability, and now automation of tasks is gobbling up even what could be considered relatively advanced work. Driving vehicles, recognizing images, writing news, figuring out patient treatments - the list goes on forever. There's no gap of new simple labor here that a bulk of the labor force can jump into. Everything simple is already automated or about to be. Any new basic work that needs to be done will be automated before the general public even knows it exists. Probably the best the unskilled labor market can hope for as far as new jobs go is an explosion of work in labeling data sets for neural network training (spoiler: this isn't going to happen)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:06
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:I don't think we should keep bad, backbreaking jobs from automating just to keep people employed. That doesn't address my goal of improving people's quality of life. If I had a magic wand I'd make it so when an industry automates there's an acknowledgement that this is sunsetting a specific job. The displaced workers are given lifelong pensions and sincere thanks, and can go off on their own much the way military veterans (ideally, in this awesome world I'm living in here) do - discounts on education and other economic ventures, and the security of the pension allowing them to take risks in a new profession or just retire and enjoy themselves. No company would ever accept this deal. You're asking them to make the capital investment (buy a backhoe) but not actually benefit from the increased efficiency (pay the same labor costs as before). If they have to pay for that labor anyways they'll just keep using ditch diggers and distribute the capital to shareholders instead of buying the backhoe. Unless you mean that the government will step in to provide the lifelong pension, in which case why favor displaced workers over non-displaced ones? Just provide everyone UBI (because in today's economy almost every worker will be displaced at some point in their working life). Dr. Arbitrary posted:Just throwing this out there, has anyone tried automating capital and/or wealthy people? yes it's called automated trading and it's created some billionaire hedge fund types (e.g. noted Trump supporter and Breitbart investor Robert Mercer)
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
Family Values posted:No company would ever accept this deal. You're asking them to make the capital investment (buy a backhoe) but not actually benefit from the increased efficiency (pay the same labor costs as before). If they have to pay for that labor anyways they'll just keep using ditch diggers and distribute the capital to shareholders instead of buying the backhoe. Well, Family Values, this is one way of developing towards a UBI through the back door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:14
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:Well, Family Values, this is one way of developing towards a UBI through the back door. You're not going to sneak UBI through the backdoor. You'll have better luck (though still extremely low) doing the hard work of popularizing it and getting it through the front door.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:17
|
|
|
Family Values posted:You're not going to sneak UBI through the backdoor. You'll have better luck (though still extremely low) doing the hard work of popularizing it and getting it through the front door. Fabian tactics have been categorically disproven? News to me. Or to be less obscure, the process of normalizing a UBI could consist of doing it all at once, or it could consist of normalizing the idea by playing on existing beliefs about justice to sidestep people's belief that it would only encourage laziness.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:19
|
|
|
If the workers owned the means of production, nobody would be losing anything by increasing automation while keeping the amount of cash flowing into worker's pockets the same. The workers would simply be making their own jobs at their own company easier, a worthwhile investment any day. But you're the second guy to skip over the fairly important phrase "magic wand" there so I'm not sure how productive this conversation will be. I wrote about what would be best for workers. While they and the owners of capital are different people they will always have opposing goals.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 02:58
|
|
|
Kerning Chameleon posted:I keep saying this, even if us regular people see it as impossible, there is a growing number of movers and shakers who really do envision a world where multi-national corporations only employ a few high-ranking, extremely well-paid executives each, and are pouring tons of money to make it a reality as fast as possible. This is related to how they justify thier pay too. They see the value creation in business as mostly done at the top. I'll post a diagram that shows how this works later if I still have it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 03:49
|
|
|
Tiny Brontosaurus posted:If the workers owned the means of production, nobody would be losing anything by increasing automation while keeping the amount of cash flowing into worker's pockets the same. The workers would simply be making their own jobs at their own company easier, a worthwhile investment any day. 'If wishes were horses, beggars would ride' Yes make-believe is generally unproductive. Automation, however, is not make-believe so it's more productive to discuss it without invoking magic wands.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:21
|
|
|
Thought experiments are unproductive, and the vast majority of science and philosophy is a waste of time. Spoken like a true engineer.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:22
|
|
|
 All that stuff with the large "cost of resource" yeah that's all what they'd like automated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 8, 2024 14:00 |
|
|
Family Values posted:'If wishes were horses, beggars would ride' I wrote a pretty goddamn lengthy and thought-out post up there. If all you've got in response is stale platitudes maybe I'm not the one being unproductive here. Genuinely impressed you've managed to post worse than the guy doing brain damage performance art.
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2017 05:58
|
|