← Back to context

Comment by CamperBob2

2 days ago

[flagged]

I'd have been ok if things fell more in their direction... I'm not saying "clear win", but a middle ground that had the machines do the things they're best at while letting humans do the quality work.

  • > but a middle ground that had the machines do the things they're best at while letting humans do the quality work.

    By arguing for letting humans work, particularly quality work, you're not especially finding a middle ground, more adopting the 1811 position of the OG Luddites who were opposed to being put out of work.

haha, if you knew me you would realize that I am exactly the wrong person to be asking that specific question.

I think two sane things.

1) It’s good in the long run that they didn’t prevail at that time.

2) They did actually, in fact, have a point.

  • I mean obviously they had a point? No one wants to lose their job.

    • Everybody wants to lose their jobs. Almost by definition your job is something you do not because you want to, but because you need to earn a living. Even if your job coincides with your hobby, you would prefer not to have your economic welfare tied to it in a way that drives how you engage with it.

      We are on the verge of making this possible, if a bunch of myopic morons -- people who have never been right about a single long-term trend in history -- can be convinced not to screw it up.

      3 replies →