Comment by ErdosRoland
7 hours ago
But I am good at one skill that I spent years studying/training for, and now that skill is not paying the bills.
At least, that's how I view most discussions on AI adoption. Technological advancements are great for humanity, but that doesn't mean it comes without costs. The luddites are a famous example that's very often mentioned in this forum.
And no, "reskilling" isn't an option for many people. If you are poor, if you have a family or have people dependent on you, you cannot put your life on pause to learn something new, especially if you have no guarantees it won't end up like last time.
> and now that skill is not paying the bills. ... you cannot put your life on pause to learn something new
Yes, but that's a social issue, external to technology but exacerbated by every new technology, AI or not:
UBI should be a thing: let people work on what they find fulfilling, instead of having to work to survive.
AI could help design a system for UBI that everyone agrees with, since it's so good at maths and shit now.
This problem HAS to be tackled. Removing/slowing AI will only kick it further down the road, not eliminate it.
If UBI was a thing and people felt safe that they would not be poor, then obviously AI (and all technological innovation for that matter) would be much more welcomed. I do not see such initiatives being taken however.
It seems to me that all we are doing is a wild goose chase; Progress above all, to hell with any environmental/social impacts, the end justifies the means.
> This problem HAS to be tackled. Removing/slowing AI will only kick it further down the road, not eliminate it.
True, but people are generally selfish. They will put their own prosperity above that of the future generations, and I cannot blame them.
> people felt safe that they would not be poor
The actual fear underpinning this isn't even about being "poor", it's that being poor means starving, freezing, not having a bed to sleep on, not being able to get basic healthcare in emergencies..
It's possible to provide all those things without "giving away free money" to everybody, but..that's probably more complicated for now.
In any case, whether one "deserves" to live in basic comfort shouldn't depend on one's ability to do jobs that depend on holding back technological progress.
1 reply →