/sci/ - Science & Math

>>10819051
true

I've read quite a few books on varying subjects opie and I am of the opinion that what is commonly referred to as the fourth industrial revolution, or the information age, will be unlike others in that whereas before for every job lost many more were created that any man could perform, now we have a situation where job losses far outpace job creation, with new jobs being such that they require equal amounts IQ and skill meaning that most people will be unable to 'retrain' themselves to rejoin the labour force while the relative scarcity of these new jobs results in hypercompetitive environments depressing wages even further.
We already see this in the ludicrous expectations employers now have for even the most mediocre of jobs. Imagine the labour force as a fragile pyramid with every shock thinning out the top-most layers; the residue flows down, saturating each lower layer which can only accommodate a certain number of people. Power, then, is in the hands of the employer as, with a glut of labour, they can be hyper selective and offer lower wages. Don't believe me?
"In the US, nearly 90 percent of fast food workers are twenty or over, and the average age is thirty-five" Alana Samuels, LA Times 2013
It used to be the case that fast food was the reserve of deadbeats and high school students. That is no longer the case.
Now imagine a bell curve of the standard variety showing IQ distribution. In previous industrial revolutions most jobs that were created could accommodate anyone within 1 stdev of the mean. Most jobs in the information age are high-skilled and require an IQ at least one stdev to the right of the mean; only 16% of people have the innate capability to work such jobs.
Expect a future of hordes of disenfranchised brown people fighting for scraps while the 'enlightened few' who possess the ability and the will to adapt to the new labour market live in private villages or cloud cities.
tl;dr dystopia

>>10819147
In previous industrial revolutions most jobs that were created could accommodate anyone within 2 stdev of the mean*

>>10819051
THOSE WITHOUT JOBS MUST BE PURGED
THERE IS NO FREEDOM EXCEPT THROUGH THE PLOW OF THE LAND
AND SHOULD THAT LAND BECOME MATHEMATICAL, THEN SO TOO MUST THOSE WHO PLOW IT, TOOLS AND ALL.
PURGE PURGE PURGE. HNNNNNGH I CAN'T WAIT FOR PEOPLE THAT CAN'T DO BASIC MATH TO DISAPPEAR
HNNNNNNNNGH OH MY GOD I'M GONNA BURST HNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGH
WE'LL FORCE THEM ALL INTO CORNERS AND FORCE THEM TO ADMIT THEY ARE USELESS SUBHUMANS TO SOCIETY AND THEY WILL BEG FOR US TO REND THEMMM
HNGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH

>>10819151
Get some help...Get ALL the help...
._."

>>10819051
>Artificial Intelligence will destroy many jobs
Innovation that improves productivity does not really destroy jobs, it destroys work.
Companies used to employ thousands of human calculators who crunched numbers. Now computers do the work automatically in seconds.
this enabled companies to save money and grow, so they could hire people to do other things, it also reduced the cost of their products and services, making them more affordable, which means regular people can use the money they save to do all sorts of things with their money and create more jobs.

>>10819051
>Artificial Intelligence will destroy many jobs ... but what about the creation of new jobs?
It will destroy a lot more jobs than it would create.

For every factory, 10,000 worked will lose their jobs and only 10 college graduates will be required to watch over the machines.

As a result the people who grew up in the working class, would seek out higher and higher education. More more people would graduate with college degrees. But at the same time the number of people required to run business would decrease.

The college degree (yes, even professional/PhDs) would depreciated in value, because so many people have them, and there's are no jobs to take them.

People are overestimating AI and underestimating themselves. It will be fine.

>>10819301

>>10819301
In the short term people overestimate the effects of technological advances, in the long term they underestimate it

>>10819301
I bring the eldest of sauces.

Don't fall for the old "Make Work" bias.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEbdgpIQ7n4

>>10819313
I genuinely believe it, anon. People are way better at adapting than they think, you'd see it in yourself if you put yourself in uncomfortable situations.

>>10819147
So they will make good for cheaper but no one can buy them apparently but the rich stay rich somehow.
If shit really becomes that easy then you just need to buy one of these robots yourself to make all your shit. Not to mention the philaphropy money will be super optimized. I think we will be fine

>>10819296
>The college degree (yes, even professional/PhDs) would depreciated in value, because so many people have them, and there's are no jobs to take them.

because it's considered a labor shortage whenever employers are forced to pay people a living wage

>>10819394

and foreign labor will always be the fuck-you stick tptb use to beat down proles who demand to keep a significant fraction of the value they create.

>>10819051
Why the fuck do you want fucking jobs you stupid fucking idiot?
WE
DO
NOT
WANT
TO
WORK

>>10819401
BECAUSE THE ELITE WILL NOT FUND YOUR LIFESTYLE AMAZON PAID 0 IN TAXES WHY WOULD THEY WHEN 70% LOSE THEIR JOBS????

THEY WON'T. SO YOU WON'T GET WELFARE. YOU WILL DIE.

>>10819401
A few years ago I royally fucked my ankle up and was on medical leave for almost a month.
I thought it was a dream come true but by the second week I was crawling up the walls. By the third week I was begging my doctor and work to let me come back early.

>>10819401
Working is comfy. I'm bored out of my brain when I'm off work.

>>10819401
Because it adds purpose to your life and help you become more balanced.

>>10819405
>Dude duh shadowy elite conspiracy theory

Take your pills

>BECAUSE THE ELITE WILL NOT FUND YOUR LIFESTYLE AMAZON PAID 0 IN TAXES WHY WOULD THEY WHEN 70% LOSE THEIR JOBS????

Taxes stop mattering when labor stops mattering. Currency stops mattering. There won’t be an Amazon, and if there is, it’s unnecessary to “tax” it to provide services to the collective.

>THEY WON'T. SO YOU WON'T GET WELFARE

Never proposed welfare. I proposed UBI or a completely currencyless system of on-demand amenities, because that’s the only conceivable system that could exist when people don’t work.

>YOU WILL DIE.

Nope. Everyone would live over ninety years old and do nothing but jack off all day.

>>10819051
The unemployed would already be considered criminals and herded into concentration camps, if the corporate lobby was stronger.

>>10819332
>So they will make good for cheaper but no one can buy them apparently but the rich stay rich somehow
The machine-owning elite class will produce luxuries directly for themselves, making the whole worker-consumer model obsolete. If you don't have to rely on human laborers, there's no reason to engage in a complex socio-economic game where you fool them to exploit their productivity. Thankfully industrial civilisation will collapse and we will all be dead, the rich included, before this theoretical hellworld scenario can manifest into reality.

>>10819419
>I proposed UBI
Oh so welfare?

>>10819417
Life doesn’t have purpose, and if you think “working” is one, that’s really disgusting and pathetic.

>>10819413
I’m not. You sound brainwashed.

>>10819411
Brainwashed. Go fucking outside to the Zoo or something

>>10819405
YES. HNNGH I CAN'T WAIT TILL THE POOR START EATING EACH OTHER
IMAGINE
A SEA OF BRAINLETS WITH NO DIRECTION BUMPING INTO EACH OTHER OVER AND OVER
IMAGINE...
4CHAN

>>10819422
Nope. If it was UBI, it wouldn’t be funded by taxes or anything else, it’d be Monopoly money you can only use to purchase amenities provided by Roombas.

>>10819051
We just need to make everybody work less time a week and there'll be more jobs for everyone.

eg : I work two days a week at the factory to watch over the robots that do all the work. The rest of the week, other workers take this role.

This also means that you'll get less money. Thus, you'll also need redistribution systems that supplement your low salary to a base level.

This is how we'll keep the low-intelligence masses occupied.

The best part is that this is already happening (part time jobs, "activity bonuses" given by the state if you work a bit).

>>10819427
Never happening. UBI would be instated almost instantly.

>>10819430
>We just need to make everybody work less time a week and there'll be more jobs for everyone.
But that's not fair. Why should good workers lose hours to shit workers?

>>10819423
>work adds purpose to your life
>Life doesn’t have purpose, and if you think “working” is one, that’s really disgusting and pathetic.

nice reading comprehension

You seem stressed. Try to have sex

>>10819433
Why should people waste time working when working is unnecessary?

>>10819435
>work adds purpose to your life

No it doesn’t. I rejected that statement.

>You seem stressed. Try to have sex

You’re a moron. Slit your wrists and bleed out.

>>10819432

what will keep the population in check? certainly some people would abide a one-child policy, but open borders and social welfare do not mix.

>>10819440
The AI would have to keep improving at a rate that is exponentially faster than human growth rate.

>>10819437
For money, to save up for things they want.

Making people work less so there's more jobs available isn't right.

>>10819433
>that's not fair
Because companies replacing humans with super ununionized AI and robots to cut costs is fair ? Come on, we're talking about real problems here. Fairness isn't the issue here.

The issue is about low qualifications alienizing jobs : truck driving, handing food over a counter, cleaning rooms... These are not the kind of jobs where you'll regret working less. And if you are sad you have to work less hours, you can still do it for free. Companies will love that.

>>10819441

a large enough population would exhaust our natural resources. machines might get more efficient but people don't. people still need at least 1600kcal a day even if they sit on their ass.

>>10819440
We could make a self contained impenetrable wall of radiation. Only way in being a flight.

>>10819445
Then we set our eyes to the stars. Mouths to feed and all that.

>>10819447

because there's so much food on mars

>>10819440
>what will keep the population in check?

Why would you even need to? Birthrates have only declined as nations develop.

>certainly some people would abide a one-child policy, but open borders and social welfare do not mix.

What the fuck are you talking about? If machines exist that can eliminate human labor from the economic system, they’re going to be EVERYWHERE, and moving constitutes only a change of scenery.

>>10819448
Uranium ore anon. We harvest it for energy, turn energy into food.

yes, mars, with its gentile climate and fertile soils, will be perfect.

oh wait, no, it's an irradiated hellhole 100mph winds, -200* at night 200* during the day, and little if any water.

>>10819442
You wouldn’t need to save up money if the advancement of technology created some cartoonish Star Trek world where almost every conceivable job is done by some kind of machine, and seven billion people can’t be artists and scientists and administrators.

>>10819439
Let me guess. You recently read Dostoyevski and Nietzsche for the first time and discovered nihilism, you're depressed and sad nobody's hanging out with you, and to feel at least some human connexion, you go to /sci/ and scream incoherently at people so that some of them reply to you.

Here's a (You), anon. It's free. I hope you feel better.

>>10819449
>What the fuck are you talking about? If machines exist that can eliminate human labor from the economic system, they’re going to be EVERYWHERE, and moving constitutes only a change of scenery.

so what about all the africans and mexicans? they're already on state welfare and they just use their free time to fuck, eat, and cause trouble.

>>10819452
Who said anything about stationing on Mars. Robots could harvest the energy and beam it back to earth.

>>10819445
Assuming the population would actually grow, natural reproduction could be made impossible. Grow people in tubes to replace those that die, and make new batches of like 200k if we ever figure out living on Mars or something.

>>10819444
>And if you are sad you have to work less hours, you can still do it for free.

The issue is people who are willing to work more would be losing out on money because the state says you can only work X amount of hours.

>>10819456
>Dude what about my racism

I’m sure we’ll invent a vaccine for that eventually.

>>10819452
You may not be aware, but martian soil is actually quite fertile.
>.>
Just adding my two cents.

>>10819455
Nope, you’re inaccurate on all fronts.

>>10819457
Tiberium Wars.
>>10819455
Let me guess, yo

>>10819463
Is it? Thought it contained weird poisonous molecules and stuff, but I suppose that could be purified out.

>>10819452
>100mph winds
The low gravity of Mars allows for much greater wind speeds at times. Under the right weather conditions, the wind speed on Mars can reach up to 17 to 30 meters per second. The maximum speed of 30 meters per second (60 mph) was observed during a dust storm at the Viking site.

You are wrong about the speed too.

>>10819462

>"Biological exponential growth is the exponential growth of biological organisms. When the resources availability is unlimited in the habitat, the population of an organism living in the habitat grows in an exponential or geometric fashion."

free food and housing is effectively unlimited resource availability. even maintaining our current population does a huge amount of damage to the environment. ubi is a fantasy

>>10819413
>bored
>in the information age
The problem is youre retarded.

>>10819467
It is pretty decent. The red iron content means high levels of iron and may yield some VERY tasty cherries...

>>10819417
For most people working doesnt add purpose to their life anon.

>>10819442
Youre missing that anons point entirely but even so your rebuttal is retarded. Anyone with a moral compass that isnt absolutely broken would agree that working less but increasing employment is better than some people working a lot and some being unemployed, because newsflash, people dont care about the poor.

>>10819470
cont.

even a layman can understand that you can't just give people unlimited food. it's not sustainable. it's hilarious how self-styled progressives can advocate open borders with one breath, ubi/welfare with the next breath, and then complain about climate change and other environmental damage. they'll be the death of us

>>10819461
Ok, I see, you point was about how to get more money when working hours are legally restricted.

If you _need_ more money, just borrow it.

If you _want_ more money, then have several jobs.

I imagine the future would be full of interim, gigs, part time working, freelancers, entrepreneurs, etc. Not to say it's a bright future, but not as catastrophic as some would like to depict it.

>>10819470
>ubi is a fantasy
>reality exists
Pick one

>>10819486
see
>>10819481

it's not sustainable.

>>10819470
Humans don’t reproduce just because resources are available.

>>10819481
This is only true assuming everyone lives to the ridiculous first world standard.
>>10819483
>loan it
Lets put more pressure on the most vulnerable section of society! Yeah!

>>10819479
>working less but increasing employment is better than some people working a lot and some being unemployed

If you care more about efficiency and fairness then no. The best workers should work the most hours if they want them.

>>10819481
>even a layman can understand that you can't just give people unlimited food. it's not sustainable

You’re right! Give them the amount of food they need to be healthy and not get fat. Good idea. Daily food intake limits....

>>10819488
UBI isnt unsustainable because of something inherent to UBI, its unsustainable because our society is unsustainable. You realize UBI is functionally the same as any other welfare program right? They will only become more necessary as more of the labour force becomes defunct. UBI has the advantage in that its much easier to manage than other forms of welfare because it provides far more personal agency. If someone spends their UBI on a fur coat and cant afford to eat, I dont care.

>>10819481
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I9n6iMeIW8A
ESPECIALLY WITHOUT STRONG BASES IN ROBOTICS AND MATH
WEAKLING PROGRESSIVES LIKE THAT SHOULD BE OBLITERATED
THIS WORLD BELONGS TO THE STRONG

>>10819492
How is it fair for someone to earn more money than they need if it means someone else is unemployed?

>>10819490

yes they do. china did, india did, the usa did during the "baby boom", although not to the same degree. you must understand this.

>>10819475
This is very sad, then.

Did you ever tried not working ? It's fun the first three months. Then you get very bored and depressed. You talk to nobody or have no discussion (since nothing happens in your life). You barely go out of your house since you have nothing to do. You'd like to travel but every destination looks like every other. You don't laugh, you don't enjoy anything.

Working adds to your life balance. It makes you get up in the morning and then happy that this day is finished. You meet new people. You have stories to tell. If you helped a customer, you feel somehow useful and accomplished. If you convinced somehow to buy you something, you feel an adrenaline rush and excitment. Not to say that you become better and better at what you do, and feel very confident in your skills.

This is what I mean by "adds purpose".

But I agree, some jobs are pretty uninteresting.

>>10819507
What you are describing is social contact people dont need jobs to garner social contact, they simply facilitate it. Unskilled workers generally dont find purpose in their work, and most of the labour force is unskilled.

>>10819505
I am not convinced of your claim that rich people have the highest birthrates (five seconds of Google show the opposite to be true) on the basis of poor people having lots of kids thanks to better medical science and farming practices.

>>10819492
>Someone is good at his job, let's ruin his health by making him work 70 hours a week !

You sound Republican

>>10819504
Because it's based on merit.

The person who is unemployed should take steps to better himself, go outside his comfort zone, and learn new skills.

If the person who is unemployed just gets a job because companies are that desperate because the law states they're not allowed to give their good workers more hours, where's the incentive for unemployed people to improve themselves?

>>10819507
>You talk to nobody or have no discussion (since nothing happens in your life). You barely go out of your house since you have nothing to do. You'd like to travel but every destination looks like every other. You don't laugh, you don't enjoy anything.

That is social isolation, not the lack of work.
I live with people. I interact with them. We leave the house. We go out and eat. We go to the zoo. We go to aquariums. We go to the park. We just drive around. Sounds like a problem specific to you who just doesn’t....do anything outside of work like a robot.

>>10819520
>by making him work 70 hours a week
No, no, anon. Only if they want to and I'm not completely against a maximum number of hours worked only if there's an opt-out like we have in the UK. In the UK you can only work 45 hours a week, but you can opt-out of that if you want.

>>10819524
>>10819523
This entire conversation
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmMxz4cMKuc

>>10819516
>>10819516
Ok, so I rephrase my argument : working is good because it increases social contact, and thus helps you find purpose in life. If nobody worked, casual social contacts would almost disappear and everyone would be depressed.

>Unskilled workers generally dont find purpose in their work,
I'd argue that they find one : not working. When you work al day and then get home, you become very happy to spend time with family, cooking, going out, etc. Even just sleeping becomes a pleasure. All of this stuff that would feel bland and uninteresting if you didn't work. Experiencing bad times helps you enjoy the good time.

>>10819524
>We go out and spend time in time-spending designed areas
Wow, you're such a fucking consummerist, that's sad. I hope at the end of the day you're proud of yourself visiting the zoo, the aquarium and the park.

>>10819539
>Ok, so I rephrase my argument : working is good because it increases social contact, and thus helps you find purpose in life. If nobody worked, casual social contacts would almost disappear and everyone would be depressed.

Why do you think people wouldn’t interact during the monthly orgies in the stadium or at the Giga-Mall or the rave? People interact on YouTube and 4Chan for Christ’s sake

>>10819550
I am, because it’s lots of fun, and that’s what life is for as far as I’m concerned. Begone, fun-hating creature of darkness.

>>10819523
>merit
Unemployed people dont have merit? Interesting.
>The person who is unemployed should take steps to better himself, go outside his comfort zone, and learn new skills.
There arent enough jobs that pay to a reasonable standard to employ everyone, full stop. This will only get worse as time passes and automation increases.
>incentive
Id love to see the peer reviewed data that suggests people only want to improve themselves if there is a financial gain.

Meh. We will most likely create laws that limit or regulate the use of A.I that could possibly replace our jobs .

>>10819553
You're passive, effeminate and immature. I bet you're the kind of guy that would get a vasectomy "for the convenience".

>>10819539
>If nobody worked, casual social contacts would almost disappear and everyone would be depressed.
All historical data directly refutes this. Multiple societies going back over two thousand years had wealthy leisure classes, to no ones surprise they were all having a rocking time and fought incredibly hard to maintain status quo.

I'm not suggesting that someones life should be all leisure or devoid of struggle, what I am saying is that the struggle should be something they choose and find meaningful not something they have to do in order to eat.

>>10819562
>presents point
>point gets btfo by demonstrable facts
>calls anon who btfod him immature

Quality discourse as usual.

>>10819569
>calling anecdotal evidence about himself demonstrable facts

Don't expect much from me when your response are about your enjoyment of going to the zoo.

>>10819564
And two thousand years ago, depression (then known as melancholia, described by Hippocrates) was already a thing. Especially among the "wealthy leisure class". Educate yourself.

>>10819579
Im not that anon, but going to the zoo is a perfectly acceptable counterpoint to your assertion. Moreover its irrefutable unless you want to argue that zoos and other social destinations dont exist.

>>10819589
That depression has always existed and references to it exist in the historical record does not support the idea that if no one worked everyone would be depressed.
>Educate yourself
Oh, youre underage.

>>10819051
If correctly applied AI could eliminate the need for jobs all together

>>10819420
>oks on varying subjects opie and I am of the opinion that what is commonly referred to as the fourth industrial revolution, or the information age, will be unlike others in that whereas before for every job lost many more were created that any man could perform, now
based marxist poster, why arent htere more like you

>>10819562
>You're passive, effeminate and immature

Nope.

>I bet you're the kind of guy that would get a vasectomy "for the convenience".

Nope.

Why the bare ad hominem? You lose steam for yelling at people that living like some kind of worker ant is good and rewarding? You literally admitted that you barely leave the house except for work.

>>10819594
I already discussed this argument here, but maybe not explicitely enough.

>>10819507
>Did you ever tried not working ? It's fun the first three months.

You go to the zoo once. It's fun. You like it there. Then you go to the zoo a second time. It's less fun. The third time, you skip over most animals to go straight to the point. The fourth time, you don't even smile while looking at the funny monkeys.

In scientific terms, you get less and less dopamine for repeating a same task over and over again.

Thus, you go to the aquarium. The first time, it's fun. Because it's new. But then, you get used to it even faster than you get used to the zoo.

So you go to the aviary. But this time, not even the first time is fun. It's already boring. Indeed, it feels the same as going to the zoo and the aquarium.

Now, a friend of you offers you to go to a safari. You're already bored in advance, because you know it's goin to be like the zoo, like the aquarium, like the aviary. So you say no, not this time, maybe later. Right now, you don't want to go to the safari. You stay home.

Your friend then calls you again. "Is this time ok for the safari ?". You still don't want to go. So you say no, not this time.

Your friend is now bored of your negativity and your unwillingness to the safari. So he doesn't call you and go to the safari with someone else. And you, you wonder why he doesn't call anymore.

Result : you're depressed and alone. EVEN if you went to the zoo. Going to the zoo did add fun in your life, but only temporarily.

Read Pascal's thoughts about entertainment.

>>10819579
That’s not even me, and why is “The Zoo” not a valid counterpoint?

I have been going to the same zoo for over twenty years and it’s never stopped being fun. I’ve also gone to other zoos and that was fun too. Even saw Harambe before he died but I didn’t realize it until afterwards.

Do you have anhedonia or something? Your aversion to enjoyable activities sounds pathological.

>>10819627
>You go to the zoo once. It's fun. You like it there. Then you go to the zoo a second time. It's less fun. The third time, you skip over most animals to go straight to the point. The fourth time, you don't even smile while looking at the funny monkeys.

I started going to the zoo with my grandmother when I was five and I still go to the same zoo in my 20’s. I have been to that one zoo hundreds of times in total, and it never stopped being fun.
I have NEVER tired of that zoo, and if I did, I’d just go a different one with a different layout and different animals and different people, and that’d be fun.

>In scientific terms, you get less and less dopamine for repeating a same task over and over again.

If that’s the case then working isn’t a viable alternative you fucking moron. Why the Hell are you posting then?

>Thus, you go to the aquarium. The first time, it's fun. Because it's new. But then, you get used to it even faster than you get used to the zoo.
So you go to the aviary. But this time, not even the first time is fun. It's already boring. Indeed, it feels the same as going to the zoo and the aquarium.

Doesn’t accurately describe any experience I’ve had. I’ve never tired of going to any aquarium, though I’ve been to multiple ones multiple times less than I’ve been to a zoo, and I’ve been to aviaries in zoos and they’re always fun. Even went into a butterfly room once.

>Now, a friend of you offers you to go to a safari. You're already bored in advance, because you know it's goin to be like the zoo, like the aquarium, like the aviary.

Never been on a safari but I don’t suspect that the experience resembles zoos, aquariums or aviaries in any way aside from sharing animals. If someone offered one, I’d go immediately.

>Your friend is now bored of your negativity and your unwillingness so he doesn’t call you

You’re majorly projecting. You sound like a really depressing and sad person. Please see a doctor.

>>10819479
>working less but increasing employment is better than some people working a lot and some being unemployed, because newsflash, people dont care about the poor.
you literally fucking contradicted yourself in single sentence

>>10819632
I once went to the zoo and I was super bored. Does this means that zoos are not enjoyable ? No, this means that I once went to the zoo and I was super bored. This is why "The Zoo is not a valid counterpoint".

I'm saying : working gives you a reason to get up in the morning if you don't have any. It gives you long term gratification. It forcibly creates social interactions. Working is good for society in general.

You reply : well once I went to the zoo with friends and it was fun.

What is there to argue here ?

>>10819653
>I once went to the zoo and I was super bored

That’s your problem. Go do something else, like play a video game or get high on mescaline or shrooms or go see a movie or go to a party or travel to another country or watch a play or listen to music or combine any one of those things.

>I'm saying : working gives you a reason to get up in the morning if you don't have any.

No it doesn’t. Working gives me money and I spend that money to acquire fun. If working didn’t give me money for fun, I’d stop going and never think about it again except in regret for the time wasted. Aside from the money, it offers me absolutely nothing.

>It gives you long term gratification.

No it doesn’t. It gives me long-term annoyance and wasted time.

>It forcibly creates social interactions.

Don’t want that at all.

>Working is good for society in general.

No it isn’t, because other people want to have fun. You want to sleep and then work like some kind of broken drone. You have anhedonia. See a doctor. They’ve got pills for it.

>>10819650
You seem unable to understand metaphors. Maybe that's all this time you spent at the zoo that made you unable to understand basic rhetorics.

>If that’s the case then working isn’t a viable alternative you fucking moron. Why the Hell are you posting then?
Working is not the same as going to the zoo, nor is it a replacement of going to the zoo, nor are "going to the zoo" and "working" two opposite and incompatible activities. If you feel as if they were, please reconsider.

You're eluding my argument. Please read again the title of this thread and try to focus.

>>10819420
>If you don't have to rely on human laborers, there's no reason to engage in a complex socio-economic game where you fool them to exploit their productivity
unironically based and red pilled

>>10819662
Saying "No" under every sentence of my post isn't arguing. Please finish middle school.

>>10819650
>I have been to that one zoo hundreds of times in total, and it never stopped being fun.
Then you are an easily entertained retard and there is no need to dissect your posts any further.

>>10819666
>You seem unable to understand metaphors

Your metaphor is simply inaccurate since I don’t tire of any activities in a way that can’t be solved by simply doing a different one.

>Working is not the same as going to the zoo, nor is it a replacement of going to the zoo, nor are "going to the zoo" and "working" two opposite and incompatible activities. If you feel as if they were, please reconsider.

There are three possibilities.
A. Work and go to the metaphorical zoo.
B. Don’t work and go to the metaphorical zoo.
C. Don’t work and don’t go to the metaphorical zoo.

Why should anyone pick A or C over B?

>You're eluding my argument.

You don’t have one aside from “dur fun won’t be as fun one day” even though I’ve never experienced that to be the case.

>>10819669
>this anon has been going to the zoo every fucking week since he's 5
kek'd

>>10819668
>Saying "No" under every sentence of my post isn't arguing

Yes it is. You are asserting things about my experience and I am rejecting them because they are inaccurate.

>Please finish middle school.

Now, ad hominem. THAT isn’t an argument.

Am I the only one here who's dreamed job would be working for Neuralink
Well... anywhere under Elon Musk would be amazing

>>10819669
>Y-You are retarded because you actually enjoy life!11

The state of depression coping.

>>10819680
>You don’t have one aside from “dur fun won’t be as fun one day” even though I’ve never experienced that to be the case.
Wow, then you DID understand my argument ! Now, what could be the issue with fun disappearing from life for everyone ? Think, anon, think.

>>10819681
It’s more like monthly these days, but when I used to stay with my grandparents on the weekends as a wee lad it was genuinely weekly.

>>10819689
>Yes it is.
No it isn't.

>>10819699
>Now, what could be the issue with fun disappearing from life for everyone ?

Please cite a peer-reviewed paper that demonstrates that you stop having fun after having some vague quantized amount of fun and that this can’t be solved by taking breaks and changing activities.

>>10819703
Yes it is, sorry. Your claims simply don’t accurately describe what I experience. Try again.

>>10819699
Sounds like a problem for them. It hasn't happened for him though so your point seems to be some collectivist magically thinking is-ought fallacy.

>>10819711
>Yes it is, sorry.
No it is not.

>>10819331
>People are way better at adapting than they think
t. hasn't entered the workforce yet
It's not about doing your best and working extra-hard to keep up with automated solutions.
The divide becomes so massive that it becomes silly to talk about.
Once we develop and implement a program that can do the jobs you needed live bodies for at a given business, that's it. Nobody keeps themselves from getting laid off from those jobs by "adapting."
Many businesses (maybe even all of them given a large enough size cutoff) have work being done by people that would be better done by an automated process. And it's not because the leadership wants it that way. It's because they haven't gotten around to making the transition yet. Everyone recognizes the people working jobs that could be automated but haven't been yet are just the less than ideal band-aid for the short term.
I say this as someone who writes these programs for a living. And not to sound cocky either, I don't exempt myself from replacement. *Programming* itself can and will be replaced by automatic solutions too.
It's a lot like that John Henry folk hero. The moral is no matter how great you are as a human you're still only flesh and blood and a tireless machine is eventually going to best you sooner or later.
Closest thing to an actual way of still remaining relevant as a human I've seen is Elon Musk's general idea of trying to merge with technology. Humans on their own though are not going to be a viable competitor for increasingly capable machine labor. Everything people focused on as uniquely human that we must have a monopoly on in the past has ended up turning out wrong. Look up what people were saying about the earliest attempts to make chess playing machines. They thought it was laughable these programs could ever be thought of as capable of matching even a novice player. Yet today we have 50 or so distinct chess AIs with Elo >3000, a score not a single human chess grandmaster has ever broken.

>>10819708
psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-00206-001

>and that this can’t be solved by taking breaks and changing activities.
Hmm, I wonder how we could systematize these breaks from too much leisure. Maybe by working ?

ask the pro go players how they are adapting to "deepmind" being better than them or if pro chess adapted and is beating top AI now

Humans go obsolete. It's not like industrialization. Industrialization unlocked available energy. AI doesn't unlock energy, it replaces cognitive capability.

How are they going to adapt to a AI doctor that has treated 200 million patients and has a massive world database of probabilities and superhuman vision to work with?

kek

Yes though, "adapt" to all the new jobs it will create...

>>10819740
>psycnet.apa.org/record/1958-00206-001

Never proposed “prolonged exposure to monotonous environments”. That sounds boring and not fun.

>Hmm, I wonder how we could systematize these breaks from too much leisure.

Leisure=/=prolonged exposure to monotonous environments

>Maybe by working ?

I’m VERY curious how you’re separating “working” from “prolonged exposure to monotonous environment”. There’s over a billion people who would strongly disagree with your distinction between the two. When I take a break from things, it means having a nap or watching TV or something. I can actually get bored of an activity because it happened once. One time when I was a teenager I went to the mall four days in a row and it got boring after the second, but my break from that activity constituted just staying at home and playing video games instead of going out, then I was ready to go out again and do things.

>>10819751
What do you want me to say ? Go on with your life. Go to the zoo as much as you please. Take breaks from leisure by having more leisure.

From what I understood of my conversation with you, you lack metacognition and self awareness. You probably have a low-wage shit tier job and find fun by doing drugs once a week with your friends. You're nothing more than a machine transforming oxygen into carbon dioxyde. You're probably one of the first whose job will disappear as stated in OP >>10819051 .

I just feel sorry for you. I hope you'll die happy and soon, zoo anon.

>>10819151

>>10819769
>From what I understood of my conversation with you, you lack metacognition and self awareness.

Apparently an ability to have fun consistently means you lack abilities possessed by every human.

The amazing depths of depression coping.
You hate people that actually enjoy life, and that’s very sad.

>>10819051
>persecuted
why?

>>10819769
>coping this hard
anon stop, you're kicking yourself while on the ground

>>10819743
Yeah, exactly. It's really not the same as the past when you were eliminating manual labor and creating new technologies that called for lots of human intellectual labor.
Now what we're seeing is the elimination not of manual labor but of completely physical exertion free office jobs. Automating so you can lay off a hundred office workers isn't going to create a new kind of job for a thousand people to start working at. The story stops at the part where the business saved all that money laying off a hundred people.
The idea doing this would lead the business to turn around and invent some new career that requires even more warm bodies in seats is a lot like the empty promise of trickle down economics where you would see poor people start making lots of money if you made policies to give the wealthiest people more money. What really happens is the wealthiest people get more money and that's pretty much the end of it.
A CEO doesn't start paying employees lots of extra money just because he's earning lots of extra money. In fact CEOs are pressured to do the opposite and initiate massive layoffs even when their business is thriving to boost public trading and give investors the confidence they're being financially responsible and keeping things as lean as possible.

>>10819627
There is no argument here, the idea that a job is the only way you can entertain social contact is self evidently false.

People will create new jobs I guess.
There's still plenty to accomplish on this planet

>>10819627
What exactly makes ways of spending time that don't involve serving someone else for money different in this respect from the ways of spending time that do involve that?
Most anything you would do at a job you could still do if you wanted to for some reason. Only difference would be nobody would pay you money and you wouldn't owe anyone the labor you'd put in.

If you don't want to go to the zoo, you can be productive and volunteer your time doing something useful for the community, humanity, the environment, etc. rather than filing those TPS reports.

Working to live is a waste of a life. On your deathbed are you gonna be thinking about that time you really nailed that presentation on saving the company 2% by switching vendors to the one with slightly worse customer service?

>>10819652
No I didnt because we are talking about a hypothetical, nice reading comprehension.

>>10819051
Society is headed towards a socially abrasive hyper-nihilistic form of High Modernism, boasting its own darkly-glistening Trike with an (atheistic) religion of secularised, singularitarian eschatology, (post-tribal) hyperracialism (HBD), and realist free market economics. It predicts a coming age of cyber-synthetic genetic manipulation, scientific inhumanism, accelerating social stratification, and formalized private governance (neo-feudalism). People grow apart, relations become mediated more and more by machines, humanity itself is dehumanized. Deterritorialization reaches it's apex. The now unemployed masses will be subject to terror and predation. See Syria and Libya for what most of the world will look like in 30-50 years. Slavery, debauchery, genocide.

I like to imagine an ai introduced to the public as a hardcore gaymer getting into a messed game of base building management it has to clean up.
It will take time but when working with humans it will be plenty occupied to try and optimize everything.