/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.10439278]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-vSB6gQszY

Should AI development be banned to protect jobs?

[Anonymous No.10439283]

>he thinks that that will ever happen ever
All banning AI development will do is make countries that ban it be out-competed by countries that don't.

[Anonymous No.10439284]

nah
tax robots and implement UBI

that's what is going to happen in the end, it's the only stable long term solution.
it's going to be a bumpy ride getting there tho

[Anonymous No.10439318]

>>10439284
This. Wanting to keep jobs around instead of doing something you actually enjoy is retarded.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7AMV00Gmow

[Anonymous No.10439333]

banning the development of technology because it "steals"(read makes easier) the jobs of humans is the epitome of retardation

[Anonymous No.10439509]

After AI takes over most functions to sustain civilization and socioeconomic mobility in the way we conceive it no longer exists, what happens to the market for items with historical value? Does it become impossible for people who were not previously wealthy to attain, for instance, an original historical car or painting?

[Anonymous No.10439547]

>>10439278
No, fuck jobs.

[Anonymous No.10439743]

>>10439547

God damn do I not want to work. Fuck jobs and fuck humans. We shouldn't tax robots, robots should take over government services and jobs.

[Anonymous No.10439786]

>>10439278
>Should we ban shovels so that more people can have jobs and dig with spoons ?
Fucking communist scum

[Anonymous No.10439808]

>>10439278
“Hur dur lets stay cave men instead of transitioning to a post labor utopia I fard an shied prffffffft

[Anonymous No.10439812]

>>10439786
Getting rid of the need for labor makes communism possible doofus.

[Anonymous No.10439813]

>>10439278
No. Machines with advanced AI make better slaves, they're technically slaves that don't need human rights because humanity wouldn't be that stupid to give machines self awareness.

[Anonymous No.10439817]

>>10439812
Getting rid of the need for labor makes the working class useless retard

[Anonymous No.10439819]

>>10439786
OH NOES SOMEBODY IS A COMMUNIST
HOW AWFUL

[Anonymous No.10439823]

>>10439808
This. We should just start reproducing less in proportion to the amount of jobs lost to AI until we have the technology to sustain no one working.

[Anonymous No.10439829]

>>10439278
I'm not going to war to keep my 40-hour/week job. We should all work a couple hours a week then spend the rest of the time looping off and arguing on the internet about what color hats our politicians should wear. There's nothing honorable about busy work.

[Anonymous No.10439839]

>>10439817
yeah, not seeing how this is not apparent to more automation utopia proponents. It was thought that the washing machine, the microwave, the automobile, the internet, would free up time for more leisure for the average person. Those things all give higher returns on capital to those who can afford one, but we don't have a magical world where we only have to work 1 day a week and maintain a 1940's standard of living. Who owns the automation matters, and the only reason we have 5 day workweeks, OSHA, and anything else not out of industrializing London is because right now the working class is needed. When it's not, there will be blood shed, and it won't be coming from those the socialists of today think it will

[Anonymous No.10439850]

>>10439817
You're both screwed.

[Anonymous No.10439885]

>>10439278
Daily reminder that banning technology that would undeniably help humankind only makes sense under capitalism

[Anonymous No.10439907]

>>10439839
They could free up more time for leisure, however because this implies that productivity goes up per hour worked; the capitalist class would not really make as much of a profit if they just let their workers go home after an hour of work than they would if they made them use the technology for the same amount of time as they did before the technology existed and paid them the same wages as they made before

This is why pic related occurs, and why average real wages over time can decrease despite constant technological development

[Anonymous No.10439910]

>>10439278
>complains about automation devaluing labor
>wants to continue devaluing labor through immigration

Stop immigration and communities will adapt to new innovations in technology. This is the one benefit of having a low birthrate. We do not have to worry about replacing outmoded labor forces. We can evolve, synthesize. We did it with slavery, we can overcome the plantation again.

[Anonymous No.10439924]

>>10439885
>leaving out "Industrial Society and its Future"

[Anonymous No.10439951]

He's basically right though, the people who are going to lose their jobs to AI methods in the near future are, on average, too stupid and too traditionalist to go through training for new jobs or move to places with growing demand for labor. They're going to fucking hate it and it's not going to be pretty

[Anonymous No.10439981]

>>10439885
Is there a non-meme image that actually achieves what this image suggest? I imagine Lippmann and Bernays being parts of it.

[Anonymous No.10439990]

>>10439278

Basic income.

Our economy is some outdated XIX century crap that has no right to exist anymore.

[Anonymous No.10440401]

>>10439907
ahh the retard, who constantly fails to understand opportunity costs, comes to chime in.
> the capitalist class would not really make as much of a profit if they just let their workers go home after an hour of work
Wrong. "The capitalist" is faced with opportunity costs, just as the worker is, and will pay the different factors of production accordingly to their opportunity costs. Productivity, and what "the capitalist" chooses to do with it, is not fixed. And as a worker, you will be paid equal to your marginal productivity. You will be paid equal to your opportunity cost.
The world doesn't exist in a fixed vacuum, and the information age should have fucking hit you in the head with this fact.
The existence of more productive avenues reduces the opportunity costs associated to those processes - which allows for further specialization and higher wages and wealth via comparative advantage.
The fact that we see a disparity in wages is not the fault of the "greedy capitalist hording his wealth" but rather instead it's the fault of the growing disparity between those who have a valuable education and those who don't, relative to the rapid pace of technological growth. This problem falls squarely on the bloat within our educational system. There are positive externalities to human capital. Everything else related: immigration, globalization, even stronger allocative marriages just magnify this fact.

To put it short: The existence of AI will exhibit creative destruction, and we will most likely enter into a new age of production. Unproductive jobs will be put out of work, new more productive jobs will take its place (because we don't live in a fixed economy - opportunity costs exist), and the overall society will be more wealthy.
If you want to see wages less stratified, the best way to tackle this is to find a way to get people to have a valuable education.

[Anonymous No.10440493]

>>10440401
>fault of the growing disparity between those who have a valuable education and those who don't
More likely that due to the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, the capitalist class needs to extract more and more of the surplus value of the working class over time in order to maintain high profit margins

You know, considering that the current generations are the most educated in history, which by your logic would reduce income inequality

[Anonymous No.10440517]

>>10440401
>new more productive jobs will take its place
This is wishful thinking unless you can think of several jobs to fill the gap once AI takes over
These jobs also have to require as little skill as the ones that the humans used to hold and would have to be just as plentiful too as to not create massive unemployment

[Anonymous No.10440540]

>>10439910
Not true, yang is in favor of a secured southern border, but is pragmatic enough to see that mass deportation isnt going to happen. Go read his policy page, hes easily the most sensible of the dems on the issue.

[Anonymous No.10440544]

>>10440517
I agree with this guy. Where are these new jobs that require low education and cant be automated?

[Anonymous No.10440583]

>>10440401
>as a worker, you will be paid equal to your marginal productivity
TOP KEK
Stopped reading here

[Anonymous No.10440587]

Our society right now is headed in the direction of everyone becoming highly specialized and dependent on each other. As soon as AI replaces one of those people they get cut out of the loop/safety net/promise that society has given them and are left to die. It'll happen 1 person at a time so the cries of these victims will be hard to hear, and likely ignored. It'll be too late by the time it happens to you.

The ONLY way AI won't completely destroy society by replacing the working class is to decentralize our society and make robots+AI a one per every household a government policy agenda. Everyone will need super efficient micro-farms to feed their family. 3d printers to produce goods and materials they require. Personal robots to perform manual labor/chores around their house. Advanced medical AI to heal/treat/diagnose people in their homes when they become sick. Solar power on your own roof so you are your own electrical provider. Having a backup system in society to help you when your systems fail or are insufficient is good, but being 100% dependent on them is a recipe for disaster, and AI is the trigger for starting that disaster.

[Anonymous No.10440600]

>>10439278
>Should AI development be banned to protect jobs?
That's ridiculous

[Anonymous No.10440611]

>>10440587

There will be no disaster if politicians are not complete retards.

Even if you give most of your society free income those money will return because those people will spend them.

Just like how recently in Poland government started giving people $ just for having kids and all the big economists were crying how it's going to murder economy but in the end it only helped economy becasue all of that $ is instantly spent and feeds other businesses.

[Anonymous No.10440620]

>>10439278
China sure as fuck isn't banning it so if West goes full retard and does we are fucked.

In fact Japan fucked up once becasue they were leaders in drone development but government fucked nip companies doing it because it was eating jobs. What happens? 20 years later China completely dominates the market and Japanese economy struggles.

[Anonymous No.10440625]

>>10440493
>the capitalist class needs to extract more and more of the surplus value of the working class over time in order to maintain high profit margins
wrong again. this assumes fixed decision-making on the behalf of "the capitalist." They don't, they face opportunity costs just as much as the rest of us.
It also assumes, for some weird fucking reason, that we've gotten... like... super-de-duper greedy instead of just as greedy as we always have been. There is zero indication of this. We are just as greedy now as we have been in the past.
In other words, there is no good reason why anyone would believe rich folk would be pursuing more rent-seeking behavior than they did in the 1970's.

>You know, considering that the current generations are the most educated in history, which by your logic would reduce income inequality
Again, you are making an absolute claim. This is garbage economic reasoning. You need to be looking at relative claims - again, you fail at understanding opportunity costs.
Instead, skill-biased tech change continually increases the demand for skilled labor.
By itself, this increases the disparity between the skilled and unskilled workers, thereby increasing inequality.
Society can offset this by supplying an even greater level of skilled workers at an even greater pace, as it did in the 1950's and 1960's (the MAGA for dems). Thus the earnings gap need not rise, and in fact decline as it did during that time.
In the 70's however, the pace of educational advancement slowed down and the disparity started to rise. Magnify this effect with competition by an increase in immigration, globalization, and other factors like assortive marriage (people married earn more than those who are not married, and two highly skilled individuals married are going to earn even more). Thus, the disparity is not about rent-seeking, but instead about supply and demand.

[Anonymous No.10440627]

>>10440620
china also imprisons people in sweat shops so they literally won't kill themselves, while in Nippon people are able to hikikomori at home playing games and computer all day long.

[Anonymous No.10440637]

>>10440625
If they didn't take as much surplus value then they'd be barely be making any profit for reinvestment
This is like grade school math man
Also I'm not calling them greedy, they're only working in rational self interest; you're the one that came to that conclusion on your own

[Anonymous No.10440652]

>>10440517
>This is wishful thinking unless you can think of several jobs to fill the gap once AI takes over
You have one guy willing to transfer water to a city by pail-and-hand. Another that wants to transfer water to the city by pipeline.
The pipeline is more efficient, and will replace the job of the pail-and-hand worker. The pipeline industry now becomes an industry to work in to become even more efficient.

The invention of the personal computer destroyed the livelihood of many in the secretary industry because it was more efficient. The invention of the personal computer also created an entirely new industry to work in which relies on computer science.

Should society pay the additional secretary, or the water pail worker, over what the supply and demand offer to effectively do unproductive work? If you say yes, then who is the one truly seeking economic rent?

[Anonymous No.10440653]

>>10439819
Sodomite

[Anonymous No.10440657]

>>10440652
You're assuming the coming of AI is like previous technological advances
And yes, society should pay the people who are obsolesced by AI because capitalism would implode if that much of the population were no longer able to partake in the market

[Anonymous No.10440667]

>>10440627
Super cheap labor in China is no longer profitable. They are moving those lines to their African vassals now.

[Anonymous No.10440670]

>>10440657
RIP capitalism then. Good riddance

[Anonymous No.10440683]

>>10439284
>tax robots and implement UBI
this, best of both worlds
but this kind of free thinking is not permitted by the religious right who believes it is immoral to not work 70 hours a week

[Anonymous No.10440691]

>>10440637
>This is like grade school math man
This is like, economics man.
You fail to understand opportunity cost.
You are assuming a fixed, or closed, industry when it's not.
We've been over this over and over and over again through time. You people scream "the sky is falling, we are all doomed." And you always fail in your prediction. How many times do we have to play this song and dance before you get it?
>>10440657
>You're assuming the coming of AI is like previous technological advances.
There is no reason to assume it will not be. It's a form of creative destruction, just like any other. Are you denying the invention of the personal computer, or the invention of the internet, and the MASSIVE impact that had on society?
You are correct there will probably be a corrective allocation where people re-assess their skills - it happened in the 80's with the advent of the computer. Society overall will be better off with AI occurring.

[Anonymous No.10440724]

>>10440691
No I understand opportunity cost, there's no hint in my post that I don't
And I'm not assuming a fixed, closed industry, where am I making these assumptions?
>>10440691
It's different because AI present almost no new platform to sell commodities
The internet allowed people to shop online, highways allowed for stores to get more traffic, etc.
AI's only new market would be maintenance and production, both of which are definitely not unskilled task as both require college level mathematics and programming knowledge
The entry level for an AI maintenance/production job would not only require a way higher education than the jobs AI would replace, but there would be far, far fewer of them. You don't exactly need 1,000,000 programmers to make and maintain a cashier AI for example

[Anonymous No.10440751]

>>10440724
>No I understand opportunity cost, there's no hint in my post that I don't
>And I'm not assuming a fixed, closed industry, where am I making these assumptions?
No you DON'T understand opportunity costs.
You are assuming fixed, by not addressing opportunity costs.
You fail at understanding the forces which drive creative destruction - which IS opportunity cost.
Which I JUST covered, and the information age should have fucking squashed in your head. You assume "the capitalist" doesn't face opportunity costs associated to WHAT they want to put their productive means into. You are attributing economic rent and expropriation where it doesn't belong.

>highways allowed for stores to get more traffic, etc.
>AI's only new market would be maintenance and production
This is incredibly lazy thinking.

[Anonymous No.10440790]

>>10440751
They do though, the capitalists need to take more and more surplus value over time to be able to reinvest at the same rate as their competitors
It's therefore not up to the capitalist to increase their exploitative practices if they wish to remain competitive, and so the cost of paying the worker to match productivity doesn't outweigh the cost of not doing so
>>10440751
>lazy thinking
You've yet to bring up a single low-skill job that would require a huge labor force that would be created by the advent of AI

[Anonymous No.10440806]

>>10439743
Just tax the people who own the robots and redistribute that wealth to the people who don't own robots so they can give that money to the people with robots

[Anonymous No.10440820]

>>10440806
Wouldn't it be way easier for the people who own the robots to just have the robots kill everyone who doesn't own robots

[Anonymous No.10440823]

>>10440790
>They do though, the capitalists need to take more and more surplus value over time to be able to reinvest at the same rate as their competitors
You keep repeating this dumb mantra, and I keep telling you, you are assuming they don't face opportunity costs with their business. You are assuming they only have one ABSOLUTE job - when they don't. They face RELATIVE choices, just like the rest of us. The price of something is RELATIVE to what you have to give up in order to get an additional unit.
The destruction of an industry leads to a creation of even more productive industries which the capital will flow. Everyone faces opportunity costs, and lowering those opportunity costs increases our specialization and allows for further wealth through comparative advantage.
>that would require a huge labor force that would be created by the advent of AI
You are asking me to predict the fucking future and I can't. I am not some god-emperor who knows precisely what everyone's opportunity costs are. Only individual people know this. 50 years earlier, no one could predict the productive possibility of the fucking computer, much less even THINKING about the internet and the jobs it created along with it.

[Anonymous No.10440860]

>>10440823
>You are assuming they only have one ABSOLUTE job - when they don't.
I'm only talking about one of their jobs because it's the one the matters for the topic, I'm not going to talk at end about Bezos feeding his cats or whatever when I'm talking about the macroeconomy
>They face RELATIVE choices, just like the rest of us. The price of something is RELATIVE to what you have to give up in order to get an additional unit.
Yes that's correct, in this instance they are giving up well paid workers for higher dividends
>The destruction of an industry leads to a creation of even more productive industries which the capital will flow
Also correct, however that won't stop rampant wealth inequality and also won't stop the rate of profit from continuing to fall

Also it doesn't even matter if you could think of a job market created by AI now that I think about it, as it would be likely that AI itself would take that market over as well

[Anonymous No.10440861]

>>10440820
They would have to buy new robots for that and mass murder would threaten their income

[Anonymous No.10440864]

>should factories be banned to protect manual labourers?

[Anonymous No.10440893]

>>10440860
>I'm only talking about one of their jobs because it's the one the matters for the topic,
No it DOESN'T. What matters is opportunity cost. You can't talk absolute and think you're talking any sense at all, when it comes to economics.
>Yes that's correct, in this instance they are giving up well paid workers for higher dividends
Again, no you're wrong. I honestly don't know how to fucking get through to you. You don't understand opportunity cost and you don't understand economic rent.

You can create a decent argument for government support via unemployment insurance, of which comes at a cost and so people will disagree, but not for a fucking ban on AI.

[Anonymous No.10440952]

>>10439278
This makes no fucking sense, at the earliest, we are 30-35 years away from strong AI, and by strong, I mean an algorithm that can learn(quickly) to perform all tasks that humans can and be just as good as us at it, or at least at levels we find adequate to get the task done. Thus, it makes no fucking sense to be talking about giving out gibs when AI won't threaten work until multiple decades out, if ever.

And yes, you will need strong AI if you want your automation systems to do more than assembly line shit. AI will need to really understand the world and the entities in it if its going to replace in the workforce.

I'll even go as far to say that the self-driving craze is going to crash hard and encounter an AI winter due to realizing that they can ever replace humans with deep learning. They need something more and that more is decades out.

[Anonymous No.10440980]

>>10440952
Most jobs are fixed location manual labor, data input, or service industry shit. Things that literally don't need intelligence in the human sense to do. Basically unskilled labor and entry-level jobs people try to live on.

[Anonymous No.10441006]

>>10440952
Elaborate on where you pulled that oddly specific 30-35 year figure from

[Anonymous No.10441294]

>>10440952
you're fucking retarded and haven't even heard a speck of what yang's proposing. Narrow AI is here already, and will be taking more and more jobs in the coming years. Yang isn't concerned about AGI (yet)

[Anonymous No.10441374]

>>10439283
>All banning AI development will do is make countries that ban it be out-competed by countries that don't

not if we nuke them first

[Anonymous No.10441377]

>>10439318
how will I pay my rent without a job?

[Anonymous No.10441382]

>>10439509
>After AI takes over most functions to sustain civilization and socioeconomic mobility in the way we conceive it no longer exists, what happens to the market for items with historical value? Does it become impossible for people who were not previously wealthy to attain, for instance, an original historical car or painting?

bravo! you started thinking, automation actually will lead to stagnation and new feudalism

[Anonymous No.10441404]

>>10439981
i have some that have bernays on there but alongside some /pol/ tier lit

[Anonymous No.10441434]

>>10439885
True

This is what happened to Napster

[Anonymous No.10441590]

>>10441294
>Dude, AI might threaten jobs in 25 years so lets hand out free money today! I mean, what could go wrong.

[Anonymous No.10441696]

>>10439278

>It's going to give them some money, $1000 dollars a month
>but where do they go from there. How do people exist on 12,000 dollars a year?

Ignore the Basic in UBI. Keep raising the base rate to decent even luxury life levels. Demand nothing less. Total GDP / every citizen.

[Anonymous No.10441703]

>>10440540
If he isn't willing to hold a strict immigration reform and zero-tolerance for illegals, then he simply isn't worth supporting.

[Anonymous No.10441713]

>>10439278
No. Pretending a problem doesn't exist has never solved the problem. It should be assumed as some point in the future, it will be reality, and we should work to find ways to bridge that gap

[Anonymous No.10441722]

>>10439885
>Banning technology that would undeniably help [capitalism] only makes sense under capitalism
You mean the reduction of labor costs to increase production efficiency and thus, increase profits makes sense under capitalism?? You have no idea what you are talking about.

[Anonymous No.10441724]

>>10441703
>zero tolerance for illegals
What does that even mean? Yang is willing to deport illegals who don't accept offers toward citizenship, but offering a path to citizenship is his priority.

[Anonymous No.10441739]

>>10440587
>Our society right now is headed in the direction of everyone becoming highly specialized and dependent on each other.

The opposite. Specialized jobs are the ones robots have the easiest time mastering, because there are the fewest variables. The more adaptive individuals are the ones who will continue to find work after a specific job is automated. Individuals with a wide range of skillsets will continue to find work while those who only know a single highly specialized skill will find themselves at the bottom of the competition once their skill is no longer needed.

Careers are becoming a thing of the past already, and society is currently moving away from everyone becoming highly specialised.

[Anonymous No.10442386]

>>10441724
>offering a path to citizenship
Effectively rewarding illegal behavior and creating reason / desire for more people to come to the states illegally. Zero tolerance means there's no path toward citizenship for people that don't respect the laws of the nation.

Strict immigration reform needs to be a priority. Any candidate that isn't for stabilizing population growth isn't serious about fixing a labor surplus. They simply want more slaves.

[Anonymous No.10442470]

>>10441739
>The more adaptive individuals are the ones who will continue to find work after a specific job is automated.
Spoken like someone who's never been in the workforce. Skilled employees with broad knowledge are all being forcibly retired and replaced with young humans who do a single repetitive task all day long. Not sure if conspiracy or coincidence, but it's certainly streamlining the robot takeover. And the employees won't be too upset about it because a job where you tell someone to do the same thing on the phone, over and over, is not a good job.

[Anonymous No.10442480]

>>10440952
Completely wrong and you have no idea how many jobs are already threatened by machines today. It's going to happen just as fast as smartphone explosion.

[Anonymous No.10442485]

>>10441724
why should illegals be have "offers toward citizenship"? dems claim they have no electoral interest in letting illegals in because they don't vote, but every 20 years or less there are massive amnesties given out, it's blatant rigging of the U.S. political system.

[Anonymous No.10442559]

>>10442386
>Effectively rewarding illegal behavior
It's not just given to them. There's a long probationary period where you get deported if you commit any felonies or cheat on your taxes. So yeah, let them start paying taxes and also not receive the UBI until they have earned it.
>Any candidate that isn't for stabilizing population growth isn't serious about fixing a labor surplus. They simply want more slaves.
Tax payers are good for the economy, and unemployment is inevitable, and all part of the plan here.

[Anonymous No.10442634]

>>10442480
Not with deep learning it isn't. You can't even get a robot to pack boxes without freezing up using our current machine learning algorithms. Matter of fact, I saw a presentation a month back on youtube from some head guy at waymo who was talking about how hard it is to get self-driving cars to make accurate predictions about the world because it just doesn't understand the world in any deep sense.

He brought up a situation where some one riding a bicycle was wearing a stop sign on his shirt which resulted in causing the self-driving car to stop because it didn't understand wtf was going on. He also went on to explain that we can't train a car for all these edge cases that it will encounter in the real world. This is why you need strong AI.

The type of narrow AI we have today that's built on deep neural networks/ deep reinforcement learning is too stupid to operate with out humans working with them or at least watching them to make sure they don't fuck up. We need something better than this, and I seriously doubt we will see that better prior to 2060.

I don't think people realize we have been trying to create strong AI for 60 years and have honestly made very little progress despite how optimistic the founders/leaders of the field where at different periods in AI history. We always think that we are right around the corner and than a AI winter shows up and last for decades, and trust me, that winter is coming.So as it stands now, gibs are out of the question.

[Anonymous No.10442660]

[Anonymous No.10442663]

>Yes.
quick fix

[Anonymous No.10443215]

>>10441722
Yeah
Unemploying all unskilled workers well definitely not cause the market to crash

[Anonymous No.10443487]

>>10439278
Ya, this is dumb, you shouldn't ban AI, you should commodify it. Such that jobs that are AI then become taxed into a social security.

As far as distribution of income...shit. I have no idea and no one else does either.

It just seems fairly obvious that UBI is in our future if we are giving up opportunity.

[Anonymous No.10444985]

>>10439278
a nice talk over here too >>3839757

[Anonymous No.10444987]

>>10439278
no lol

[Anonymous No.10444989]

>>10444985
>>>/ic/3839757
what the, you cant link between 4chan and 4channel?

[Anonymous No.10445874]

>>10439284
This, labor is a means to an end, if robots can do everything then humans don't need to work and can sit around collecting UBI.

[Anonymous No.10446178]

>>10439278
>tfw the first AI will likely be a capitalist

[Anonymous No.10446414]

>>10442660
Underrated post

[Anonymous No.10446561]

>>10439278
>Andrew Yang
lmao wtf, this guy looks like a poorly disguised Andrew Ng.

[Anonymous No.10446567]

>>10446561
How do I get those arms?! I can't build muscle

[Anonymous No.10446576]

>>10439278
Fffffuck no. Thats national suicide.

[Anonymous No.10446582]

No, but you should revolt against the modern world

[Anonymous No.10446623]

>>10446576
Fuck technology

[Anonymous No.10446654]

>>10441374
based and nuclear-holocaust pilled

[Anonymous No.10446658]

>>10446567
Adobe

[Anonymous No.10446716]

>>10439283
No because they'll collapse and lose their jobs.

[Anonymous No.10446732]

>>10441377
You won't have rent when robots build houses for free.

[Anonymous No.10446741]

>>10446623
Get off the internet Timmy

[Anonymous No.10446747]

>>10439278
no, i want to be able socially acceptably live as a neet while AI runs society.

[Anonymous No.10446981]

How many of you honestly believe that AI anything like the AI the media presents will happen in our life times.

I give it a 5% chance

[Anonymous No.10447663]

>mfw 2nd year CS softdev
i made the correct fucking choice, ill have fun being the last to be replaced

[Anonymous No.10447716]

>>10439278

should the development of the printing press have been banned to protect jobs

[Anonymous No.10448928]

>>10439278
Sci-Fi boolshit. Immigrants are much worse than robots.