= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Viliam_Bur comments on The Robots, AI, and Unemployment Anti-FAQ - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (267)
Both Q and A seem to be treating unemployment as intrinsically bad, which is a case of lost purposes, a confusion between terminal and instrumental goals.
Unemployment is bad if there are things that should be done, but are not done. Does this description fit our society? I think it does, because I can imagine a few things that should be done... for example cleaning the streets.
When we'll have enough cheap IQ-100 machines able to do all the work of IQ-100 people, I will not consider unemployment of people under IQ 100 a bad thing. It will be still bad if a IQ 200 person remains unemployed, while the cure for cancer is still not found and people are dying. Again, when all IQ-200 work is done, I will be okay with that person being unemployed, too.
Provided that doesn't happen before some measure to allow such people to still make a living is implemented.
You mean "to still live" since presumably the making of it will be the machines job.