β² 658 βΌ Four Eyes Principle (discuss.tchncs.de) submitted 1 year ago by noerdman@discuss.tchncs.de to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world 105 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[β] Olgratin_Magmatoe@slrpnk.net 15 points 1 year ago (4 children) Ok, I give up, where's loss? permalink fedilink source hideshow 8 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 10 points 1 year ago (2 children) The loss is the jobs we lost along the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Denjin@lemmings.world 12 points 1 year ago The loss is the jobs lives we lost along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing, it's how we as a society progress. The main problem is not having a safety net or means of support for those who need to find a new line of work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing Like Landlords? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago Wouldn't call that a job in the current context permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The problem is not taxing robots and having an UBI. Banning work robot ownership too (you only get assigned one for work) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, UBI would solve a lot of social issues currently, including the whole scare about AI putting people out of work. Not sure what you mean about work robot ownership, care to elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Booring. Find a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) loss is eternal I think permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Loss is incredibly boring. It's become the millenial equivalent of a boomer joke. Might have been funny 17 years ago. But that was 17 years ago. Get a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago loss has always been boring permalink fedilink source parent [β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago If you're working class, look in the mirror permalink fedilink source parent [β] MS06Borjarnon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago All the people who'll die because of substandard AI bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 10 points 1 year ago (2 children) The loss is the jobs we lost along the way. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] Denjin@lemmings.world 12 points 1 year ago The loss is the jobs lives we lost along the way. permalink fedilink source parent [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing, it's how we as a society progress. The main problem is not having a safety net or means of support for those who need to find a new line of work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing Like Landlords? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago Wouldn't call that a job in the current context permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The problem is not taxing robots and having an UBI. Banning work robot ownership too (you only get assigned one for work) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, UBI would solve a lot of social issues currently, including the whole scare about AI putting people out of work. Not sure what you mean about work robot ownership, care to elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Denjin@lemmings.world 12 points 1 year ago The loss is the jobs lives we lost along the way. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 3 points 1 year ago (2 children) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing, it's how we as a society progress. The main problem is not having a safety net or means of support for those who need to find a new line of work. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing Like Landlords? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago Wouldn't call that a job in the current context permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The problem is not taxing robots and having an UBI. Banning work robot ownership too (you only get assigned one for work) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, UBI would solve a lot of social issues currently, including the whole scare about AI putting people out of work. Not sure what you mean about work robot ownership, care to elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (1 child) Losing unnecessary jobs is not a bad thing Like Landlords? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago Wouldn't call that a job in the current context permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago Wouldn't call that a job in the current context permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The problem is not taxing robots and having an UBI. Banning work robot ownership too (you only get assigned one for work) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, UBI would solve a lot of social issues currently, including the whole scare about AI putting people out of work. Not sure what you mean about work robot ownership, care to elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 year ago (1 child) Yep, UBI would solve a lot of social issues currently, including the whole scare about AI putting people out of work. Not sure what you mean about work robot ownership, care to elaborate? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Robot is assined by the government to work for you. You get one, but you can have others for non-commercial purposes. Prevents monopolies and other issues that would lead to everyone getting robbed and left to die. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 year ago (1 child) I don't see how that would be practical in any shape or form with society as it exists today, TBH. You're suggesting limitations on what normal people can own, based on the stated purpose of the asset. That's going to be impossible to enforce. Why are we even getting one 'commercial' robot assigned to us? The average joe isn't going to be able to make use of it effectively. Just tax the robots and make sure everybody has UBI. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) The commercial robot would be put to use for you, and you would get a percent from it. The purpose is for you to "own" the Robot, specifically so certain people can't complain about having their taxes/labor stolen. You can't get more in order to prevent corruption. The personal use Robots are just there to do stuff for you, but you can't use them to get money. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] S0ck@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago (2 children) That sounds like an interesting novel or movie, but utterly impractical in the real world. Entirely too easy to game, or imagine a scenario where several generations after it's implementation, "high producing" robot jobs are inherited, creating a permanent upper class and a permanent lower class, because the only jobs that EVERYONE has access to are the jobs that will break your robot, and your bank. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) It's essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. Currently every human being owns one "commercial robot", aka their body. Theoretically this means that labor is distributed: Every person can perform the work of one person. But that doesn't stop capitalism to exploit that labor unfairly. A worker earning a company β¬1, gets only a very small fraction of that money. That's literally the system we have now. And we aren't even getting into what kind of robot one owns and that these robots perform wildly different depending on the task at hand (factory robot, vacuum cleaner robot, anything in between, ...) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] S0ck@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago Itβs essentially not different than the current situation from an exploitability aspect. That's why it sucks, man. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 0 points 1 year ago (1 child) The alternative: let the ultra wealthy be the only ones with robots, and watch them literally take everything, and evict us to swamps. The lucky few get to be sex slaves, zoo animals, and torture victims, while the rest get to starve or be hunted down by drones. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago (1 child) That's a classic false dilemma, there's plenty of other options besides those two extremes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.today 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Ok then, elaborate. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] AwesomeLowlander@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 year ago Cmon, you've posited two extremely improbable scenarios, do you really need others to point out the more likely ones, that don't involve us going full Mad Max? UBI is one of the obvious ones. Tax the means of production, and make sure everybody has the basic necessities for survival. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 child) Booring. Find a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) loss is eternal I think permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Loss is incredibly boring. It's become the millenial equivalent of a boomer joke. Might have been funny 17 years ago. But that was 17 years ago. Get a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago loss has always been boring permalink fedilink source parent
[β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) loss is eternal I think permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Loss is incredibly boring. It's become the millenial equivalent of a boomer joke. Might have been funny 17 years ago. But that was 17 years ago. Get a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago loss has always been boring permalink fedilink source parent
[β] squaresinger@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) Loss is incredibly boring. It's become the millenial equivalent of a boomer joke. Might have been funny 17 years ago. But that was 17 years ago. Get a new joke. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago loss has always been boring permalink fedilink source parent
[β] dandelion@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago loss has always been boring permalink fedilink source parent
[β] UltraGiGaGigantic@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago If you're working class, look in the mirror permalink fedilink source parent
[β] MS06Borjarnon@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago All the people who'll die because of substandard AI bullshit. permalink fedilink source parent
