Hacker News Reader

Here's hoping the endgame of programmers putting themselves out of work is the nerd rapture (friendly A.I., post-scarcity, etc.).

But from what I can tell in history, the future tends to turn out much weirder than the human imagination can conceive.

>how about faux ai that can write simple web apps or come up with good designs?

A major class of workers that software has a tendency of replacing is programmers themselves. Bespoke solutions are replaced by what used to be called shrink-wrapped applications. In the web area, look at how services such as Squarespace replace bespoke sites by providing easy to use site design tools.

I am that guy, the average programmer. I used to wire up mobile apps to back end services. I have had no interest in my services for over a year. I think I have been replaced by iCloud, urban airship, parse, etc...

Depends what you mean by average. If you've been programming in objective-c; that most likely means you understand memory management; small-talk style oo etc. Corporate Java programmers have forgot this stuff, yet they will always be in demand.

Isn't the solution here to get better skills and stay ahead of the "average" curve?

In the case of a "everything is automated, only a small portion of people are needed to produce essentials and even advance" society, would we just be better off with a system that relied on the altruism of the few to make the lives of everyone better and everyone else could just exist?

That sort of society has a slew of issues that could be better explored in futurist science fiction (things such as psychologic issues for the non-producers, the sustainability of altruism, etc.). But it is a consideration that I have thought about.

Capitalism isn't going to be subverted that quickly, though. The system will right itself and any revolution of that caliber will be long and hard fought. The world superpower will be a capitalist system in 2050 and probably 2100.

I think you're already seeing societies like this in North Western Europe: large numbers of unproductive, uneducated and essentially useless people are kept fed, housed and clothed as that is the humane thing to do, but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty (mostly - there are of course people who can make it work for themselves). Occasionally they revolt, like they did last summer in England, but even their revolts are absolutely meaningless and empty.

I wouldn't be surprised if that's the direction humanity takes in the end (barring significant intelligence enhancements). The door is always open to work at bettering yourself and humanity, but if you don't want to right now that's fine too because the cost to keep you alive and happy will become so minuscule and because of the various moral arguments.

I've been telling people "Even if the holodeck gets invented and its fantasy worlds are more psychologically pleasing than this one, I still want to get off this rock for real." I may be underestimating the powers of wireheading but if it's not forced on everyone I think a lot of people will keep it to a relative minimum like entertainment is already.

My take on the modern job problem is that it's about reaching the point of super cheap happy-human care which might include a possible 90%+ unemployment rate, while avoiding or making as quick as possible the messy middle-area we've entered where unemployment is rising and there aren't enough people capable/willing to support the unproductive masses.

but their lives are absolutely meaningless and empty

There is nothing "the economy" can do to change that, though. Feeling meaningful and full is a state of mind. And that goes more in the realm of religion and spirituality (and psychology) than materialism. It cannot be changed by any government intervention.

Some people have confused those things to the point of extremity. To take an extreme example on the other side, buddhist monks feel fine about themselves without being "productive" and hardly having any possessions.

Also, "useless" is very cruel thing to say regarding people. Who decides who is "useful" and "useless"? Can't we just as well say "everyone is useful" to make people feel better?

In a society that values economic productivity above all else, "useless" is a very accurate term. The challenge is to convince the economically "useful" people that have to pay the taxes that support these "useless" people to keep doing that, which will get harder and harder as the "useful" people see their purchasing power dwindle.

I'm not sure what the solution to this problem would be, but I do have a suspicion that more free market economics is not it.

There is nothing inherent in that people should value economic productivity above all else. That's the gospel of the industrial revolution, and it's not really valid anymore in the (post-)information age.

If you cannot be part of "economic productivity" then it is natural to look at other ways to feel good about yourself. "useless" is a value judgment that you cannot really make about other people and causes a lot of grief.

Anyway, I was just trying to say that these concerns are orthogonal to the macro-economy. I'm with you though, that more free market economics is not a solution to anything...

The economy does a lot to give people a delusion of purpose. If u r scared that ur kids will starve, or ur wife will go without healthcare, ur focus is now on survival. If I know that "the system will take care of me and my family", I will suddenly have a lot of free time. So I now need a philosophical or religious strategy to find meaning in my life. Just consider what is already happening in the so called services economy... a lot of it is pointless paper pushing coz we have not yet simplified it to the level necessary. Just imagine if the entire banking and insurance industry was replaced by a single web scale app with a few simple rules... u'd have a huge chunk of people sitting at home. All these people "remain busy" because of the economy... I wonder whether boredom or drudgery(hand everyone spoon instead of a shovel??) is better...

I agree with that. However, many of the wealthy tend to be equally useless, uneducated and ultimately unproductive - that they have money or engage in some sort of commerce does not change that.

That would lead to even greater wealth inequality, one of the most destabilizing factors in a society.

I thank many of the people in power do recognize the issues, which is why transforming education has become such a hot focus lately.

Broad advances in education were essential in allowing the "average" person to find employment in an industrial society; the modern average person is far, far more educated than they were 500 years ago when most average people were illiterate and farmed for a living.

We will need a new transformation in education to allow future average people to find good work within an information-based economy. This means, for example, that the average person might be able to program computers at an average level in the future.