Hacker News Reader

Comment by johnvanommen | Hacker News Reader

> Generating an extra $400 per year in value, per employee, isn't that much extra.

I agree, and would add that it’s contributing to inflation in hard assets.

Basically:

* it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today

* if you have a billion to spend, and you agree, you will be inclined to put your wealth into hard assets, because AI depends on them

In a really abstract way, the world is not responsible for feeding a new class of workers: robots.

And robots consume electricity, water, space, and generate heat.

Which is why those sectors are feeling the affects of supply and demand.

View on HN

The world IS responsible for handling the people. Thats the whole fucking reason we made society to take care of children. Nothing is inevitable. It serves the interests of the few.

"The world" isn't responsible for anything. The world simply exists, and owes you nothing.

I think they meant “society.” Society does, in fact, owe the people something, especially if we, the people, are expected to live by the rules, social norms, and expectations imposed by society.

Yea, like anything, you get out what you put into it. I wouldn't describe that as society "owes" me something.

"No taxation without representation" is a perfectly reasonable stance.

Parent was talking about children (npi) — they don’t get out of society what they put into it. Society owes them care for bringing them into it, and if society defaults on this debt then society ends.

> Society owes them care for bringing them into it, and if society defaults on this debt then society ends.

Society owes you nothing.

Your premise is false.

A society of people with your belief does not exist.

What's society for then?

Oh man you're not gonna like how we all treat you after internalizing that kinda talk.

What your describing is a low trust society. If you disregard the social contract like that, then people wont owe the "the world" anythign either. Collaboration and civics goes out the window. If you want to look at what kind of a shithole that libertarian nonsense leads to, then try taking a stroll in SF at night

You get out of society what you put into it. If I want a seamless web of deserved trust, then of course I need to contribute to that.

I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.

This is an important framing - we talk so much of "rights" but if you have a right to something, that means someone or someones have a duty to provide it.

Man I am on the wrong tech site.

Where are all the geeks that grew up on Trek and want to create a better future where society provides for it's citizens?

Hacker News is a system for marketing and finding new hires for Y Combinator

They are here, following the prime directive.

No, no it does not. If we say everyone has a right to clean air and water, no one else has a duty to provide it. Those are given to us for free by the planet. The issue is that rich assholes (and poor assholes who only think of getting rich) take that away from everyone else by polluting what is common to everyone.

> I don't consider that to be saying that society "owes" me something. I regard it mutually beneficial, not some kind of debt/debtor relationship.

You know, in phrases like "you owe it to your spouse/sibling/friend/self to...", people aren't talking about formal debt. Please try to keep that kind of meaning in mind when people say that society owes its people.

humans collectively are responsible for the end results of innovations and achievements , otherwise who are you doing all this for. Wars are a extreme form of disagreements amongst a large body of opposing opinions or perspective IMHO. Earth (world!) simply exists, with or without you. You as Byorganism/Byproduct of this planet you have an obligation to this planet in good deeds. Have you not watched Star-Wars?

> * it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today

If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today. Which specific workers are winning in that scenario may vary tremendously, of course, but I don't think anyone is seriously claiming AI will make everyone less productive.

> If AI makes workers more productive, labor will have higher value than it has today.

Workers being more productive does not necessarily translate to workers getting more leverage or a larger piece of the pie.

The value of labor i.e. wages depend on labor demand (the marginal product of labor) and bargaining power, not output per worker. If AI is a substitute for many tasks, the marginal value of an additional worker, and what a company is willing to pay for their work can fall even if each remaining worker is more productive.

What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business. Instant massive recession is by no means a "sure bet" with technological improvements, especially those that make more kinds of work possible than before.

I'm not forecasting that, and it's a virtual strawman in the face of my much narrower claim: that wages depend on marginal labor demand and bargaining power, not average output per worker. If AI substitutes for labor, the marginal value of adding another worker in many roles can fall. That can mean fewer hires or lower wages in some categories, not 'no hiring' or an instant massive recession. I have no idea what the addressable market or demand for our more productive economy is, but for the record I do hope it's high to support new businesses and a bigger pie in general!

Forgive me, I was responding to the original claim that "it’s a safe bet that labor will have lower value in 2031 than it has today".

It will - and z2 explained why, in response to my post

> What you're forecasting is a scenario where total output has substantially increased but no one's hiring or able to start their own business.

I said labor would have “lower value” after AI progresses further and further.

My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.

You twisted my statement and said “nobody is hiring.”

Which isn’t what I said.

> My statement reflects that increased productivity means that fewer people are required to generate the same amount of economic output.

People have been singing that since the industrial revolution started.

What makes you think it's different this time? Other times increased productivity yielded fewer people doing what a machine suddenly can do. But never fewer people employed or smaller overall economy.

You can argue that our populations are older than ever before. There aren't enough kids, and consumers are saturated with consumption opportunities.

That's maybe never happened before during the industrial revolution. But it's orthogonal to AI.

That’s a perfect summary of what I was getting at, thank you

Tech Company: At long last, we have created Manna from classic sci-fi novel Don't Create Manna

https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

Reply on news.ycombinator.com