Hacker News Reader

Comment by esafak | Hacker News Reader

The employer's, whose salary affords your subsistence.

I don't think anyone wants to be employed. They want the money that comes with employment. If you can make get money without employment, like rich kids, for example, I think most people would prefer that.

And you think that once the poor are no longer needed by the rich, the rich will decide to just give them money anyway? We already have dedicated campaigns to make sure people die sick and homeless on the streets when they become obsolete. You think that is not going to get much, much worse?

Yeah, better not be poor when the AI comes.

I think everyone should become rich. That is the goal of AI, isn't it?

So who gets to live in Montecito?

I don't care about Montecito. Harry and Meghan apparently neither.

Being rich doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. But it means you can choose not to do what you don't want.

Like not-not live in Montecito?

Not everyone can be rich by your definition.

Let me be just for a second here be an intuitionist: not (not M) does not imply M.

Everyone can be rich. But not everyone can be Montecito-rich.

If AI is so great it can do your job it is good enough to provide for your needs directly by automation. Just buy a robot and a plot of land and you don't have to worry about jobs.

Robots can't do that yet, and even then you still need to pay for food, healthcare, land (taxes), transportation, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com