Post #2769397
2026-01-19 06:52 UTC
Replies (4)
-
@GaryGhost@lemmy.world 2026-01-19 17:49
It would be exciting if all of our lives were going to be easier rather than an increase in homelessness.
-
@vacuumflower@lemmy.sdf.org 2026-01-19 16:20
That might not be what we should be excited to do. And what people are excited is the idea of replacing all non-pleasant work. So here's the catch, replacing human work with machines where practical usually leaves the parts where humans are needed for being human, not for their output as a part of a mechanism. For example, humans greeting you at a hotel, humans carrying trays and accepting orders in restaurants, humans as a decoration, humans doing prostitution, human gladiators, human actors. OK, the last part is fine. All these involve learning and maintaining skills more removed from power than skills of more industrial professions (monotonous work). Being a nice monkey to those who can afford you as a servant might not be what most people dream about.
-
@Oisteink@lemmy.world 2026-01-19 16:14
This is the thing. If it does increase efficiency that only goes to the money and not the worker. It’s not unique to AI
-
@Fedditor385@lemmy.world 2026-01-19 17:22
Not monotonous but non-creative. Any machine can do non-crative work. No machine can do creative work. You don't need creativity to farm food, you do need creativity to invent new medicine. In an average company that isn't scaled worldwide, usually the cost of labour is 40-50% (paying wages). This means if we replace humans with robots, doing repetitive and non-creative work, we can make stuff cheaper by *a lot*. OFC unless the company boss, who is then left alone with all the profits, just decides to keep the prices with no people he needs to pay anymore.