Hacker News Reader

Comment by mwd_ | Hacker News Reader

So I know the article isn't entirely serious, but the "score one for the robots" attitude seems pretty common and it's perplexing to me. Isn't this "score one for the humans", since they have created and now control a new kind of machine?

When I see robots doing new stuff I don't worry about humans becoming obsolete (whatever that means), I look forward to the day when humans are freed from the grunt work they do now.

Some people worry about losing their jobs in the rock-paper-scissors industry, but I think this is a social problem that has nothing to do with robots.

View on HN

It is clearly a social problem, not a technical problem. But it clearly has a LOT to do with robots (and computing in general, and technology in general).

I am not a neo-Luddite (nor Luddite, nor primitivist, all of which are different things), principally in that I do not subscribe to normative Luddite beliefs (beliefs about What We Ought To Do). But the Luddite fears are legitimate fears, for those affected; when the work you currently know how to do is replaceable with (sufficiently-cheap) machinery, it makes you personally poorer. (Of course, when MY job is replaced by cheaper machinery, it makes YOU personally marginally richer, because you get better prices on the goods that I used to produce, and over time this appears to be a net win).

And socially, we observe that increasing automation has, for the most part, not freed humans from doing grunt work, as they once did. Except for those people that have been "freed" into poverty. Admittedly, the poverty of today seems to me to be quite a bit nicer than the poverty of 200 years ago (esp. urban poverty).

socially, we observe that increasing automation has, for the most part, not freed humans from doing grunt work, as they once did.

Sure it has. Much less people work on the land now. Much less people shovel dirt, till land and harvest crops. Also I don't need to wash ky hands by hand, wash my dishes, and empty my chamberpot anymore.

That's not to say there is no poverty (there is), but its wrong to say there is the same amount of grudge work as there was 200 years ago.

I agree that a shrinking percentage of society is doing agricultural work, and certainly many specific tasks of grunt-work-of-yore are less grunt-y and more automated.

But my assertion was not that "automation has not started doing any of the grunt work we once did". My assertion was that the segment of society that WAS doing grunt work is mostly not elevated out of grunt work TODAY. I assert that, rather, those people are mostly either still doing grunt work, or else are unable to find a useful role in society (a leftier turn of phrase would be "they are being abandoned by society"). I can certainly concede that there has been SOME improvement in this, but it's vastly less than starry-eyed optimists seem to suggest.

Remember that this followed mwd_1 stating a vision of the future, in which "humans are freed from the grunt work they do now", by which I assume (s)he meant not just today's variant of grunt work, but grunt work in general. Basically, my whole claim is that techno-utopianism is unrealistic, and it is unrealistic for social reasons, not technological reasons. Not that it stops me from wishing for it.

Oh, and a minor unimportant correction: the phrase is "grunt work", not "grudge work", at least in most English-speaking communities. Look it up.

I assert that, rather, those people are mostly either still doing grunt work, or else are unable to find a useful role in society (a leftier turn of phrase would be "they are being abandoned by society")

Ah, now you're moving the goal posts. From "200 years ago X% of society were doing grunt work, and today X% of society are doing grunt work" to "x% of society are doing grunt work or are just loafing around". I agree that it's wrong that there loads of people who are unemployed, or working crappy jobs, but it's much better than when they had to shovel shit for 10 hours a day.

Tell a serf in the middle ages about the terrible future where people don't work till they're 16ish (sometimes 20), then sit around in housing estates all day doing nothing. Tell them how horrible it is.

Things have gotten better. We need to continue to make things better.

> I agree that it's wrong that there loads of people who are unemployed, or working crappy jobs, but it's much better than when they had to shovel shit for 10 hours a day.

A lot of those crappy jobs involve the equivalent of shoveling shit for 10 hours a day. Jobs available to power in lower economic brackets and classes are demanding: retail, fast food prep, janitorial/custodial work, day labor, etc.

More importantly, just because a job doesn't require physical toil doesn't mean it isn't a soul draining experience. The fact of the matter is that increasing automation hasn't ended class division because automation schemes are employed to increase the profit of those in control of business. Improvements in technology do not automatically improve society, as most technologies get exploited to divert more wealth to few individuals.

Yes those jobs are shitty, but they are better than 200/500 years ago.

(a) There are more labour laws now. You don't have to work as much. No more shoveling shit for 10 hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. (b) There are health and safety laws now, if you were to shovel shit now, you'd have to have a mask etc. (c) There are more labour laws now, so that the employer has to provide tools and training. No more "shovel shit for 10 hours, you have to bring your own shovel, oh you're shovel got broken, you're out of a job" (d) There is more of a safety net. No more shovel shit for 10 hours, oh you broke your hand? Hope you can live without food until it heals. etc.

Those jobs suck, yes. But ask anyone doing them if they think mediæval shit shoveling is just as good (or better), and they'll say no.

The present of labor laws does not mean that everyone has access to union work or that those laws are enforced in some situations. The same goes for health and safety regulations. There are plenty of jobs where you buy your own work equipment (I've had them). Also, the most economically disadvantaged work more than 1 job, so saying that people don't work 10+ or 6 or 7 days is not accurate.

The bottom line is that those at the top have always exploited technological advance for themselves while leaving others behind. This is a primary function of capitalism throughout history. That some conditions may have been worse in the past means nothing while economic oppression continues right now.

I think "grudge" might be a combination of "grunt" and "drudge", aided by the fact that "grudge" is a real word with a different meaning. I noticed it too.

There is far more grudge work now than ever. It's just that people don't do the vast majority of it.

Have you never seen one of those movies where the robots take over? That's basically what people are joking/complaining about.

(Sure, it's fiction, but can we say for sure it could never come true?)

http://lesswrong.com/lw/k9/the_logical_fallacy_of_generaliza...

This is not applicable to my comment. I was merely attempting to quickly and easily explain why treating "robots" as a distinct entity, rather than merely human tools, is an extant viewpoint.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com