Hacker News Reader

> The job was never about wealth distribution, self actualization, dignity or any of that crap it was always about getting some stupid task accomplished for an industrial system

There are still a whole lot of people, the vast majority of people actually, who's job involves something completely unglamorous and practical like unclogging your sewers.

To these people, it sounds like a cruel joke that people get paid 3x their salary, and after AI can do their job we learn that apparently the only purpose of their was their own self-actualization.

I don't actually believe that about math, but that's what a lot of people in this thread sound like.

>There are still a whole lot of people, the vast majority of people actually, who's job involves something completely unglamorous and practical like unclogging your sewers.

I know, I have that job! And I enjoy it. But the robots are coming for me too.

I thought technology was supposed to liberate us from the fields, but it turns out that's what wealth is for, and the wealthy want us back in the fields (no more escape through special training or skill).

Why would the wealthy want you back in the fields?

You were useful in the fields to the degree that was necessary for food production (sustain and grow population) and for wars (using said population to expand and extract more resources).

Once machines automate material comforts and exertion of violence (already have, to a large degree), humans become a pure loss center. Why bother with "fields" lol.

Because fundamentally: certain humans desire power to rule over other humans. Even if the fields (metaphorical or literal) can be done more efficiently by robots, they desire that power to exert over others.

So they will keep some ready for those tasks simply to fuel that irrational desire. They will instead use the more efficient bots to enforce work on the fields rather than work the fields themselves. Or perhaps we go full Matrix and find uses for humans that robots can't properly replicate.

Sure, keeping a few humans around for some kind of futuristic degenerate mammalian social/power games I can get behind.

That's not "back in the fields" though (metaphorical or literal).

A bit sad other knowledge workers feel that. I know my job isn't anything trying to better humanity; I just make video games. But making those games (or rather, the tools to make those games) has an end result to have people enjoy themselves a bit in a decreasingly enjoyable world. So there's my fulfillment.

But I understand it from a blue collar perspective. I tinker at toys in a metaphorical basement and I live a cushier life than many who give their bodies to their duty. That doesn't feel fair at all. But I mostly wish that was motivation to band together and get blue collars paid better rather than cause this inter-class divide while the capitalists ransack all of society.

We’ll put IMO. This expresses well the way I’ve been thinking about “the mathpocalypse”.

I feel sad and even a bit forlorn when I think of jobs that provide purpose, meaning, motivation, and satisfaction (not to mention $$) to human beings being lost to servers in racks and soulless machines. I think many people feel similarly.

However, I do believe that when a couple problems get solved that massively benefit all of humanity — e.g. a massive cancer breakthrough, etc — a tipping point will be reached and public opinion will reverse and enthusiastically embrace AI, and will accept not only diminished personal meaning but outright technocratic rule. This would be a huge mistake, but I really believe it would happen.

And as we know, solving interesting math problems is a leading indicator of big practical results to come.

>However, I do believe that when a couple problems get solved that massively benefit all of humanity — e.g. a massive cancer breakthrough, etc — a tipping point will be reached and public opinion will reverse and enthusiastically embrace AI, and will accept not only diminished personal meaning but outright technocratic rule.

Is solving cancer worth ceding human meaning and human autonomy to the machines? I haven't seen anyone ask this question but it seems the central issue of this revolution. Personally, I don't think it is.

Perhaps machines will lead to a perfectly homogenous society completely absent of negative valence whatsoever. But if every experience is also devoid of any personal meaning, what's the point? The optimal human state is not one of peak hedonism, or wholly absent of suffering.

> Is solving cancer worth ceding human meaning and human autonomy to the machines? I haven't seen anyone ask this question but it seems the central issue of this revolution. Personally, I don't think it is.

Solving cancer alone? Perhaps not.. Unless you have cancer.. Solving all diseases and aging? Well... I would rather be alive and live like an AI's housecat than dead and free. And I suspect that many people who publicly disagree are just performative, and would actually make the same choice when push comes to shove, and they have to actually choose between "diminishing their autonomy to the machines" and imminent death.

The Christian influence on the world has been undeniably positive. Seeing death and suffering as the enemy and organizing society around minimizing it has been a boon to human progress. But now we come to the dark side of this view. A fear of death so complete that we are willing to sacrifice everything of value to prevent it. Our society has become so divorced from our natural state that death is seen less as an inevitable part of life, and more as a corporeal enemy that must be resisted at all costs. As it turns out, too much of a good thing, whatever it is, leads to absurdities and atrocities.

No, I do not think human autonomy should be sacrificed to defeat death. I personally do not fear death. It's as irrational to fear as it is to fear a deep sleep. I do fear dying painfully. Tragically, we as a society resist alleviating the pain associated with the process of dying (by speeding it up) for the same reasons. If only we could learn to take our principles in moderate doses.

> death and suffering as the enemy and organizing society around minimizing it

> A fear of death so complete that we are willing to sacrifice everything of value to prevent it.

> a corporeal enemy that must be resisted

I am afraid that you know nothing about Christianity. The beliefs and values you describe are antithetical to the Christian life and our worldview. If you've ever just examined the life of St. Teresa of Calcutta, you'd understand how absurd it would be for her to "fear death" or "minimize suffering".

We seek to follow, and imitate, Christ Jesus in his life of suffering, his death and resurrection. We do not resist, or minimize, or fear any of this. To do so, would be quite heretical to us as Christians.

Of all times of the year to bring this up. All Saints Day, celebrating the eternal life of those, named and unnamed, who have preceded us in death. All Souls Day, to pray for all the departed souls who suffer in Purgatory, after death but before their Heavenly reward.

I don't know what religion you are trying to describe, but to me it sounds like atheistic secularism. It is atheism that fears death, and utilitarianism that seeks to minimize suffering. Not Christians. Goodness, gracious.

To understand my point one must separate the metaphysics from the practical effects of the belief system. Christianity represented a step-change towards humanism. This must be considered in the in the era it was founded and compared to the competing ideologies at the time, i.e. paganism and its various death cults. Christianity institutionalized ideals like equality of men, the sanctity of life, charity, self sacrifice, etc. These ideals are the precursors to civilization.

The particular ideology of Christianity was super effective at laying the groundwork for modern civilization. Of course, these ideals have since evolved and have since become some kind of secular ideology. Granted, it was imprecise to attribute a fear of death to Christianity. But the sanctity of life is in practice a close cousin of a fear of death. Modern secularism having no metaphysical alternative has made this fear explicit.

> I suspect that many people who publicly disagree are just performative, and would actually make the same choice when push comes to shove, and they would have to actually choose between "diminishing their autonomy to the machines" and imminent death.

Exhibit A.

It is a very narrow mind that thinks everyone secretly thinks exactly as they do

Its easy to prove. Let hackinthebochs pledge his name and identity publicly to this statement. If he ever gets cancer later in life and decides to take a cure that was developed by AI, he was a liar. I argue he shouldn't even be allowed to take the cure unless he has changed his view, in order to maintain honesty and integrity.

The most straightforward method of eliminating all disease is to kill all life. This seems a much more likely outcome than the housecat scenario.

>Why should we be estatic that some signifigant math problem was solved by machine rather of a human being in a language only the machine understands?

Why should I be ecstatic that someone solved a problem using Hilbert Calculus when I can only understand Sequent Calculus? [0]

[0] This is a joke. No 'real' mathematicians do systematic proofs. What gets posted in math journals is the equivalent of architecture diagrams.

You shouldn't. Maybe you should learn Hilbert Calculus so you can appreciate it.

It's like asking if what someone wrote a beautiful poem but it's in japanese. Maybe hearing about it motivates me to learn japanese, or maybe it doesn't. But as a non-speaker it makes little impression on me.

If you're writing Japanese poetry instead of solving maths problems expect to get paid Japanese poetry wages.

True. And if you are you solving math problems you should expect prompt engineer wages

> in a language only the machine understands

I wouldn't even grant that. It's a very one-directional problem solving approach where it's unknown to what extent it can build on its own findings.