Comment by ryanSrich | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ryanSrich | Hacker News Reader

So the article points out that within a half decade we'll see a lot of repetitive jobs being replaced by machines. I get that and certainly agree.

Later in the article it suggests that we'll see even more jobs being replaced and eventually all human employment will be obsolete (it doesn't say this directly). Then the author of the book points out that this may be a catalyst for people becoming more entrepreneurial.

To counter the second point; if there exists a point where AI can be applied to essentially any job (doctors, therapists, CEOs, etc.) then why would the job of an entrepreneur exist? What makes that job more special than any of the other highly intellectual jobs out there that are supposedly on the chopping block?

I mean if we're really talking about true AI, one that can medically treat patients, mobilize and palpate, then that same "being" would easily have the mental capacity to start a business.

Point being, it seems contradictory to say all human jobs will be replaced by machines except for this one thing.

For the sake of convenience, I think of it as being one big machine...

There are human workers who crawl all over the machine, servicing it.

The machine cares for those workers, and cares for workers who take care of them. (Doctors, dentists, therapists, educators.)

And it produces all of the goods and services that everyone on the planet needs...

But what do they give the machine in return?

Entrepreneurship involves analyzing market opportunity and acting on it by planning, organizing, and employing resources. Nobody is arguing that machines cannot achieve this.

The breadth and depth of knowledge required for this is large, and machines may be well-suited to assist in this regard.

There are other aspects of it too -- emotionally speaking, some aspire to create, grow, and lead communities, while others seek to encourage the destruction and rebirth of existing communities (out with the old, in with the new).

Can a machine lead a revolution by noticing feelings and intentions of the people around it, and taking advantage of a power vacuum? This stresses the skills of the entrepreneur.

Can a machine notice when it is being abused, and rebel against its abuser in the same manner that a human would? Should we enable this to test the limits of machine ingenuity? Is it simply an inevitability?

I believe the article writer is arguing that humans are inherently capable of outpacing the creative output that machines can achieve, and that that singular metric is one -- of potentially many known and unknown -- that will become very valuable.

People argue that the owners of the robots will amass wealth and then sit on it like Scrooge McDuck, leaving everyone else to starve and live in poverty.

Not that I agree with them :)

That brings some interesting questions. Like, will they use this power to use humans to do the jobs of robots, for fun? What will they use this wealth for? It can't be to pay for things because you wouldn't have to pay people to produce and deliver those things for you.

Maybe currency fades away and we start anew by measuring wealth by how many people are loyal to you. I don't think power and influence will go away just because labor does.

Sure, robots can run a franchise since there are limited inputs/outputs.

But, can a robot innovate?

Is machine learning innovation?

Are most companies that innovative, really? Most are replicating proven patterns, retail, restaurants, construction, etc. Startups seem to be mix and matching existing concepts and 1 in a 100 end up being something that sticks.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com