AI execs may be too out of touch to build for the general public
j / k
|
Down or up a comment |
h / l
|
Previous or next link |
?
|
This help |
The things normal people with healthy relationships want to be doing.
They're so incredibly out of touch.
Edit, found the interview: https://youtu.be/DPCvFy5BKeM?si=3c1yS2kSaOdlW56d&t=238
agree - mostly. Anyone with a young child _and_ aging parents in poor health at the same time can tell you it's hell. Dealing with 1 at a time is a nice "calling" and way of giving back. both is...something i'd wish on my worst enemy lol.
Then we decided that nuclear families were the way to go, so we gotta do everything ourselves now, and with both parents working because one breadwinner isn’t enough to live on.
(I'm not saying you specifically, but a lot of people complain all the time about how hard raising a kid is)
‘Complaining’ is part of human discourse. Generally it’s acceptable to share the full range of day-to-day gripes, elation, full tragedies (e.g., deaths), and emotional heights with other humans.
You don’t want to hear constant griping about raising kids. I get that. I might not want to hear griping about national politics or Apple doing something or other. Cest le vie.
Your parents no doubt griped about raising you. You don’t have to have kids but someone has to! We’re going to gripe mate. No one is forcing you to listen.
I thought that was obvious
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/child-care-expenses...
Human asking for fair treatment and to be respected: no, we will replace you with a machine instead
Eventual AGI asking for fair treatment and to be respected: of course, let me sacrifice a few more humans for your own entertainment my lord
Say what you want about the railway barons of the 19th century they all started out with nothing and knew the streets- because they came from them. This is what set America apart from Europe. The old "paperboy becomes millionaire" story.
But we're going back to aristocrats.
How do you feel about letting your parents use a dishwasher versus doing the dishes for them?
What about letting them see a doctor instead of taking care of all their medical issues yourself?
Obviously the task that is being outsourced matters. Nobody cares if a robot is taking out the trash. If this allows people more time to focus on real interactions, then that's a good thing
If that is what the above poster meant, they should have stated it more clearly because it did not come through.
Elderly need a lot of help with a lot of things. Maybe it's the trash, maybe it's helping them find their keys or remembering to take their medication.
What did you think they meant? I assume that if someone meant we need robots to provide companionship or emotional support for the elderly, they would say that instead.
A nurse who administers medication, prepares meals, and gets them out of the house and checks on their well being. Full time care for the elderly.
You wouldn't be living independently if you were dependent on a robot. The burden shifts from your family only as long as you can pay for and maintain the robot yourself and if that's the case you could probably pay humans to care for you anyway.
> Nursing homes and Elder care facilities also have huge labor problems, and throwing just money at the problem isn’t really an option.
The solution probably involves paying workers a hell of a lot more and breaking up the largest companies.
So it turns out that family members who traditionally cared for their own family would do it based on cultural and religious norms, deep bonds of love and affection, and/or the pressure that comes with knowing nobody else would step up and do it.
It is a fools paradise thinking that you can motivate mercenary caregivers, who are unrelated to their clients, in fact often foreigners, with giant stacks of cash, and expect consistent outcomes.
Traditionally, communities cared for each other, no matter if someone was their family member or not. The elderly, injured, sick, disabled, and orphaned have been cared for by those outside of their immediate families throughout all of human history. Our modern lives have made us unusually isolated, but it's still our nature to care for each other.
Therefore, these faithful women and men have cared for strangers and foreigners because of cultural norms, because of religious obligation (for which they freely volunteered) and from a selfless faith in God's love and salvation. It is this Gospel which they sought to spread by means of good works and prayer.
So basically, today those extremely compassionate and loyal people are being recruited as mercenaries. Not to renounce the world, not to take vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, but simply to snag their certifications, bona fides and licenses for a paycheck. Ultimately, they are recapitulating the process by which religious orders formed up and were sent on mission.
Sadly, this mercenary, paycheck-to-paycheck model is not as cohesive or attractive as the religious life was in times past. You can have extremely compassionate people who are utterly burned out, and you can also have mercenaries who are not compassionate at all but just in it for the bucks, and they exhibit open contempt for their charges. And yet, these women and men still need to fend for themselves at home, and cover their own expenses, and feed themselves under a bare lightbulb at a kitchen table with 3 empty chairs. This is the true source of the "housing crisis", by the way, that women and men move out at 18, and they are all living alone and separately, and occupying small spaces, constantly at risk of eviction or displacement.
The women swallowed hook, line and sinker a story of girlboss domination, and smashing the patriarchy along with the glass ceiling, but ultimately they wind up as wage slaves, childless and free of any marital entanglements, and their employer has no more obligation to them beyond a 2-weeks notice, severance pay, and COBRA.
It all totally tracks given what he’s made his career monetizing but god is it depressing.
One thing that’s always been apparent to me is how the rich of that era mostly attempted to be perceived well by society at large, and they tried to be accepted by the upper classes culturally. For example, Carnegie Hall and the hundreds of Carnegie Libraries around the world. You can debate whether this absolved them of their various sins, but I think it is pretty clear that they wanted society to think well of them.
Compare that to today’s tech and finance billionaires, and it seems like they are actively trying to destroy cultural society and/or want to remake it in the image of a corporate dystopia. Very different types of people.
- you (GROUP 1) are the 0.001%,
and you
- hire the 0.030% (30x more unclean than GROUP 1 on some scale),
to
- build for the 1.000% (33.3% more unclean than GROUP 2 and 1000x more unclean than GROUP 1 on some scale),
then I could see how
- "building for the 1%" would actually feel like building for the general public.
Maybe replacing the relationship between a parent and child has more emotional significance, but all your human relationships are valuable. Even AI for coding wants you to spend more money on tokens and less on hiring and training junior developers in your local area. You can say goodbye to your local tech scene, and eventually your local university's engineering department, and all the social benefits they brought to your local area. Even walking over to your colleague's desk to ask them how their code works is something that is gone now.
https://youtu.be/wGy5SGTuAGI?t=217
It shows how thoroughly they've built their echo chambers.