it’s already immediately naive, so it’s hard to take seriously.
Machines can never replace people
this is the history of all progress ever; of course machines replace people. it’s completely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. i find this is a common cop-out from people who don’t have an idea of how to deal with the economic and emotional fallout of people losing their jobs: empathy.
you didn’t read past the one sentence you had an impulse to disagree with, did you?
it quite clearly explains that it can displace people from jobs, but machines are not humans. machines have to be told the exact parameters of their jobs in excruciating detail, whereas people can pick up the small details as they do the work. there are so many ways in which human autonomy leaks into everything we do, and machines cannot imitate that.
this is a classic mis-assumption that all human jobs are highly skilled and require that level of detail
this is a typical post-hoc assessment; i.e. only the jobs at present are like that; there are many jobs that have been made redundant because of “machines” that are strong technological improvements.
in find papers/articles like this a bit odd; because on the one hand they clearly aim to be fair-reaching and widely adopted; yet they miss all the empathy and connection that human-machine interactions involve: yes, people will lose their jobs, no, life won’t always be good, no, not all technological improvements are good, no, we don’t actually have to build these things but we choose to do it because we want money, etc, etc, etc.
i’m sure the intentions of the authors are good, but i find these kind of lists completely meaningless; it just reflects a set of preferences of a collection of people. that’s great! feel free to reflect on your own lists and preferences in whatever forum you feel compelled to do so. but it’s hardly a universal law.
You only quoted the first part of the first sentence. When quoted in full, I have a hard time seeing what’s so naive about it:
Machines can never replace people, but they can change people’s roles and the kinds of the work people do.
You seem to have conflated “people” with their jobs. Even in the extreme case where somebody lost their job to automation, failed to get another job, and subsequently died of poverty and starvation, I don’t think anyone but their erstwhile employer could say “this person was replaced by this machine”.
Except that the linked text is specifically about people as members of a work team.
(It is also only meaningful for machines that are agentic enough to be considered members of a team; the requirements listed are not applicable to the machines that can be relied upon to behave as tools)
i think if that’s the way you interpret it, it’s a completely pointless statement. the concern of the moment is not necessarily literal replacement of people for machines; it’s economic and emotional and social replacement.
Okay, but the sentence as a whole was true, and the truncated version was false, so that’s not on them, that’s on you for truncating it. You can say that sentence was boring or trivially true, but those are not the same as it being false.
it’s already immediately naive, so it’s hard to take seriously.
this is the history of all progress ever; of course machines replace people. it’s completely disingenuous to pretend otherwise. i find this is a common cop-out from people who don’t have an idea of how to deal with the economic and emotional fallout of people losing their jobs: empathy.
you didn’t read past the one sentence you had an impulse to disagree with, did you?
it quite clearly explains that it can displace people from jobs, but machines are not humans. machines have to be told the exact parameters of their jobs in excruciating detail, whereas people can pick up the small details as they do the work. there are so many ways in which human autonomy leaks into everything we do, and machines cannot imitate that.
this is a classic mis-assumption that all human jobs are highly skilled and require that level of detail
this is a typical post-hoc assessment; i.e. only the jobs at present are like that; there are many jobs that have been made redundant because of “machines” that are strong technological improvements.
in find papers/articles like this a bit odd; because on the one hand they clearly aim to be fair-reaching and widely adopted; yet they miss all the empathy and connection that human-machine interactions involve: yes, people will lose their jobs, no, life won’t always be good, no, not all technological improvements are good, no, we don’t actually have to build these things but we choose to do it because we want money, etc, etc, etc.
i’m sure the intentions of the authors are good, but i find these kind of lists completely meaningless; it just reflects a set of preferences of a collection of people. that’s great! feel free to reflect on your own lists and preferences in whatever forum you feel compelled to do so. but it’s hardly a universal law.
You only quoted the first part of the first sentence. When quoted in full, I have a hard time seeing what’s so naive about it:
You seem to have conflated “people” with their jobs. Even in the extreme case where somebody lost their job to automation, failed to get another job, and subsequently died of poverty and starvation, I don’t think anyone but their erstwhile employer could say “this person was replaced by this machine”.
Except that the linked text is specifically about people as members of a work team.
(It is also only meaningful for machines that are agentic enough to be considered members of a team; the requirements listed are not applicable to the machines that can be relied upon to behave as tools)
i think if that’s the way you interpret it, it’s a completely pointless statement. the concern of the moment is not necessarily literal replacement of people for machines; it’s economic and emotional and social replacement.
Okay, but the sentence as a whole was true, and the truncated version was false, so that’s not on them, that’s on you for truncating it. You can say that sentence was boring or trivially true, but those are not the same as it being false.