undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBobbyJo3mo ago0 comments

Not necessarily true. There are non-human bottlenecks to productivity, like energy, land area, available raw materials, etc. You're assuming humans can find ways to meaningfully contribute that do not bump up against any of those constraints. R&D is probably the only area not bottlenecked by one of the above out of the gate, and most humans are ill suited for that line of work.

0 comments

9rx3mo ago

> most humans are ill suited for that line of work.

Based on what? Certainly there are humans with crippling disabilities that remove them from pretty much any kind of work, but of the "normally functioning" population?

Most lack the necessary attention directed towards R&D as they're too busy living out other lives in other jobs. If that's what you mean, that is a fair point. But if those jobs went away as suggested earlier, they'd have nothing else to do but turn their attention towards R&D. That current world model wouldn't apply anymore.

BobbyJoOP3mo ago

> Based on what?

Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc. I get the argument that "the whole world would be different, so present data isn't applicable", but, if that's your argument, then it's totally unfalsifiable.

9rx3mo ago

> Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc.

Right. That much was obvious. But what does that mean in more detail? If you pick a random, normally capable, person off the street and give them everything they need to become successful in R&D, what ends up happening?

1 more reply

itake3mo ago

Jobs functions will change over time. Not everyone will be able to do research roles, but robotics is far away from replacing human hands in any meaningful way. Humans need plumbers, home construction, healthcare professionals [0], teachers, judges, relationship driven roles (sales, account managers).

[0] - if robotics/ai can replace healthcare, healthcare costs would drop to zero...

BobbyJoOP3mo ago

1) Everything you've listed has finite demand, so cannot provide the 10,000x. 2) Robotics cannot drive costs to zero. Robots cost money and require maintenance.

itake3mo ago

we don't see 10,000x efficiency increases in those job categories.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

9rx3mo ago

> most humans are ill suited for that line of work.

Based on what? Certainly there are humans with crippling disabilities that remove them from pretty much any kind of work, but of the "normally functioning" population?

BobbyJoOP3mo ago

> Based on what?

9rx3mo ago

> Several decades of academic achievement data, psychology studies, etc.

1 more reply

itake3mo ago

[0] - if robotics/ai can replace healthcare, healthcare costs would drop to zero...

BobbyJoOP3mo ago

1) Everything you've listed has finite demand, so cannot provide the 10,000x. 2) Robotics cannot drive costs to zero. Robots cost money and require maintenance.

itake3mo ago

we don't see 10,000x efficiency increases in those job categories.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse