AI Won't Save Us From Pointless Jobs Unless We Let It [ARTICLE]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2017/12...8741465923

In his amusing but all-too-real essay On the Phenomenon of Bullshit Jobs, anthropologist David Graeber argues that an epidemic of made-up jobs is subjecting grave psychological harm on the populous. “It’s as if someone were out there making up pointless jobs just for the sake of keeping us all working,” he wrote. The side effect is a “scar across our collective soul” that virtually no one talks about.

“Rather than allowing a massive reduction of working hours to free the world’s population to pursue their own projects, pleasures, visions, and ideas, we have seen the ballooning not even so much of the “service” sector as of the administrative sector, up to and including the creation of whole new industries like financial services or telemarketing, or the unprecedented expansion of sectors like corporate law, academic and health administration, human resources, and public relations,” wrote Graeber.[...]

[...] At first glance, the biggest hurdle in the way of achieving this goal appears to be redefining wealth distribution. “If machines produce everything we need, the outcome will depend on how things are distributed,” said Stephen Hawking. “Everyone can enjoy a life of luxurious leisure if the machine-produced wealth is shared.”

But how? A universal basic income might be tried, but could be exposed as a quick-fix. The risk of a basic income is that the current techno-capitalist system, while making us very comfortable and infinitely amused, might have produced too many creatively, intellectually and spiritually-hollow human beings for free money to magically make us all fulfilled overnight. So rather than give in to such path-of-least-resistance temptations as distributing wealth indiscriminately and creating what historian Yuval Noah Harari fears will be a massive ‘useless class’, we might take the more difficult road of reshaping society to encourage the pursuit of more purposeful and dignified work.

One of the things I hate the most about all forms of religion and spirituality that I've ever encountered, statism (the belief that government exists) included, is they all promote obedience and submission to things external to the person. All of them a glorified Procrustes bed mixed with a Skinner Box, molding people to fit itself and thus the whims of it's creator. This has the effect of dehumanizing and destroying a persons self respect. Measuring their worth by how "good" of a person others think they are. Such lack of self respect leads inevitably into the systems and problems described in the article. The only real solution that I've ever found is to help people respect themselves again. Understanding that, logically, they are the center of their own perceptual universe and that there's nothing wrong with that. From that foundation, that many today would mistakenly describe as wholly selfish thanks to their indoctrination, they can branch out and include more people and things that they care about without destroying themselves and others in the process.

After all, even if you wanted to, you can't help anyone if you've got nothing to help with.

Still, I'm curious what other peoples thoughts on the article and the matters it discusses is. What would your solutions be and why?

One of the things I hate the most about all forms of religion and spirituality that I've ever encountered, statism (the belief that government exists) included, is they all promote obedience and submission to things external to the person. All of them a glorified Procrustes bed mixed with a Skinner Box, molding people to fit itself and thus the whims of it's creator. This has the effect of dehumanizing and destroying a persons self respect.

Agreed.

However, another way to lose self-respect is to have no job and the feeling that one has nothing to offer. It's going to be tricky to retire half the population and not exacerbate this issue.

~~ Paul

Agreed.

However, another way to lose self-respect is to have no job and the feeling that one has nothing to offer. It's going to be tricky to retire half the population and not exacerbate this issue.

~~ Paul

If your self respect depends on having a pointless job, I feel very sorry for you!   Some of us have imaginations and interests.

If the author of the article thinks that a massive redistribution of wealth via a universal basic income represents a "path of least resistance", s/he must be incredibly naive. Ask anyone who has ever tried to redistribute wealth, even relatively modestly, at any point in human history.

If your self respect depends on having a pointless job, I feel very sorry for you!   Some of us have imaginations and interests.

Nice insult. It would be great if everyone had interests that bolstered their self-worth.

~~ Paul

Nice insult. It would be great if everyone had interests that bolstered their self-worth.

~~ Paul

Why should their interests determine their self worth? Why not believe they're worth it just because they exist?

[Laird]

Why should their interests determine their self worth? Why not believe they're worth it just because they exist?

Hmm, that sounds suspiciously... objective. ;-)

(For the record, and in any case, I agree entirely with your expressed sentiments).

Why should their interests determine their self worth? Why not believe they're worth it just because they exist?

Because that's not the way most people work.

~~ Paul

I'm suspect of anyone who professes to know what is best for other people.  The OP's initial point that all people are dehumanized due to having a religious affiliation/belief/etc is troublesome.  One should allow for the possibility that others may have a very grounded, fulfilling, and illuminated life through their religious/spiritual life whether it aligns with your beliefs or not.

On the question of AI and a potential future of ubiquitous energy (e.g., solar, etc) and materials, I do think the notion of 'wealth' becomes fuzzy.  A base example, but if someone has unlimited access to energy, abundant access to widely available raw materials, and AI power machines that can self replicate/repair..... what else could one need?  Would there simply remain a group of people still interested in the notion of 'power'?  (My fear.)

I'm suspect of anyone who professes to know what is best for other people. 

Then by definition you must surely be suspicious of any and all religious organisations and governments since telling you how to be "good" and fulfill your purpose in life, as defined by them, is the bread and butter of all of them.

The OP's initial point that all people are dehumanized due to having a religious affiliation/belief/etc is troublesome.  One should allow for the possibility that others may have a very grounded, fulfilling, and illuminated life through their religious/spiritual life whether it aligns with your beliefs or not.

How aren't they dehumanized? Let's take abrahamic religions for example. The belief that there is an all powerful, all seeing god above you that is intrinsically better than you can ever hope to be in every possible way no matter how much time or effort you apply to yourself who demands worship and servitude on pain of eternal torture. In what possible way is that not a dehumanizing thing to tell yourself let alone to preach to others as a moral good? And that's just the abrahamic religion example, I could go on with new age spiritualist soul contracts and then some.

Now compare that to my method where I attempt to help people stand tall on their own and believe in their own merits and self worth. Where I attempt to help them have more respect for themselves without any pretense of obligation to anyone or anything else. That they are worth it simply because they are alive, aware and capable of feeling things.

Which one of those sounds more inspiring? "You are an eternal slave to something else" or "You can do anything you set your mind to"?

But hey if that's what they want to believe, if they want to tell themselves they're just slaves to some external morality that was defined by something else or some soul contract they don't remember making or some god that will burn them forever unless they obey then fine. I don't care. But I'm not going to have any sympathy for them when they're crying about being discarded because robots are better than them. They're the ones telling themselves that their worth is defined by their job or whatever, not me.

On the question of AI and a potential future of ubiquitous energy (e.g., solar, etc) and materials, I do think the notion of 'wealth' becomes fuzzy.  A base example, but if someone has unlimited access to energy, abundant access to widely available raw materials, and AI power machines that can self replicate/repair..... what else could one need?  Would there simply remain a group of people still interested in the notion of 'power'?  (My fear.)

I think you're spot on on the fuzziness. My solution to the automation problem  would be a form ofneo-homesteading which is more or less what you suggest.

I do think there will always be those who want more power because power is relative. If everyone around you has the same power, then do you really have any? I suspect a lot of people would mind their own business but I also suspect some would vy to crush everyone else that they disagree with, just because they can. Or perhaps out of boredom. Survival has kept peoples focus for a pretty long time, once that goes away I suspect remaining conflicts may get increasingly petty. Focusing more on ideological differences. A proxy war between two people commanding vast robot armies against each other, likely.