Robots are more logical than The NY Times Editorial Board, and that’s the problem
Stowe Boyd

I strongly agree with everything you say, except your conclusion. Do we really want to “oppose the onslaught of automation and AI?” Can we even do that?

There will always be plenty of work, the problem is about jobs (i.e., work for money). If my job takes less time, then I can spend more time working on other things, like my voluntary work in a non-profit that get musical instruments to kids. I would love to do that; the problem is that I don’t get paid, and I need the money.

When our jobs go away, we can either move to poverty and/or welfare state, or get to something more fulfilling, with alternative work. As of today, we are going straight to poverty, but this doesn’t sound sustainable. A world without jobs will be either change significantly or become a authoritarian oligarchy.

And it’s not that far, either: the election of Donald Trump looks to me like a failed attempt to change that may well turn into one of these authoritarian oligarchies.

Like what you read? Give Eric Vetillard a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.