@datarama to die useless: yes 馃ぉ But I reject the premise that to not be miserable you need a purpose
Discussion
Loading...
@datarama have you read The rise of the meritocracy?
@RosaCtrl I have, and also Jo Littler's "Against Meritocracy". If there's anyone who deserves to seethe that his attempted warning was taken as a playbook by terrible people, it would be Michael Young*.
(I remain convinced that an *actual* meritocracy would be close to the cruelest system of governance imaginable, even worse than actual feudalism.)
*) Shout-out to George Orwell and Aldous Huxley for obvious reasons, and also to David Mech, the canine ethologist who decided to use Greek letters rather than direct human analogies to describe wolf social roles to avoid people mistakenly imposing human values on wolf behaviour.
@datarama so let鈥檚 go back to Young鈥檚 point. Fuck being useful
@RosaCtrl Unfortunately, we live in a world where being useful is directly correlated with being fed and housed.
@freakazoid @datarama exactly! This is a political thing.
My shower thought was: are there any unions in Norway working on forbidding cuts due to 芦AI禄?
~4 more replies (not shown)
@RosaCtrl Sadly, I don't see how those could work, since you can keep companies from firing people, but it's a lot harder to force them to hire people or give them raises or positive performance reviews. So they'll just raise their expectations and gradually fire people for failing to meet those expectations, all while not hiring anyone new.
AI for programming still needs a skilled programmer to direct it and review its code. It could be devastating to junior programmers, but at least for now senior programmers look safe. For art, who knows. I'd like to think there will be a backlash against the blandness and repetitiveness, but that could take a while. Ultimately, I think the thing that will save us is AI's inability to go outside its training data. It's all just mixing and matching.