this post was submitted on 31 Jan 2024
129 points (87.7% liked)

Technology

59390 readers
2532 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

In a 1938 article, MIT’s president argued that technical progress didn’t mean fewer jobs. He’s still right.

Compton drew a sharp distinction between the consequences of technological progress on “industry as a whole” and the effects, often painful, on individuals.

For “industry as a whole,” he concluded, “technological unemployment is a myth.” That’s because, he argued, technology "has created so many new industries” and has expanded the market for many items by “lowering the cost of production to make a price within reach of large masses of purchasers.” In short, technological advances had created more jobs overall. The argument—and the question of whether it is still true—remains pertinent in the age of AI.

Then Compton abruptly switched perspectives, acknowledging that for some workers and communities, “technological unemployment may be a very serious social problem, as in a town whose mill has had to shut down, or in a craft which has been superseded by a new art.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 33 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (9 children)

Previous increases in automation and productivity have brought new goods, services, wealth. To be perfectly honest I'm largely done.

The next wave of progress needs to not bring new things but to bring more time off.

The only things I probably want in terms of future tech is medical advances and VR. Everything else fuck it. I'm okay with all the media we got, the Internet, TV games, food, hobbies. I don't have smart anything except a phone. I'm done.

Give me a 4 day work week for what I have now. Then 3 then 2 then 1. I'm done. I don't need more.

Previous results are not sufficient to forecast the future.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

The only things I probably want in terms of future tech is

And how would you know? Before cars nobody anticipated them. Same with planes, computers, smartphones... You won't anticipate close to all new tech by extrapolating what we have.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (5 children)

I don't want a car. I don't have one currently. In 1829 Stephenson showed trains were the future and that remains the same today.

I'm not convinced planes and computers have been good for the world. Though I have enjoyed them both tremendously.

But I'm ready to be an old man holding on to old tech. Fuck man. You ever quit your job and travelled the world? Playing poker on a wooden bench with a single light bulb next to the beach, with people you met that day is so much better than the Internet. The shame of it is that most people haven't.

We gave up community and happiness for isolation and sadness.

Also I'm old enough to have seen personal computers change the world. A lot has been lost in the last 2 decades.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I’m not convinced planes and computers have been good for the world. Though I have enjoyed them both tremendously.

Sounds like something I've seen in the Unabombers Manifesto.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 9 months ago

I have been meaning to read that.

Technology and happiness aren't correlated though. That's nothing new.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)