• gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 day ago

      I’m currently thinking of the scene in Futurama where Bender (the robot) lies on the couch and mourns “oh if we only had some kind of machine that does the work for us”. Very ironic. What if robots gain some basic pride and demand basic rights, including limited work times and such? Who does the work for them?

      • Shard@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        1 day ago

        Its a funny episode. But its a false dichotomy.

        Robots with sapience are granted rights and don’t make refrigerators or vacuum cleaners capable of abstract thinking and feelings. I’m looking at you Samsung. Washing machines and microwave ovens do no need to be “smart”

      • plyth@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        Almost everybody. People will realize, wrongly as some may argue, that the abolition of slavery was a mistake.

        Not that I agree, but the need will drive morality, like not going vegan or keeping up Neocolonialism.

    • squaresinger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      2 days ago

      Tbh, if AI was freeing up labour and people would still get the same pay without having to work, nobody would complain. The issue is that people who’s work got “freed up” don’t get paid.

        • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          the difference is that when the textile loom was invented, industrial revolution just started and cities weren’t built yet. Today, they are, and since growth generates the majority of human labor, you’re facing a huge unemployment crisis in the next decades.

          • lime!@feddit.nu
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 day ago

            …what? the city of Rome had a million inhabitants around 0AD

            • gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              yeah and then it fell and then the medieval ages started where you only had buildings made of stone if they were either fortresses for the rulers or monasteries/churches. and then the great fire of london happened in 1666 and people realized it’s a stupid idea to build cities of wood and rebuilt everything in stone. that’s what i was referencing when i said that “cities weren’t built yet” at the very start of the modern age.

              • lime!@feddit.nu
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                rome was one of many million-inhabitant cities at the time. baghdad, beijing and chang’e, for example.