Spencer Greenberg " find it usually doesn't make for a fruitful...
· Comment — Archer T. Ships replied to his own comment. · View on Facebook · Markdown source
Spencer Greenberg " find it usually doesn't make for a fruitful discussion when the point under debate changes mid debate rather than actually getting to the crux of disagreement" I'm sorry if it appears that I'm trying to change the subject. I am sincerely trying to answer your questions as clearly, directly, and succinctly as possible. You seem to think that: 1. Past tech advances happened slowly enough that humans had sufficient time to adapt, and retrain for a different job. 2. Past tech advances were limited enough in scope that there were still many tasks where humans could outperform machines. 3. Past tech advances aren't relevant now because human+ level AI's/robots will be able to compete for all jobs, not just a few. 4. Past tech advances aren't relevant now because the increases in AI capability / fall in cost will happen so rapidly that humans won't have time to adapt. 5. Therefore, most (all?) humans will soon be out of a job, as employers will always choose (cheaper, faster, better) robots over humans. 6. With no job, humans will have no income, and therefore most humans will be destitute unless provided with welfare in some form. Is that a fair re-statement of your views?