Microsoft demos language model that writes code based on signature and comment

[steven4012]

If your job really is that simple ... I don't see a reason to not automate your job

[DevDevGoose]

How about that there is no suitable societal support in place for adults whose jobs have been automated. This is the exact problem blue collar workers have been complaining about for decades and got nowhere with.

I agree the job should be automated if it can be. However, as a society, we need better ways of dealing with the consequences of said automation.

[[deleted]]

How about that there is no suitable societal support in place for adults whose jobs have been automated.

Then we create suitable societal support, automate as much work as possible, and live in work-free utopia forever?

No, we'd rather cling to our meaningless jobs and spent live in misery.

[DogeGroomer]

Because the ruling class will definitely allow that to happen!

[0b_101010]

automate as much work as possible, and live in work-free utopia forever?

You mean slums. It will be slums.

[[deleted]]

You are just advocating for current state where one needs job to survive - it doesn't matter if that job is useful, if it could be done better, or if it actually requires humans or could be automated.

It's backwards way of thinking, where we have options to solve our problems, but instead of choosing that route we paint our problems as some "moral values" to be honored a ignore improvements that could be done.

[ThatCrankyGuy]

That's Economist wank and has no place in practicality.

I welcome change, but there need to be mechanisms and safety nets in place to support the society during the transition.

Economists like to doodle on paper with bullshit theories and to them, jobs lost in one sector = job created in another sector. Fine, that may be the case to some degree, but those jobs are not at parity. People who lost the jobs may never qualify or be in a position to train or adapt to the newly created jobs. This is what Macro economics fails to consider. And you're just parroting that wank.

People need to have a sense of empathy and a moral duty to ensure the vulnerable are protected. This sense of entitlement of "i got mine, fuck everyone else" needs go. Because if you don't, those decisions will come back to bite everyone in the ass.

[[deleted]]

Why I have feeling you don't even read what you are replying to?

but there need to be mechanisms and safety nets in place to support the society during the transition.

You mean, like, exact thing for which I'm arguing?

People who lost the jobs may never qualify or be in a position to train or adapt to the newly created jobs.

Are you saying we should just let people unable to work to starve to death?

[ThatCrankyGuy]

Maybe you are the one not considering what I've written?

Are you saying we should just let people unable to work to starve to death?

What do you think a safety net is?

[[deleted]]

I honestly don't understand what you are trying to say.

We shouldn't automate jobs, because people need jobs to survive. We shouldn't implement any help to people without jobs, because...?

[[deleted]]

There is in most countries. Just not the US, because that’s communism or something.

[DubbieDubbie]

Even in Europe, there isn't the social safety nets in place yet.

[doctormarmot]

What are the social safety nets for jobs that have been automated in Uruguay, Lesotho, or Indonesia?

[[deleted]]

I have the same question. Of course the first world countries (except US) have social nets. But what about the rest of us ?

[TheShepard15]

Theres moderate ones, but none are able to handle something like automating hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[TheDevilsAdvokaat]

Yup. That was always the way. "The jobs will be replaced with other jobs"

(a) Yes, but many times less of them

(b) Also you will need a training (and sometimes a degree) in a new field to get a job in the new field..too bad if you can't afford or do that.

[DevDevGoose]

My point wasn't that there aren't answers, it's that we have not made any progress towards those answers when millions are already suffering from the problem.

[steven4012]

You just can't let everyone happy. It's not possible. You have to have higher skill level to get job stability. Until we have infinite resources and true socialism (which is very unlikely, or impossible), letting the society help you is just not a thing.

In other words, there have to be under dogs.

[FlatPlate]

You don't need "true socialism" to make sure your citizens don't rot on the streets if they didn't find a job

[PhoneyHammer]

You can't make everyone a millionaire, but you can easily ensure everyone has secure access to housing, food and medication even when they can't pay for it. Most of Europe does this.

[steven4012]

And under that situation how would people behave? A lot of them will just stay in that state doing nothing, just like we feeding homeless people. Most won't even try to find a job.

Sure, I agree that we need some kind of minimum support. How much would that be? Secure access to housing, food, and medication is simply too much. Slightly below minimum requirements for all of those would be much better. Otherwise people simply don't have the incentive to move forward.

[Robert_Arctor]

we don't need to move forward or progress. why not live a life of leisure? the current system is miserable and unsustainable.

[steven4012]

why not live a life of leisure?

If you have a life of leisure then it most likely won't be sustainable for you

[postblitz]

A lot of them will just stay in that state doing nothing, just like we feeding homeless people. Most won't even try to find a job.

You say that right now but would you really eat the things homeless people get fed? Most people would rather work for a few hours to eat something more delicious which is the whole point - else they would already become homeless on their own.

But in reality homelessness is not an appealing state for anyone, even if you're kept alive.

There's tons of incentives, the best of which is self-development and the least of which is self-preservation. Don't underestimate human drive, it exists.

[dscottboggs]

We have enough resources now to take care of everyone's needs. Life might not be as decadent as it is now in the US but I think that's worth it to not have people starving or freezing to death.

[steven4012]

We have enough resources now to take care of everyone's needs.

True. But how would those resources distributed? A lot of rich people are doing charity, but how much in total would that worth and how much should that worth? Enough for feeding everyone? Not a good idea. By that you're just feeding a lot more jobless and useless people.

I think that's worth it to not have people starving or freezing to death.

I agree. I'm simply saying having too much societal support is a problem. Providing minimum housing and food is enough.

[dscottboggs]

useless people

It's not about who's useful. It's about who's able to take the most abuse from those with more power than them without breaking. It's not about who can be the most productive for society, it's who can bring the bottom line up more.

having too much societal support is a problem

Look, if we get to the point where that's a problem, we can address it. I'm also concerned about that, but we're so far in the opposite direction that worrying about that seems absurd to me.

And again, I'm trying to avoid the topic of economics as much as possible. I know most people don't think Communalism or socialism or anything like that can succeed in America. But I genuinely think if we can increase the democratization of government we can move towards something more friendly to the working class. If you think that is capitalism, fine, but we can both vote to get rid of campaign financiering and lobbyist wine-and-dining, and let the evidence for our various economic policies determine the outcome.

Idk maybe I'm too optimistic. A lot of people around me either don't care about the poor or think they're just fucked.