2
points
tempfile
Joined 338 karma
- tempfile parentBut that suggests that if AI were to displace all programming ever, then as long as there were still some jobs, you would still consider that "AI is not replacing workers". Does that not stretch the meaning of "not replacing"?
- > Automation alone did never reduce jobs significantly.
Unless you mean "all jobs across the entire economy", this is pretty obviously false. People used to weave fabrics by hand, make screws and nails by hand, bake bread by hand. These jobs hardly exist anymore.
Of course this did not imply that all jobs disappeared and the economy collapsed. But the sense in which "AI is not replacing workers" is contingent on specific features of software development, not about automation in general.
- It was the whole "Yes! 100%, totally agree" thing. I think you were just doing a rhetorical device, sorry.
> why don't we also have laws criminalizing things like refusing to be friends with $SKIN_COLOR people?
Some combination of "it would be impossible to enforce" and "laws about who can be friends with who sounds kind of crazy".
> There is no right of foreigners without a green card to enter in the first place
There is no right of black people (or any people) to get a job, either. It simply does not follow that "no counteroffer ... could be inappropriate". This is sort of my point - all the law says is "if you would offer this job to person X, only on the condition that they were white rather than black, then you must offer them the job anyway". Please note that I am not arguing about what the law says - I am arguing that the law is unethical.
Now, you say getting a job is somehow more "necessary" than, say, being friends with someone. I would argue also it's more "objective" in the sense that a job is a job, it would be silly for someone to try to argue "well, I can choose not to be friends with black people, so why can't I choose not to hire them?". This would be disingenuous - hiring people is not similar to being friends with them. So, given you agree this kind of law is ok for jobs and not ok for people's friendships, which one do you think is more similar to immigration?
- > "I will give you food, on the condition that you change your immutable characteristics" is incoherent.
This is a very strange failure of reading comprehension. I think you're trying to write "I will only give you food if you're white." Are you trying to say this sentence is incoherent? I admit that if you say this sentence to a black person, it is logically equivalent to "I will give you food if you change your immutable characteristics". But they are not logically equivalent in general, so your gotcha doesn't apply to my argument.
About your actual argument: a) it is obvious they don't have constitutional protections, I am not arguing about the law, this is an ethical point; b) identity-group prejudice is not the only kind of unethical behaviour. Since you mention prejudice, I think you proved my point - if the ethical standard was "nobody is materially worse off" then this kind of prejudice would just be irrelevant. If the US had a "whites only" immigration policy that would be A-OK with you, they have no obligation to let people in. If that's your ethical standard, I have nothing more to say.
- I am not confused :-)
Of course I can say that. I can say "you can't come into my house if you're black" too. The point is that it's unethical. It would be unethical for me to search your phone before you entered my house, too. This is not complicated, I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding it.
- No, it isn't.
For example, I do not have an obligation to let people into my house. I can choose to let them in or decline them entry. But there are certain preconditions I cannot apply. I cannot, for example, say "you may come into my house only if you murder my neighbour". That's because I'm legally bound not to induce people to commit murder. It would obviously be disingenuous to say this means I have an "obligation to admit" them.
It's the same with immigration. They actually are legally bound in certain ways - an immigration official can't assault you for instance. It's not hard to imagine them being legally bound not to search people's phones. That doesn't mean "they have to admit people".
- This argument is absurd.
If someone comes up to me and asks for food, I am not obliged to give it to them.
If I say to them, "I will give you food, on the condition that I can punch you in the face", and they decline to be punched in the face, do you really believe "nothing wrong has happened"? That I, applying an unethical condition, did nothing wrong?
If someone else says "You must not make punching someone in the face a precondition of giving them food", does that create a "right to food"? Of course not.
- > Foreign countries have no obligation to admit you within their borders.
That doesn't sound relevant.
Nobody said that they were obliged to admit you, they complained that the reasons for declining admittance were unfair. Unless you think "no obligation to admit" means carte blanche to decline for any reason, and to treat you however they like?
If so, then that is unreasonable. It is a much stronger condition than "I don't have to let you in".
- Is this really common behaviour? I do not recognise it. Do people lie? Certainly yes. Do people misremember, or get details incorrect? Yes. But when was the last time you saw someone, say, fabricate an entire citation in a paper? People make transcription errors, they misremember dates, and they deliberately lie. But I don't think people accidentally invent entire facts.
- I think the evidence is actually pretty strongly against them doing anything similar to "thinking". Certainly they are exhibiting some behaviour that we have traditionally only associated with thinking. But this comes along with lots of behaviour that is fundamentally opposite to thinking ("hallucination" being the major example).
It seems much more likely that they are doing some other behaviour that only sometimes resembles thinking, in the same way that when you press the middle autocomplete button on your phone keyboard it only sometimes resembles conversation.
- It is really not any harder to define than "freely". Presumably by "what I signed up for freely" you mean "what I signed up for without any coercion, threat of violence, etc". The people using "exploitation" here just mean that those conditions also include the implied threat of not having money to live. This is a real material condition which affects what people are prepared to agree to (even if they might be able to find a better offer by shopping around).
It is not hard to understand, and I suspect you are not trying to understand it.
- > isn't it much faster
No. Radioactive materials decay at the same rate no matter what you do to them.
> the effects of the uranium is largely mitigated
Very different from decaying faster. It's possible that by covering it in algae you block the radiation from escaping. But the algae is still going to have to sit there for 10000 years without moving before the waste is decayed. You're better off sticking it inside lead.