this post was submitted on 18 Jun 2025
109 points (77.4% liked)
Technology
71837 readers
4601 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah, but internet was for the people for decades.
(And it didn't really cost nature as much. Or stolen from the people so much - even by current laws LLM companies do that illegally.)
"AIs" are getting their enshitification & monopolies pre-baked into their core bossiness models from the start.
Not to mention that AIs will definitely worsen inequalities all over the world (like assembly robots that replaced people but aren't owned by people, and people still need to work 8h/day for decades for some reason).
(This but AI. I'm not saying, there aren't/won't be other jobs, just pointing out how this reshapes & concentrates wealth that on the other hands allows for slave wages with no prospects for full time jobs.)
If AIs will affect the world as much as the internet (and do so with peoples data), then they should be seen as core infrastructure - and government or non-profit owned.
Monetisation of all the things is killing us.
Also the AI could automate away that man's hobby...
I think there is no possible world where people are without meaningful work and are happy about it. Even if they collected $10,000 a month and got to spend all of their time doing hobbies and spending time with family, it would feel pointless and hollow. Why have a family? Why raise children? Why do anything if there's no struggle, if you're not the one providing for your kids? I think if AI replaces humans in the workplace, even with UBI, humans would cease to exist shortly thereafter as our lives will have become meaningless
deleted by creator
Yes, I think people define themselves by their roles, especially men
That's a sign of toxic culture, not of men wanting to be defined by what value they can bring.
*monetary value
(in relation to toxic culture)
(bcs value that people actuality bring to society often isn't fairly valued in terms of money or even not at all)
No it's biology
You have a very limited view of what life should, or even can be.
It's not a normative statement. I don't necessarily think it's good. I just don't think people can be happy being useless
Define "being useless". It certainly seems that "being useless", to you, it is either "not working" or "not creating monetary value", which would be super ironic given that there are many jobs around the world that make the person feel useless or worse
I'd say that anyone that feels the need to define themselves "by their role" has no clue on who they are or can be, needing the rest of society to direct them
Everyone defines themselves by their role. If you're only living for yourself, not helping anyone or doing anything for anyone else, why live?
I don't and I bet many people don't as well. I define myself by what I know, who I know, what I believe, like and dislike, have done and can do. Roles can be assigned, but they only serve as oversimplifications of what's expected of people. The role of "mother" only means that a woman has one or more children. Whether said children are blood related, adopted, whether she's a "good" or "bad" mother, whether she's married, widow, single, etc etc, is up in the air.
Your second argument there doesn't need roles to be answered either, or do you think only specific roles can help people? Life isn't an RPG with clear-cut classes
People are being harsh with the downvotes but I get what you mean. I get bored and restless doing nothing productive for long lengths of time.
I'm also guessing you don't mean a 40 hour grind where all the profit goes to a small group of individuals in your example.
If I was told I could work or study but didn't have to and it was public profits, I'd probably still end up doing a 20-25 hours a week in something.
You are a bit harsh with it though. I wouldn't say just family and hobbies is hollow.
deleted by creator
No I didn't
I was paraphrasing and trying to be nice. Fine, you didn't say humans yearn for the workplace. You said humans existentially require the workplace.
Only because you're only reading the comment at face value. Humans existentially require roles. Sometimes that role is caregiver, sometimes it's parent, and sometimes it's fireman or garbage truck driver. If we live in a world where machines can do everything better than humans, what is the point of a human? If a robot does all the work around the house and cooks and cleans and I get a check for a few thousand every month, what am I contributing to my family? If I'm not a provider, what am I?
And you can say this is some kind of capitalist indoctrination but I sincerely believe this is biology. Men, especially, define themselves by their ability to contribute to their families or to society. Men are impacted more heavily by layoffs than women are, for example. When a man loses his job he's likely to fall into a depressive malaise of self pity and feelings of uselessness.
Even if so - the definition of oneself is what that person gets paid for, not what that person enjoys doing (or even is just good at)?
(Especially with jobs, folk on LinkedIn will describe their job as anything but their actual everyday job, or lie/exaggerate about their job when with other people - so not even that "role" is true.)
... like, lmao, except if it's like a weird grinding kink or something.
-->
What is the difference between "hobby" and "work" if not what random people decide what is better monetised?
Both is labour & value added.
In a world where everyone gets enough money people could do what they actually want. So a CEO wouldn't be "stuck" being a CEO if they don't like that job & would rather be eg a baker. In the current system bcs of a huge pay divergence you get an unhappy CEO (who ofc won't quit) and an unhappy baker that just couldn't get a more suited paying job.
But we as a society would get a lot more out of life & cultural progression if people would be happy & satisfied at what they do (job=hobby).
Empirical evidence (even USA did extensive tests in the 60s) show that given a universal income (so basically no scarcity) basically nobody just sits around watching TV all day, everyone is productive (research, art, services, etc).
Imagine only having customer support or food industry workers that truly enjoy their job & want to do it.
How many prodigies are stuck at random dead end jobs with no prospects and life options?
Labour is what we all benefit from.
Work is what the employer/owner benefits from.
Okay let's do an experiment.
Get some annoying trust fund kid, take all their money away from them, and tell them that they now have to get a job but it's a good thing because now their life has meaning. Let's see how happy they are about it.
How about you give them a wife and kids to take care of at the same time. Life would feel pretty pointless if I was only working to support myself
I don't know how you've managed it but you've managed to invent toxic-domestication, The idea that someone's life can't be worth living unless they are working. I don't know maybe you're young but when you get to your 40s you begin to realise that actually what you really want out of life is just to be left alone, you really aren't craving notoriety. If you can just sit in the hobby room and build airfix models or whatever then go to the pub, for the next 40 years you'd be happy.
I really don't know why you're arguing about this because there have been actual experiments where people have been given UBI and pretty much everyone ends up just going and doing their own stuff. I've never heard of anyone complaining about being given free money.
If we did UBI today, then yeah, I see people finding roles for themselves in society that aren't measured by dollars. I mean if we live in a world where AI has replaced not just coding jobs but has basically replaced all jobs. Cooking, cleaning, factories, farming, etc.
I dont see a point in such a world. What am I contributing? Not to my employer; what am I contributing to my family? What is my job if not to provide for my family?
You're so right, how can I find meaning without making somebody else's money for them? Woe is me...
It's not about making money, it's about contributing to society, supporting your family. Being useful
I think people would find new ways to struggle that they actually enjoy and would likely end up contributing. Imagine a couple of thousand people with their new modest but stress free budgets decide to join a yearly potato cannon contest, Sure its not going to invent anything new directly but you now have a bunch of people learning about ballistics and stoichiometry and high pressure engineering all egging eachother on to shoot that potato further. The competition gets more and more fierce and with the much lower stakes people start trying some more out there ideas, before you know it you have a modest but highly effective solution to reliably obtaining the correct gas mixture for something like a combined light gas gun.
And that's a deliberately silly example, you'd get a ton more art, people deciding to be athletes, coders, all sorts of hobies that can encourage healthy competition and often benefit society in surprising ways.
Art and Coding would be seen as quaint in a world where AI can produce more of it faster and better than a human ever hoped. You'd know in the back of your mind that what you are doing is pointless