that is not the point, a learning system can device wining outcomes based on the limited number of factors in chess, but the problem is, that requires a constrained simulated model, real life has so many different moving pieces and factors, that anyone modeling a simulated environment to make decisions within DOESN"T EVEN KNOW all the factors that would constitute a realistic IRL model from which the robot could make equivalent rationale decisions compared to that of humans

There are well over 121 million possible moves after the first three

Just after the first three

121 million possible outcomes

not moves

case and point, nuclear reactors in nuclear powerplants need human operators because, while much of the systems are automated, humans are needed to dictate correct courses of actions in case of emergency

Nuclear reactor operators arent low skill

your chest board would be bigger than the size of north america if you had 121million moves you could make

you are right, but my point is that human delegation is what is valuable,

and something that is not able to be automated away

And there are fewer reactor personnel now than in the 80s because of automation

In nuclear reactors perhaps

I dont consider that to be equivilant to a fry cook

I don't think we should throw the entire human species in the garbage can just because AI has a fancy hyper-threaded 6 core CPU

You can reduce restraunt staff significantly with AI

AI isn't needed for a job like that, automation would suffice

we don't need Skynet to run a burger stand

The nerd overseeing the automation is not low skill

he could be replaced with AI though

Eventually

okay, Gudarian, but your point is, we can just give all the low skill workers UBI after all their jobs are replaced by robots

With a similar dividend to Alaskan oil

I say we make all the low skill workers become Youtubers.....wait a minute...

The money isnt coming from nowhere

It just recirculates

thats fair,

That is significantly less authoritarian than saying fuck you you cant use AI because sentimentalism

I am saying that we could choose against automation if it led to outcomes which we found bad for society

Thats still subjective

like, if the bottom of society all could stop working and it made them unhappy to feel unneeded, then you could keep the low skill jobs open

but in this particular scenario, they could still go off to do more fulfilling things and have some money

the feeling of contributing to society by being productive and happiness being tied together are not subjective, and that is what I would measure 'unhappiness' on

Low skill jobs aren't fulfilling to the overwhelming number of people

well yes, but that'd be a choice of an employee versus a choice of a boardroom member

yes

but there's only a superficial difference between the two

employee can choose he wants to work a position all he likes, if the higher ups decide to go with automation, the employee is fucked

The employee doesnt get to determine company policy

Unless its an employee owned company

I'm certain millions of americans would have rather not lost their jobs to automation or imported foreign labour, given the choice

hence, they weren't consulted