Originally Posted by
TSA
kindaaa. I don't think cars replaced horses, they replaced feet. Horses were for rich people with a lot of property. Everyone else used their feet or bikes. I think AI will be a bigger part of our lives but we're in a service economy and few of our jobs are tied to actual volume production. Most people in developed economies are paying for a product and a human interaction.
There are economies that are ahead of us with automation like South Korea, and they have found that automation is adapted when there's a lack of human capital (unemployment is too low). When people are available companies have still opted for a person despite the government incentives them to automate there. They're at (last I checked ) 2.1% unemployment and when it starts to increase, automation adaptation rates start decreasing.
As far as cars and horses, People still ride horses. There are 2.1 million horse owners (no saying how many each owns) in the country and 7.1 million people are 'involved' in the horse industry. Few things are ever really phased out. They are improved on, or if a new thing comes that does the exact same thing better, then they find another 'role'. There are also underlying factors that cause people to use certain things that we ignore because humans aren't practical. Horse ownership was never about getting around, it was about flexing. It was also a status thing. Even when adopted for war it was the cash money rich niggas using it, it was their way of saying we're cash money rich niggas, and 90% of the horses life was spent off the battlefield being used to flex.
So if someone starts a business, there's often an element of 'i want to control people' that motivates them. A lot of people mark their success by getting ppl on their pay role. These people 'can' automate, but they don't, and if they do it's a desperate last resort. People can get food from a vending machine but they want to go to a restaurant and have a cute whore treat them like they're worthwhile. This is a more realistic and consistent motivation than 'i want to get my food as efficiently as possible', and 'i want to control a fleet of cute whores' is a more realistic motivation than 'i want people to get food as efficient as possible'.
If we actually did what technology allows us to do on an efficiency and logical level, we would have phase out a lot of shit a long time ago. Service economies primarily focus resources on helping people cope with the existential depression of their shit life. So if there's a machine that gives you icecream cool, but people are actually paying to see another person, have that fuck nigga give you an icecream cone then lick it while staring at all the other icecream niggas because that's what we do god.
Bookmarks