The case for the "bullshit jobs" theory seems extremely weak to me. If a job is pointless and not adding value, there is an incentive to eliminate it. Markets aren't perfectly efficient of course, but they're not so inefficient as to create millions of jobs that serve no purpose.
The truth is that many people enjoy working. It's satisfying and fulfilling to build something useful or to make a discovery that contributes to human knowledge. We can acknowledge that and then consider the entirely separate question of the ideal level of resource redistibution.
As another comment mentions, this objection has already been dealt with numerous times.
But you then go even beyond the already answered market efficiency/plausibility objection that comes up ad nauseam when Bullshit Jobs is mentioned to make a positive assertion that:
> The truth is that many people enjoy working
On what basis? What is "many"? Do you think a majority of the workforce would elect to keep working if they could maintain their current standard of living without any work? Do you think this would maintain independent of any standard of living? Do you think people would no longer find fulfillment in performing some work (whatever they choose) if it was not economically required of them to perform some labor? I mean presumably the people who do not want to sit around and do nothing will act accordingly. Let them do whatever they want. Why does it follow from that to say that most people "enjoy" having to exchange their labor to earn a paycheck?
It seems to me you are making a rather remarkable claim, with little attempt at substantiation. Maybe you could answer some of my questions to flesh out your point a little more?
You're using a narrow definition of work as exchanging labor for a paycheck. I don't agree with that definition. I would define it as putting time and energy into a project to meet personal or organizational needs. One of those needs is survival, but that's not the only one. When survival needs are met, people still choose to work on a variety of things that they find meaningful or that confer social status, like artistic projects, scientific research, philosophical inquiry, creating entertainment, raising children, and building communities.
If you're going to dodge discussing the vast amounts of work people do for a paycheck we have nothing to disagree over.
I agree people will still want to do things when society has fully automated away paychecks. That is why I look forward to the elimination of exchanging labor for monetary reward. Let people freely pursue those passions you outline, a paycheck adds nothing in a world where automation provides such people with not only survival, but ample surplus and innovation.
I'm not dodging discussing working for a paycheck, that's included under what I called working to meet the need for survival. You asked me what basis I have for saying that many people enjoy working on things, and I gave you examples of things people choose of their own free will to work on, which you seem to basically agree with.
The idea of "eliminating labor for monetary reward" is quite utopian. I like the sound of the idea too, but I don't think it's based on a realistic understanding of history, economics, or human psychology.
I'm totally in favor of the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake. But if a non-human agent had been one of those participants, does that subtract from the value of the result? I don't think so.
>It will be a truly sad world if we automate this away.
In my opinion, research can't be fully automated because the space of possible problems is too large. You need humans to decide which problems are worth spending time on, and to evaluate which results are important. We might expect AI to automate some of the routine aspects like searching for counter-examples or formalizing proofs, but that will free up resources for humans to focus on the big ideas and the direction of research.
Because they likely have a better sense of what could and/or will be fruitful. Same reason an experienced mathematician likely is better at this than a random person off the street.
That's a strange characterization of an article that spends the bulk of the text referencing studies and talking about research practices in psychology. Apart from the No Country for Old Men reference, the images are mostly mental health statistics or polling data. The list of "top problems in U.S. public schools" is quoted from an anthology Social and Psychological Bases of Ideology and System Justification.
I understand the frustration with current recommender systems, but what are the alternatives? Adding a bunch of arbitrary buttons or sliders isn't likely to actually improve the experience.
"People who liked this also liked this" is already a pretty good way of discovering things. The problem is when the catalogue is crap. I get plenty of good recommendations on Prime Video and Criterion Channel, which both have a substantial number of great films available to watch.
I don't want "recommender systems", I just want easily-browsable catalogues that start out being sorted by their actual genre (looking at you, Netflix homepage with a bunch of bullshit 'categories'). I want to be able to look through things at my own pace and in my own way. I want to browse through movies/shows the same way I browse for records in a record store.
I'm happy to take recommendations from friends and family members who know what my nuanced tastes are, I don't want recommendations from some unknown algorithm built by someone for the purpose of keeping me on the platform.
The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them. I generally agree that the best way to discover things is through other information channels like friends and family, reviews, curated critics' lists, etc. Prime Video has a decent browse by genre feature, but I don't find browsing all that successful. For example, if I want a comedy, I'll look at a list by BFI or They Shoot Pictures and then pick one that looks good from those.
>The article is about improving recommender systems, not replacing them.
But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"? Is your approach to finding comedies via BFI/They Shoot Pictures not a form of a "recommender system" for you?
If recommender systems truly depend on a deeper level of nuance that they likely won't ever be able to get without people giving up even more privacy than they already do, shouldn't we look at alternative forms of recommendations as a form of improvement, rather than sticking to altering what's already there?
I'd argue that using algorithmic recommendations limits exploration and agency and doesn't allow us to develop our taste beyond our taste's current horizons. Without them, serendipity can be genuinely serendipitous if not moreso, our effort can increase attachment/pleasure when it pays off, and we have more opportunities to build knowledge along the way.
I might be digressing just a bit here, but I fundamentally believe that the answer to broken algorithmic feeds, or recommendation systems, or whathaveyou, isn't going to be found in more algorithms.
>But what's a "recommender system"? Are my friends and family who understand my tastes at a deeper level than an algorithm not a "recommender system"?
Not really. "Recommender system" has a pretty narrow technical definition. It's an automated system that takes input from the user (clicks, watch time, ratings, etc.) and produces a list of recommendations.
Maybe what you don't like is the average user's preferences. People seem to like being told what to watch. If there's demand for a streaming service that dispenses with recommendations, then someone should be able to make a lot of money building it.
Yeah, sure, that very narrow technical definition does exist, but it doesn't have exclusive ownership of the concept, and broader social definitions also exist. Why should we limit ourselves to thinking about it so narrowly? Must an algorithmic problem require an algorithmic solution?
I miss when you could rate how much you liked something after a watch and they could incorporate that. Now it's just kinda "how long did you watch it and who else watched it" which seems less nuanced?
I'm also reminded of how David Milch supposedly wrote a lot of Deadwood in iambic pentameter. I only learned about this after seeing the show, but I did pick up the "Shakespearean" feel of some of the dialogue. Constraints often force creativity.
ELLSWORTH (CONT'D)
I tell you what -- I may have fucked
~~ life up flatter"n hammered shit,
but I stand before you today
beholden to no human cocksucker
and working a paying fucking gold
claim -- and not the U.S. Government
saying I'm trespassing or the savage
fucking Red Man himself or any of
these other limber-dick cocksuckers
passing themselves off as
prospectors had better try to stop
me.
I can’t hear it, although it certainly has certain rhythm to it (like any good dialogue does). Iambic rhythm however is so typical to English that you can kinda force most dialogue into it? I also believe writers make these rules to brake them the first change they get. Or perhaps I couldn’t find it skimming the pilot script: https://assets.scriptslug.com/live/pdf/scripts/deadwood-101-...
The claim comes from Milch himself. I don't know how much he was exaggerating, or how much of it may be true but didn't make it into the final shooting script.
E.B.'s soliloquy isn't in strict blank verse, but there is clearly some sort of metric structure.
You have been tested, Al Swearengen.
And your deepest purposes proved, there’s gold
On the woman’s claim. You might as well have shouted
It from the rooftops. That’s why I’m jumpin’
Through hoops to get it back. Thorough as I fleeced
The fool she married, I will fleece his widow, too.
Using loyal associates like Eustace
Bailey Farnum as my go-betweens and dupes.
To explain why I want her bought out I’ll make
A pretext of my fear of the Pinkertons.
I’ll throw Farnum a token thief. Why should
I reward E.B. with some small fractional
Participation in the claim? Or let him
Even lay by a little security
And source of continuing income, for
His declining years. What’s he ever done for me?
Except let me terrify him every
Goddamned day of his life ’til the idea
Of bowel regularity is a forlorn
Fuckin’ hope. Not to mention orderin’
A man killed in one of E.B.’s rooms.
So every fuckin’ free moment of his life
E.B. has to spend scrubbin’ the bloodstains
Off the goddamned floor! To keep from havin’
To lower his rates. Goddamned that motherfucker!
Most of the lines in that soliloquy is over 10 syllables, so it technically can’t be in pentameter. So either I am very confused about my understanding of the English poetry or this:
Most of the show is written in iambic pentameter. I believe one way God says, “I too have a hand here” is in the rhythms and metrics of speech, that the metrics of speech are important and representative of our fellowship even in those of us who feel, mistakenly, that we are separate from each other as individuals.
When a character in Deadwood, or anyone, talks in certain locutions, unbeknownst to themselves, they honor a divine presence.[1]
is a very contradictory statement indeed.
To be fair, I don’t care. I loved the series and now I started to read the script and oh man, it’s like a really good novel. Very much prose in no foxed meter, but damn if it isn’t great prose. I might just start reading through Deadwood scripts, since I watched the series to death anyway.
The encyclical is not anti-AI, so there's not really any contradiction or hypocrisy if AI was used to write it. It's more of a criticism of the "technocratic paradigm" and the potential for abuse of power and lack of accountability.
I don't understand your point. The phrase "when you got the software it got the source code" makes no sense. And arguments were just as common decades ago on forums, mailing lists, and IRC. What exactly are you trying to say?
The article is talking primarily about Eastern Europe. It's also not inconsistent to say that it's raining during a drought. That's why we distinguish between weather and climate.
The problem with 100% solar+batteries is that you need to massively overbuild for the system to meet demand. It's far more cost-effective to have some portion of generation come from a firm, weather-independent source. The main options are fossil fuels, hydro, geothermal, and nuclear. Since fossil fuels emit carbon and hydro and geothermal are geographically limited, nuclear is the best option in a lot of places.
That's the opposite of what you want. You want something that is cost-effective to operate at a 10%, 1% or 0.1% duty cycle. Like nat gas or hydro. Not nuclear.
And overbuilding isn't the only lever you have to ensure coverage meets your target 99.99% level -- geographic diversity works really well (the wind is always blowing somewhere), and wind power production is usually negatively correlated with solar power production.
Natural gas and hydro are firm power. You're correct that nuclear is not a good backup power source, but that's not the suggestion. The question is whether adding high-capacity-factor firm generation reduces total system cost. In regions where hydro and geothermal are unavailable, nuclear is the next best low-carbon option. I think you're underestimating the costs and difficulties associated with 100% renewables, especially transmission capacity between regions.
I think you're underestimating the costs and difficulties associated with 99.99% renewables and/or using it as a straw man against the highly inexpensive and achievable 95% renewables.
You're also underestimating the costs of using nuclear to achieve 99.99% reliability on top of a grid with 95% renewables: in that scenario you need nuclear capable of supplying ~100% of your power. In which case you might as well ditch the renewables. But the world does not have the quadrillions needed to go 100% nuclear. The world does have the 10s of trillions needed to go 95-99% renewable.
>in that scenario you need nuclear capable of supplying ~100% of your power.
Where are you getting that from? Again, nuclear doesn't need to be a full backup, and nobody is suggesting we ditch renewables for nuclear. A perfectly viable solution would be a grid with a majority of power coming from renewables and storage, with enough nuclear generation to reduce the amount of overbuild necessary and to stop burning natural gas.
>Individually, each firm technology delivers substantial cost reductions relative to portfolios restricted to wind, solar, and energy storage alone. Additionally, because each technology occupies a distinctive functional niche in the electricity system, having all of these technologies available optimizes the utilization rate of each resource and reduces system costs by up to 10% relative to cases with just one class of firm resource.
If you're using nuclear as a backstop in that way, you're using the same statistical techniques that let you use cheaper, less reliable sources of power for backstop.
You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round.
I am very dubious of any energy policy coming form Germany because they have managed to make their electricity among the most expensive in the world while STILL being high carbon.
> You need to have dispatchable capacity equal to or greater than your base load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round.
Just one word change needed:
You need to have dispatchable capacity equal or greater than your peak load in order be able to guarantee you will be able to deliver it with 100% reliability year round.
Solar produces incredibly cheap power for the daytime hours, pushing any nuclear off the grid (why would a data center buy expensive nuke power in the hours when cheap renewables are available?). Nuclear needs to be running and selling power at its high price 24/7 for it to be even close to economically viable. Only supplying power that people want(due to its high price) during the night is fatal to nuclear.
base load demand does not mean it has to be met with a constant matched source, and in fact that no longer works economically.
Natrium has an interesting design for a 345MW reactor that has thermal storage that can boost output to 500MW for 5.5 hours. This lets it increase output during peak prices.
I mean, sounds kinda cool. But that 2023 idea is very clearly not going to happen in the current US political environment.
We’re in an era of brutal capitalism, and nothing else matters but price. Not even emissions sadly. Green compacts like this have no chance, and neither do nukes. Unless they pay the right bribes for some subsidies.
The Trump admin is actually very pro-nuclear power. They are ending the "As Low As Reasonably Achievable" (ALARA) standard in favor of fixed limits which is actually a good idea, possibly the only one the Trump admin has ever had.
i know they are (or claim to be). Im extremely unconvinced that meaningfully changes the flawed economics of nuclear power. I would love to be proven wrong and a wave of innovative economically competitive nuclear technology emerges... possible, but seems vanishingly unlikely.
I think we'll see a few companies and projects connected to the administration get grants and tax breaks and favors, pull a few headlines, seem like there's movement. Maybe even build something! but ultimately be a meaningless footnote in the energy transition. Just another grift for the most corrupt admin in US history.
The flawed economics of nuclear are largely due to the NRC basically making it as hard as possible to make a new reactor. China and Korea can build reactors for reasonable cost per watt.
thats, not true at all. Safety costs a little, but they are fundamentally massively complicated, huge, specialized, EXPENSIVE things to build. They require 100s of staff to run at all times. The insurance is so expensive only nation states can back them. The economics are flawed because on modern grids with cheap renewables, they will never pay back the ridiculous up front capex. Relaxing regulations changes very little about this situation.
China and Koreas are massively state subsidized (koreas 51%, chinas 100%). Which obscures the real cost, and these state enterprises dont have to pay insurance or decommissioning. Which is the only way you can make them work today - massive state subsidies.
if your argument is "well without regulations someone could build a reactor that somehow avoids all these economic constraints" . Maybe, but today thats a fantasy.
You can't compare wind and solar to nuclear you have to compare wind and solar with enormous amounte of battery storage which is extremely expensive and it would be hard to make enough storage
That is soft on timeline, skills and expertise, sourcing to make it happen, etc. All the things that caused the Australian scientific body's energy feasibility report to conclude that nuclear in Australia (no existing reactors, staff, etc) wasn't economic or rational given so much can be done with the upfront cost of nuclear that immediately begins with returning energy compared to an uncertain timeline and blowouts not returning energy for ???
> Australia is the best case scenario for solar power.
Yes. (and no - it's a big country)
The USofA is also a large country with the same land area (mainland USofA at least) and many places suitable for solar and wind.
The South Australian capital, Adelaide, is on the 35th parallel (South), what works there likely works in the US at or below the 35th parallel North.
The essential point is that nuclear isn't a flat parameter free answer to all that ails - some places it makes no economic sense, other places it makes good economic sense ... and there's a world in between.
You just keep moving the goalposts and not responding to arguments. Until you have some idea of how nuclear is ever going to be cost competitive on today’s grids, good day to you.
If solar becomes 2 times cheaper, it will be economical to capture nitrogen from atmosphere and produce ammonia and use that for long-term energy storage and fuel. And with that one does not need massive solar overbuild.
This does not require any magic technology, just scaling up what is available today is enough and will definitely happen within the next 20 years, before small nuclear will have any effect.
If I recall correctly solar panels are already so cheap that to halve the installed cost again will require most of the efficiencies to be found in other costs like manufacture of associated hardware and equipment and installation. I don't know if those costs will be so easy to reduce.
It would be good to see a techno-economic analysis of this. For instance, taken to the limit, if solar were free what would be the CAPEX and OPEX to produce the ammonia? In addition, the plant to consume the ammonia to produce electricity would not be free.
Ammonia does not require a plant to generate electricity. While fuel cells running on it require temperatures over 600 Celsius to get to 70% percent of efficiency and not exactly small, with cheap way to produce ammonia they would provide energy dense batteries that could run for months if necessary.
> Ammonia does not require a plant to generate electricity. While fuel cells running on it
OK, so it requires a plant of fuel cells. And the cost per kW (i.e. discharge capacity) is? And it requires some facility to produce the ammonia; what is the cost per kW of electricity consumed, and at what efficiency?
Numbers would help to assess the proposal, given the claim that a halving of the cost of electricity from solar would make all the economics for ammonia work.
That's why we use different tools when teaching/learning something vs. doing real work.
Another example is computer algebra systems like Mathematica. It would be self-sabotage to use them on your calculus homework, but they're indispensable to the working mathematician, physicist, or engineer, whose time is wasted doing routine calculations by hand.
The truth is that many people enjoy working. It's satisfying and fulfilling to build something useful or to make a discovery that contributes to human knowledge. We can acknowledge that and then consider the entirely separate question of the ideal level of resource redistibution.
reply