I was waiting for someone to come up with the "It's just figurative!" line. For all we know this viewpoint is probably heresy. Certainly nowhere in the bible does it say "You know, this stuff didn't actually happen. Take it easy, dude." If God sent down a REALLY LONG book intended to be the guide for billions of people on how to live their lives, it seems a single-line disclaimer might have clarified things a bit.
As for what they believe that contradicts science, most everything. The Noah's ark story, people living for centuries, direct contradictions to genetics (populations going from 10 to millions of healthy individuals), the exodus, ordinary people causing earthquakes with no assistance from God, stars being smaller than the Earth, existence of giants, unicorns (look it up!), dragons, nephilim, and many others.
Again, I'm not saying these things to irk religious people. I have no problem with people choosing to believe a certain set of things. But let's not confuse fictions with facts, especially not when facts are the subject of discussion.
You bring up the theory of continental drift. I'll raise you aether, magnetic field lines, general relativity, quantum theory, and many, many others. All of these were met with vicious opposition at the start. Again, the process of science is designed to slowly lumber towards the truth. You can't get at the truth immediately or quickly. It doesn't work that way. Nor does it matter what a single person thinks - the only think that matters is the gradually-accumulating body of evidence and theory.
It is completely and 100% irrelevant whether a bunch of scientists behave rationally or not. Actually, scientists are expected to act irrationally! Scientists are human beings and asking them to be rational really is asking too much, and the process of science is designed to take this into account! Which is why continental drift was eventually accepted, yet most religions continue to insist that God created Adam and Eve out of mud.
You're drawing a ridiculous and unjustifiable parallel between the process of science - which is a continually-improving process to get at the truth - and faith-based dogma, which is essentially the opposite of that. I'd appreciate if you instead just said what you mean - that you hate science and think scientists are wrong and full of themselves (which is, by the way, completely OK! Even most scientists often think other scientists are wrong and full of themselves!)
I'm no member of an advanced spacefaring race but if I were I might find that insulting.
The actual order of events in genesis is:
1. 'Let there be light' 2. Separation of sea and sky. 3. Creation of dry land. 4. Creation of day and night. 5. Creation of water-based animals. 6. Creation of land-based animals and humans.
Days 1, 5, and 6 might be a 'fair' approximation of the actual way the world formed. But days 2-4 are totally bogus and seem to be out of order. The way the Earth actually formed, it congealed from a ball of dust and was initially molten; it gradually solidified (forming dry land), had a day & night cycle, and then over millions of years got cool enough for seas to form.
Why would an 'advanced spacefaring race' mangle the order of events in this way? Do they just like $@#$ing with us?:) Actually that WOULD explain a lot of things.
Authority is not _completely_ worthless - it's a quite useful indicator of truth sometimes! But it carries far less weight than actual evidence. If an authority and the evidence disagree then you should probably side with the evidence.
You're making the fatal mistake of confusing these concepts. Sometimes scientists stubbornly stick with an idea because so far all the evidence has supported that idea. This is a perfectly rational course of action. To do anything else would be irrational. If centuries of evidence support a theory, and I am willing to discard the theory based on a single observation (which may or may not be just an observation error) then I am being extremely irrational and biased. However, a single observation can indeed invalidate centuries of _authority_, because authority simply does not carry the same weight as actual evidence.
Sadly there are many people who can't seem to make this distinction at all between these concepts. They look at a scientist and a preacher and they think what they say has equal weight, even though the scientist has mountains of evidence behind him and the preacher just has an old book and some other religious people behind him. The levels of truth of these two viewpoints are completely different. I hope you're not in the group that thinks they are the same.
The best we can do is make absolutely clear that the placebo is just a placebo and that it will not provide a cure for any disease, only at most a small bit of short-term pain relief. If, after this, someone chooses to take a placebo pill instead of seeking treatment for a serious condition (e.g. cancer), that is their problem, in my opinion.
> instead of scientifically proven options
Placebos _are_ scientifically proven options - for pain relief, mental health issues, and other ills. There are many illnesses for which placebos are literally the best known 'medicines'.
Yes they do work. If I'm feeling down and I take a placebo pill, It's likely I'll feel great again. That's the definition of 'working.' When you take a placebo pill it causes real biochemical changes in your body: http://link.springer.com/artic...
And as for control groups, most often they use a treated group, a placebo group, and a non-treated group. And I never said homeopathy is anything other than a placebo.
You completely lack knowledge of medical science. Your opinion is worthless.
What's wrong with having placebos? Placebos work. They are quite effective treatments for a variety of health problems, especially things like mental health problems. Homeopathy is obviously ridiculous, but I don't see anything wrong with having some kind of government-sanctioned system of placebo sugar pills available. Use the profits to fund actual medical science. The fact that the pills are placebo doesn't even need to be secret - you can post directly on the label that it has no active drugs in it and that it is still an effective treatment (both facts are true). A lot of people would consider lack of 'active drugs' a plus. Most people wouldn't even read the labels anyway. The pills would sell quite well.
Thank you for making my point - blind adherence to authority is detrimental to the progress of science, no matter if the authority is the pope or a scientist.
The difference is that scientists acknowledge this fact and take steps to prevent it from occurring (we're all biased and irrational beings so it's impossible to completely eliminate), whereas religions celebrate this blind authoritarianism and take steps to preserve it as much as they can.
You're right that the Church has in some ways contributed to science. And in terms of holding back science, Catholicism is by no means the worst offender. It is in fact quite pro-science compared to other faiths. But still, by holding people hostage to authority (the Pope) and an ancient book, it has also hindered genuine scientific enquiry in many respects. This is undeniable. It took the Church a century to admit that Darwin was right. This does not give me much confidence that truth is what they are really after.
> It certainly can be — faith operates in a different plane, so to speak. It neither contradicts nor supports science, nor is it contradicted nor supported by science in return.
Nope, wrong. First of all, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people choosing to believe a certain thing and I'm not some asshole who will yell at the clergyman in a funeral that his beliefs are stupid. But it's simply wrong to say that science and religion operate in different domains. All religions come with a package of beliefs concerning things such as how the world and humanity were created (things that are very much in the realm of science) and laws concerning justice and punishment (within the realm of sociology, philosophy, psychology, and yes, science). This is almost by definition, as an ideology without these things would be mainly just a vague belief in the possible existence of God e.g. agnosticism.
Your faith might say that Mankind was created from the armpit sweat of a giant and that the world rests on a giant turtle. Well, paleontology seems to indicate that there are no giants nor were there probably ever any. It's unlikely - based on our knowledge of biology - for humanity to have emerged from skin excretions; the chemical composition doesn't add up. DNA analysis reveals a far better explanation in terms of evolution from ape-like ancestors. And about the world, well we've been to space and looked at the Earth from a distance - it's quite definitely ball-shaped and there are no turtles to be seen anywhere. Faith refuted by science. What a concept!
All of this - including your viewpoint on climate science - is based on an incorrect view of the philosophy of science. Are some proponents of the idea of anthropogenic global warming fanatic doomsayers? Certainly. But that's 100% irrelevant to the facts. The facts indicate that the Earth is warming, the warming is caused by human activity, and that there is the _possibility_ - the likelihood of which is unknown with certainty at this point - for this warming to have disastrous consequences. You can whine and make snide remarks all you want but reality has a stubborn habit of not caring what you think.
I'm not talking about Marx. I do not understand why you keep bringing up Marx. I never said I'm talking about his theories, and his theories are only marginally relevant to our situation today.
> Most people are employed by small businesses
Irrelevant. The economy is about money, goods, and services, not employment. Employment is only indirectly related.
Politics: Thank you for agreeing with the obvious, but you are failing to take things to their logical conclusion. If voters are just inherently stupid and elections are a coin toss, then it wouldn't make sense for the coin toss to be consistently biased towards those who keep doing the same thing. Our current political system only makes sense through the realization that voters are being manipulated into electing those that allow themselves to be controlled by alien interests. 'Voters being sheep' is irrelevant, as voters are just human and will always have limits to their knowledge and intelligence no matter how smart they are. For any arbitrary level of voter intelligence, those who manipulate the voters can still devise a working system of manipulation. The only way to fix this is to realize the manipulation is happening and take counteractive steps, much like the body's immune system has to adapt to increasingly-smarter pathogens all the time.
Economy: If you agree with government being controlled by a small number of people, then how can you say the economy isn't? Isn't the economy, in the end, controlled by government?
The facts speak for themselves. The economy is huge but there are actually only relatively few companies that collectively influence a large fraction of it, such as most of the fossil fuel sector, a large portion of industry, and the entirety of the financial services sector. Whether there are a large number of small business is irrelevant.
> It's perfectly legitimate to have code which is general which has an input for which zero is a valid value.
I honestly can't think of any time this could be legitimate. Please give an example. Example requirements: Code must use integer division, must do something useful in the real world, must not be contrived (i.e. not just an integer version of an algorithm that could be done just as well with floating point), and can be fixed using a simple test and branch.
Those are made-up 'rules'. And it has nothing to do with 'mathematicians not knowing which rule has precedence.'
The IEEE floating-point standard defines x/0 = Inf when x is nonzero and NaN otherwise. That's a good choice in my opinion.
Integer division by zero is often deliberately designed to throw an error, because doing it is an indication that there is something obscenely wrong with your code. The thing that went wrong in your code probably happened way before you even got to the error. Be thankful that your cpu lets you know your code is horribly broken instead of returning a gibberish response (which 0 or any other number would be - a gibberish response). There's nothing stopping you from implementing an integer arithmetic standard that incorporates Inf, but to do this in a consistent way would probably break every single application that uses integer arithmetic, including fundamental stuff like random number generators and cryptography code.
Why do you even have to phrase it in the form of a question, even if a rhetorical one? The obvious answer is: No, it makes absolutely no sense to spend even one second of precious valuable time on 'preparing for terrorist attacks.'
Top ten leading causes of death:
Heart disease.
Cancer
Chronic lower respiratory disease
Stroke
Motor accidents
Alzheimer's disease
Diabetes
Influenza and pneumonia
It would be much much more beneficial to make people play accident simulation driving sims than 'terror attack' sims.
And as for video games, I know the internet crowd is going to overwhelmingly say "Video games don't cause violence!!!!!!!!11111" but let's look at the facts. What this and other studies show is that violent video games increase the 'normalcy' of violence in people's minds. They may not make you go and kill someone but they'll make you expect violence in your neighborhood. You see it even on this very forum. People who spend all their time worried about 'psychopaths' and ISIS and bogeymen coming to kill them. Meanwhile they stuff their faces with carcinogens and drive around in fast cars just for fun.
Thanks for the link. I'm still not sure why you disagree with me though. I'm guessing maybe you don't, after all?
> Personally, my own solution to inequality would be to teach the poor to be richer, but that's just me
The topic at hand is how the effect of automation on economics is going to play out in the future. You're going to have to explain to me how this is relevant to the topic.
I'll state my thesis more clearly, on one condition: That any rebuttal you provide is intelligent and reasoned and note a quote from Marx, who was talking about an economical system very different from what we have today.
My thesis is this: Our political and economical system is by-and-large controlled by a small elite class of people with a large amount of wealth, who have far more sway than everyone else combined.
When Bush was running for president a bunch of billionaires jetted into Austin and literally told him what to do as president. They didn't ask his opinion. This included people from the defense contracting and oil industry.
Rupert Murdoch owns the Dow Jones. Yes, he freaking owns the DOW JONES. It's bizarre that you think owning a fraction of a percent of a company puts you in the same elite class as the billionaires who actually have the power. Your $10,000 share in GM wouldn't even be enough to 'own' a single welding machine in a single GM manufacturing plant. And in terms of actual power to steer the direction of the company, you have zero influence.
I'm REALLY and honestly curious why you disagree with me. I'm open to an intelligent debate.
That's the dream - that everyone will get a robot to do their job and can spend their newly-freed up time to enjoy life while still getting a regular paycheck. Unfortunately, the owner class and the talking heads that they control and use to manipulate the masses call this 'socialism' and will fight to the death to prevent this from happening. THEIR dream is that they can replace all their pesky workers with robots so that they don't have to pay ANYONE.
Automation isn't evil in and of itself. It's just that it produces an enormous surplus of labor and productivity, and we are fighting over who to allocate those newly-available resources to. Everyone wants those resources for themselves.
Is there an actual solid dividing line between these two concepts? It seems it's just a continuum of capability, starting from AIs that replaced human calculators, progressing towards AIs that we currently have, and soon AIs that will drive cars and replace other jobs, and eventually AIs that will replace all jobs, effectively obsoleting humanity.
Slashdot Mirror
I was waiting for someone to come up with the "It's just figurative!" line. For all we know this viewpoint is probably heresy. Certainly nowhere in the bible does it say "You know, this stuff didn't actually happen. Take it easy, dude." If God sent down a REALLY LONG book intended to be the guide for billions of people on how to live their lives, it seems a single-line disclaimer might have clarified things a bit.
As for what they believe that contradicts science, most everything. The Noah's ark story, people living for centuries, direct contradictions to genetics (populations going from 10 to millions of healthy individuals), the exodus, ordinary people causing earthquakes with no assistance from God, stars being smaller than the Earth, existence of giants, unicorns (look it up!), dragons, nephilim, and many others.
Again, I'm not saying these things to irk religious people. I have no problem with people choosing to believe a certain set of things. But let's not confuse fictions with facts, especially not when facts are the subject of discussion.
> No, labeling a medication as placebo is enough to make it lose its benefits.
Not really
> At that point, these sellers are defrauding others.
How is that different from, oh I don't know, ALL advertising?
It actually doesn't work that way at all.
You bring up the theory of continental drift. I'll raise you aether, magnetic field lines, general relativity, quantum theory, and many, many others. All of these were met with vicious opposition at the start. Again, the process of science is designed to slowly lumber towards the truth. You can't get at the truth immediately or quickly. It doesn't work that way. Nor does it matter what a single person thinks - the only think that matters is the gradually-accumulating body of evidence and theory.
It is completely and 100% irrelevant whether a bunch of scientists behave rationally or not. Actually, scientists are expected to act irrationally! Scientists are human beings and asking them to be rational really is asking too much, and the process of science is designed to take this into account! Which is why continental drift was eventually accepted, yet most religions continue to insist that God created Adam and Eve out of mud.
You're drawing a ridiculous and unjustifiable parallel between the process of science - which is a continually-improving process to get at the truth - and faith-based dogma, which is essentially the opposite of that. I'd appreciate if you instead just said what you mean - that you hate science and think scientists are wrong and full of themselves (which is, by the way, completely OK! Even most scientists often think other scientists are wrong and full of themselves!)
I'm no member of an advanced spacefaring race but if I were I might find that insulting.
The actual order of events in genesis is:
1. 'Let there be light'
2. Separation of sea and sky.
3. Creation of dry land.
4. Creation of day and night.
5. Creation of water-based animals.
6. Creation of land-based animals and humans.
Days 1, 5, and 6 might be a 'fair' approximation of the actual way the world formed. But days 2-4 are totally bogus and seem to be out of order. The way the Earth actually formed, it congealed from a ball of dust and was initially molten; it gradually solidified (forming dry land), had a day & night cycle, and then over millions of years got cool enough for seas to form.
Why would an 'advanced spacefaring race' mangle the order of events in this way? Do they just like $@#$ing with us? :) Actually that WOULD explain a lot of things.
Authority is not _completely_ worthless - it's a quite useful indicator of truth sometimes! But it carries far less weight than actual evidence. If an authority and the evidence disagree then you should probably side with the evidence.
You're making the fatal mistake of confusing these concepts. Sometimes scientists stubbornly stick with an idea because so far all the evidence has supported that idea. This is a perfectly rational course of action. To do anything else would be irrational. If centuries of evidence support a theory, and I am willing to discard the theory based on a single observation (which may or may not be just an observation error) then I am being extremely irrational and biased. However, a single observation can indeed invalidate centuries of _authority_, because authority simply does not carry the same weight as actual evidence.
Sadly there are many people who can't seem to make this distinction at all between these concepts. They look at a scientist and a preacher and they think what they say has equal weight, even though the scientist has mountains of evidence behind him and the preacher just has an old book and some other religious people behind him. The levels of truth of these two viewpoints are completely different. I hope you're not in the group that thinks they are the same.
The best we can do is make absolutely clear that the placebo is just a placebo and that it will not provide a cure for any disease, only at most a small bit of short-term pain relief. If, after this, someone chooses to take a placebo pill instead of seeking treatment for a serious condition (e.g. cancer), that is their problem, in my opinion.
> instead of scientifically proven options
Placebos _are_ scientifically proven options - for pain relief, mental health issues, and other ills. There are many illnesses for which placebos are literally the best known 'medicines'.
I think I explicitly mentioned they should be labelled as such!
Yes they do work. If I'm feeling down and I take a placebo pill, It's likely I'll feel great again. That's the definition of 'working.' When you take a placebo pill it causes real biochemical changes in your body: http://link.springer.com/artic...
And as for control groups, most often they use a treated group, a placebo group, and a non-treated group. And I never said homeopathy is anything other than a placebo.
You completely lack knowledge of medical science. Your opinion is worthless.
What's wrong with having placebos? Placebos work. They are quite effective treatments for a variety of health problems, especially things like mental health problems. Homeopathy is obviously ridiculous, but I don't see anything wrong with having some kind of government-sanctioned system of placebo sugar pills available. Use the profits to fund actual medical science. The fact that the pills are placebo doesn't even need to be secret - you can post directly on the label that it has no active drugs in it and that it is still an effective treatment (both facts are true). A lot of people would consider lack of 'active drugs' a plus. Most people wouldn't even read the labels anyway. The pills would sell quite well.
Thank you for making my point - blind adherence to authority is detrimental to the progress of science, no matter if the authority is the pope or a scientist.
The difference is that scientists acknowledge this fact and take steps to prevent it from occurring (we're all biased and irrational beings so it's impossible to completely eliminate), whereas religions celebrate this blind authoritarianism and take steps to preserve it as much as they can.
You're right that the Church has in some ways contributed to science. And in terms of holding back science, Catholicism is by no means the worst offender. It is in fact quite pro-science compared to other faiths. But still, by holding people hostage to authority (the Pope) and an ancient book, it has also hindered genuine scientific enquiry in many respects. This is undeniable. It took the Church a century to admit that Darwin was right. This does not give me much confidence that truth is what they are really after.
> It certainly can be — faith operates in a different plane, so to speak. It neither contradicts nor supports science, nor is it contradicted nor supported by science in return.
Nope, wrong. First of all, don't get me wrong, I have nothing against people choosing to believe a certain thing and I'm not some asshole who will yell at the clergyman in a funeral that his beliefs are stupid. But it's simply wrong to say that science and religion operate in different domains. All religions come with a package of beliefs concerning things such as how the world and humanity were created (things that are very much in the realm of science) and laws concerning justice and punishment (within the realm of sociology, philosophy, psychology, and yes, science). This is almost by definition, as an ideology without these things would be mainly just a vague belief in the possible existence of God e.g. agnosticism.
Your faith might say that Mankind was created from the armpit sweat of a giant and that the world rests on a giant turtle. Well, paleontology seems to indicate that there are no giants nor were there probably ever any. It's unlikely - based on our knowledge of biology - for humanity to have emerged from skin excretions; the chemical composition doesn't add up. DNA analysis reveals a far better explanation in terms of evolution from ape-like ancestors. And about the world, well we've been to space and looked at the Earth from a distance - it's quite definitely ball-shaped and there are no turtles to be seen anywhere. Faith refuted by science. What a concept!
All of this - including your viewpoint on climate science - is based on an incorrect view of the philosophy of science. Are some proponents of the idea of anthropogenic global warming fanatic doomsayers? Certainly. But that's 100% irrelevant to the facts. The facts indicate that the Earth is warming, the warming is caused by human activity, and that there is the _possibility_ - the likelihood of which is unknown with certainty at this point - for this warming to have disastrous consequences. You can whine and make snide remarks all you want but reality has a stubborn habit of not caring what you think.
I'm not talking about Marx. I do not understand why you keep bringing up Marx. I never said I'm talking about his theories, and his theories are only marginally relevant to our situation today.
> Most people are employed by small businesses
Irrelevant. The economy is about money, goods, and services, not employment. Employment is only indirectly related.
Politics: Thank you for agreeing with the obvious, but you are failing to take things to their logical conclusion. If voters are just inherently stupid and elections are a coin toss, then it wouldn't make sense for the coin toss to be consistently biased towards those who keep doing the same thing. Our current political system only makes sense through the realization that voters are being manipulated into electing those that allow themselves to be controlled by alien interests. 'Voters being sheep' is irrelevant, as voters are just human and will always have limits to their knowledge and intelligence no matter how smart they are. For any arbitrary level of voter intelligence, those who manipulate the voters can still devise a working system of manipulation. The only way to fix this is to realize the manipulation is happening and take counteractive steps, much like the body's immune system has to adapt to increasingly-smarter pathogens all the time.
Economy: If you agree with government being controlled by a small number of people, then how can you say the economy isn't? Isn't the economy, in the end, controlled by government?
The facts speak for themselves. The economy is huge but there are actually only relatively few companies that collectively influence a large fraction of it, such as most of the fossil fuel sector, a large portion of industry, and the entirety of the financial services sector. Whether there are a large number of small business is irrelevant.
> It's perfectly legitimate to have code which is general which has an input for which zero is a valid value.
I honestly can't think of any time this could be legitimate. Please give an example. Example requirements: Code must use integer division, must do something useful in the real world, must not be contrived (i.e. not just an integer version of an algorithm that could be done just as well with floating point), and can be fixed using a simple test and branch.
Those are made-up 'rules'. And it has nothing to do with 'mathematicians not knowing which rule has precedence.'
The IEEE floating-point standard defines x/0 = Inf when x is nonzero and NaN otherwise. That's a good choice in my opinion.
Integer division by zero is often deliberately designed to throw an error, because doing it is an indication that there is something obscenely wrong with your code. The thing that went wrong in your code probably happened way before you even got to the error. Be thankful that your cpu lets you know your code is horribly broken instead of returning a gibberish response (which 0 or any other number would be - a gibberish response). There's nothing stopping you from implementing an integer arithmetic standard that incorporates Inf, but to do this in a consistent way would probably break every single application that uses integer arithmetic, including fundamental stuff like random number generators and cryptography code.
Why do you even have to phrase it in the form of a question, even if a rhetorical one? The obvious answer is: No, it makes absolutely no sense to spend even one second of precious valuable time on 'preparing for terrorist attacks.'
Top ten leading causes of death:
Heart disease.
Cancer
Chronic lower respiratory disease
Stroke
Motor accidents
Alzheimer's disease
Diabetes
Influenza and pneumonia
It would be much much more beneficial to make people play accident simulation driving sims than 'terror attack' sims.
And as for video games, I know the internet crowd is going to overwhelmingly say "Video games don't cause violence!!!!!!!!11111" but let's look at the facts. What this and other studies show is that violent video games increase the 'normalcy' of violence in people's minds. They may not make you go and kill someone but they'll make you expect violence in your neighborhood. You see it even on this very forum. People who spend all their time worried about 'psychopaths' and ISIS and bogeymen coming to kill them. Meanwhile they stuff their faces with carcinogens and drive around in fast cars just for fun.
Thanks for the link. I'm still not sure why you disagree with me though. I'm guessing maybe you don't, after all?
> Personally, my own solution to inequality would be to teach the poor to be richer, but that's just me
The topic at hand is how the effect of automation on economics is going to play out in the future. You're going to have to explain to me how this is relevant to the topic.
s/note/not (unless the quote is relevant to the current world)
I'll state my thesis more clearly, on one condition: That any rebuttal you provide is intelligent and reasoned and note a quote from Marx, who was talking about an economical system very different from what we have today.
My thesis is this: Our political and economical system is by-and-large controlled by a small elite class of people with a large amount of wealth, who have far more sway than everyone else combined.
When Bush was running for president a bunch of billionaires jetted into Austin and literally told him what to do as president. They didn't ask his opinion. This included people from the defense contracting and oil industry.
Rupert Murdoch owns the Dow Jones. Yes, he freaking owns the DOW JONES. It's bizarre that you think owning a fraction of a percent of a company puts you in the same elite class as the billionaires who actually have the power. Your $10,000 share in GM wouldn't even be enough to 'own' a single welding machine in a single GM manufacturing plant. And in terms of actual power to steer the direction of the company, you have zero influence.
I'm REALLY and honestly curious why you disagree with me. I'm open to an intelligent debate.
Hahahahaha you think buying a few dinky shares in a company is the same thing as being a member of the actual owner class.
I hope you're being non-serious.
That's the dream - that everyone will get a robot to do their job and can spend their newly-freed up time to enjoy life while still getting a regular paycheck. Unfortunately, the owner class and the talking heads that they control and use to manipulate the masses call this 'socialism' and will fight to the death to prevent this from happening. THEIR dream is that they can replace all their pesky workers with robots so that they don't have to pay ANYONE.
Automation isn't evil in and of itself. It's just that it produces an enormous surplus of labor and productivity, and we are fighting over who to allocate those newly-available resources to. Everyone wants those resources for themselves.
Is there an actual solid dividing line between these two concepts? It seems it's just a continuum of capability, starting from AIs that replaced human calculators, progressing towards AIs that we currently have, and soon AIs that will drive cars and replace other jobs, and eventually AIs that will replace all jobs, effectively obsoleting humanity.