I like this, and so should anyone who wants to see China on an ethical gradient, not black or white. This is unironically one of the advantages of centralized, authoritarian and undemocratic government: you can make decisions like this, just like that. And sometimes these decisions are good, far-sighted.
Now let’s not forget about the downsides of China’s totalitarianism.
I appreciate your nuanced take of recognising achievements where they are made for humans and humanity, while also recognising that no country is perfect and that we are allowed to ask for more from our government and a better future for ourselves without exploitation.
Something most of the tankies can’t seem to appreciate for themselves.
This doesn’t seem like a totalitarianism issue, though. The High or Supreme courts (other courts are available) could rule that replacement with AI is not a valid reason for termination of employment, and the result would be much the same.
Those courts in china aren’t independent. They very much take orders from the government.
Those courts in china aren’t independent.
Independent of what?
What’s an example of an “independent judiciary” currently in practice?
This is unironically one of the advantages of centralized, authoritarian and undemocratic government
Policy that benefits the plurality at the demands of the working class are centralized, authoritarian, and undemocratic?
Policies that are implemented through centralized, authoritarian, and undemocratic means can benefit the plurality, and can be more easily implemented when desired by the ruling class.
This is a very different claim from the one you’re trying to see.
Policies that are implemented through centralized, authoritarian, and undemocratic means can benefit the plurality
You’re describing a technocracy, which claims benefits on paper to defend policy that is generally unpopular and requires enormous policing to impose.
But Chinese policies are broadly popular and well received.
The legal reasoning cuts through corporate justifications—AI implementation is a voluntary business decision, not an unforeseeable catastrophe.
It makes sense. Nobody is ready to figure out what to do with those workers cause the chuds of the world are afraid of what happens when you give people UBI (they want to lord over other people through wealth and inequality)
There are definitely worse worlds than one where UBI is what comes out of the AI race… One can dream.
It’s not a dream. It’s a requirement.
The alternative is a nightmare.
Nobody’s considered who is gonna buy all the stuff when all the employees are laid off
The future is two corporations, eternally B2Bing back and forth across the desiccated husk of the Earth. A perfect, all-encompassing synergy.
This feels like the makings of a good one-off SciFi short in an anthology book or something.
They already did it. An episode of Philip K. Dick’s Electric Dreams.
Alien earth pretty much covers this utopia (sarcasm) already. Few huge corporations run earth as a corporatocracy.
Well I guess if you have millions of robot slaves you don’t need the people anymore at all.
Who cares, the Dow is at a record high! Wish I didnt have to eat tree bark tho
China definitely doesn’t want that many workers suddenly disenfranchised and angry
Naturally? God forbid a country considers the welfare of its workers.
Why does the Chinese government worry about sudden mass unemployment in a way Western governments do not?
because there’s billions of workers to riot as compared to say a few hundred million in the US.
This kicks the can down the road a bit, but I don’t see how this is cause for celebration. Businesses will just open a new company and avoid having that company hiring humans to escape labor laws that relate to job elimination. This can all likely be escaped with a little legal hopscotch.
That’s what regulation is.
Making things inconvenient over and over again so worse things don’t happen, or take significantly longer and require more concerted effort to happen. It’s a good thing. We should make it harder for bad actors to do shitty things.
Pretending something is pointless because it may not be 100% effective is absurd.
Pretending something is pointless because it may not be 100% effective is absurd.
I feel like this point needs to be made more and more lately. Perfect is the enemy of better.
Honestly I think its China just protecting its economy, western businesses are already finding that AI now costs more than just hiring humans and gives a worse output, the chinese government is just preventing their own economy from falling into the same trap.
It’s so they don’t have to think about/implement the utopia of no one having to work. If they made it possible for people not to need to work, those people without work would have time to educate themselves and think about how their ruling class is fucking them over, and to organize. This would probably lead to the ruling class going out of power, so they can’t have that, it’s better to keep them employed even though they don’t have to be.
Alternatively, if people go out of work and they don’t implement the no-work utopia, the ruling class loses power because people whose survival is threatened will kill their leaders.
The best the ruling class can do is keep inventing jobs no one needs and continuing to deceive people that the jobs need to be done.
That is absolutely not the subject of this ruling. The ruling forbid the termination of a work contract for the reason of it being replaced by AI. That is a significant difference : the problem is not to replace workers with AI, it is of who will pay in the society for it. China rules that companies will pay for the transition, not the workers and the state.
I don’t understand your point, your job has just been made automatable, your skills superfluous… But you’re supposed to stay employed at the same place for the same thing? And “paying”, is not happening anyway, automation is a good thing, I guess you meant who is supposed to benefit from it? I completely agree that workers should not “lose” (https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/68074600/25823579), but it just logically does not make sense to stay employed when your job literally does not need to exist anymore… Instead, as a worker, you should just be able to chill now and do nothing, not indefinitely stay at a company that doesn’t need you anymore.
This isn’t something that makes sense to be handled by companies. What if someone can not find a job in the first place because while they were studying, there was a breakthrough that made their field of study superfluous? Or someone loses (or voluntarily quits) their job because of any other reason, and then while searching for a new job, the automation breakthrough happens? Etc etc etc. Which company pays for them?
This is just simply nothing that makes sense to be solved by individual companies, but by the government.
You’re missing the problem here.
What will happen in the west (and is already happening) is that companies will automate the jobs and fire the employees because they don’t need them anymore.
But with this, bo more jobs will be created, and the liberals in power are hard at the task of deleting any employment. So people who are fired and can’t find a new job will just starve or build an alternate economy cyberpunk style.
The first step to prevent this crisis is to forbid companies to fire employees for this specific reason. This will give time for the society (people, government) to find solutions.
Another problem of letting companies do whatever they want is what is expected to happen : companies fire people now not because ai can replace them, but in order to hire them later in much worse conditions than before, with ai monitoring the job of the workers.
I 100% agree that ai is the future that can free us from work. But you can’t simply let things happen, because it would severely disrupt the whole society.
But you can’t simply let things happen
Which is what I have elaborated about in a couple of other comments in this chain at this point.
I dunno. I think this is better than getting laid off due to fake corporate bs (when it’s actually outsourcing, layoffs, and a hidden recession)
The issue is not laying off people whose jobs were replaced by AI, the issue is what happens when people are laid off.
Firstly, regarding the people that were laid off, if they continue to get paid their salary for some time, and then indefinitely get some basic social security, then being laid off is basically no problem for them, it just means some less luxury for some time.
Secondly, if the profit from laying someone off goes towards public funds instead of the owner class’ pockets, then simply everyone benefits from more automation.
Of course, none of this is happening in China (and in the US, where you’re probably from), so “continuing to do your job even though your job could be automated” seems like a good deal, but it is really not. But that’s why I made my original comment, because we should be striving for the real solutions, not band-aids that maintain the status quo.
I really doubt they’ll actually stick to this in practice. Keep in mind, China is not a place with binding rule of law.
When it gets in the way of whatever industrial expansion, workers rights to not have toxic rocket fuel falling on them or to get paid for their house being demolished aren’t even respected.
The rule of law isn’t an exclusively Western concept. But since you’re speaking so confidently you must be an expert in the Chinese legal system.
I have family in adjacent, politically similar countries. Most likely, you’re a white person with no connections to Asia who likes to project fantasies on it, which is why you’re on .ml.
It’s a Liberal concept, not a Western one. Tudor England or whatever worked the same way before the age of revolutions. As did everything else all the way back to prehistory, more or less.
I have family in adjacent, politically similar countries
I got my answer, thank you very much.
No, you got called out on basically being an left-themed orientalist, and now want to run away.
Ah yes, the old “I own a book” defense. Or maybe the “I’m also vaguely non-Western” defence (maybe you have Tatar heritage?). Either way, you are what you pretend to hate.
Most likely, you’re a white person
Robin DiAngelo in the chat, trying to make labor issues about race again
I mean, you can argue with .ml about political philosophy or economics, but it’s a waste of time because that’s not their real motive. You might as well argue rocketry with a moon landing denier.
“These places you have funny ideas about are real places to me, and they’re not like that” is more productive. They can either actually engage, or run away to protect themselves.
I also have a girlfriend in another school, what a coincidence!
No u.
found the idiot who still believes that America is the pinnacle of following the laws and believes American propaganda about China. unlike America where pedophiles get rewarded with money and positions of power. China executes them publicly.
Hell China is much harsher on criminals regardless of race… unlike America where blacks get jailed for doing drugs while white serial rapists get a pat on the head because “one mistake shouldn’t ruin a a young kid’s life”. (with those kids being fucking adults).
If you’re actually interested in Chinese justice vs. American justice, and how that’s related to rule of law vs. party leadership, there’s interesting things to say.
However, a month old account coming in and fixating on race, which wasn’t even mentioned in OP but rather later in response to someone else, seems more like trolling.
ah yes the old “you are a new account so anything you say is fake” defense. how fucking pathetic are you? wait don’t answer that. I don’t care about your delusional narrative. come back with an actual argument rather than a “your account is new so you must be fake” statement.
China isn’t perfect but it’s at least not run by a bunch of pedophiles like America or a bunch of war crime creators like Canada.
but what can I expect from someone who values account age over truth.
Keep in mind, China is not a place with binding rule of law.
Lolwhut?
China has about the same laws on property rights as elsewhere. It was introduced in 2007 which is why we see so many stories on funny “strong nail” houses from China.
Yup, you can write anything. The USSR also guaranteed freedom of speech in it’s constitution, IIRC.
People who are purely Western often forget it, but laws that actually apply to everyone all the time are a very recent phenomenon. Historically, and in other places, they’re more like guidelines for what to do when there’s no other major considerations.
Its insane to say that while they cut down the national forests of America for profit.
Because China’s government knows the last thing it needs is a bunch of unemployed people.
It’s so weird how single-party rule can sometimes be more responsive to the people. Because there’s no illusion: if the people get unhappy enough, CCP is gone.
Meanwhile the US we live with these bizarre illusions about how the people are truly in power, while our government is driven into the ground by plutocrats and their pet priests.
Will they suceed?
deleted by creator
