Ok so how do you square that with your original comment of “so… don’t do it”?
Isn’t reducing a nuanced situation down to “money” going to lose sight of a lot of factors?
If any job was just about money then why, for example, do people choose to remain in teaching when they know they’re being poorly paid, overworked, and undervalued in society when they could leave and get more money in a less stressful job?
Context is king and if you want to understand more deeply why people are willing to work jobs because of or lack of financial incentives you need to also understand the wider context such as the time period it’s taking place in, the economic state of the region, the social constructs of the society, the technology being used, or any other lens you could look at it through.
Looking at the past, present, and possible futures get far more interesting when you do that.
The why is not important. The point is if there were better opportunities, they would take them. If this job didn’t exist they would either be at a worse job, or no job.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is a societal problem.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is societal problem.
You clearly present the hypothesis that the the “why” is because these happen to be the best paid jobs and therefore people take them which is a societal problem.
Please can you explain why the “why” isn’t important and you then go onto give the “why” as “societal problem”?
Perhaps it might be useful to ask “why are these the better paid jobs in these regions?” because that adds additional context which might, as you indicate the need for, start pointing in the direction of solutions to this problem other than just broadly gesturing to everything going “society”.
Ok so how do you square that with your original comment of “so… don’t do it”?
Isn’t reducing a nuanced situation down to “money” going to lose sight of a lot of factors?
If any job was just about money then why, for example, do people choose to remain in teaching when they know they’re being poorly paid, overworked, and undervalued in society when they could leave and get more money in a less stressful job?
Context is king and if you want to understand more deeply why people are willing to work jobs because of or lack of financial incentives you need to also understand the wider context such as the time period it’s taking place in, the economic state of the region, the social constructs of the society, the technology being used, or any other lens you could look at it through.
Looking at the past, present, and possible futures get far more interesting when you do that.
The why is not important. The point is if there were better opportunities, they would take them. If this job didn’t exist they would either be at a worse job, or no job.
And the bigger point is that this is not an AI problem, this is a societal problem.
So within the same comment you go from
To then say
You clearly present the hypothesis that the the “why” is because these happen to be the best paid jobs and therefore people take them which is a societal problem.
Please can you explain why the “why” isn’t important and you then go onto give the “why” as “societal problem”?
Perhaps it might be useful to ask “why are these the better paid jobs in these regions?” because that adds additional context which might, as you indicate the need for, start pointing in the direction of solutions to this problem other than just broadly gesturing to everything going “society”.