How Moore's law stabbed us in the back
Thu, 3 Jan 2002 16:37:34 -0800
> I am ;) Even if you buy the argument that people get more
It isn't an argument, it is an observation. An observation that applies
in India as well as the US. I'll admit it is counter-intuitive, but you
can't wave it away by saying "even if you buy ..."
> the number of tasks that require human input is
> being reduced over time.
There is no simple table of tasks.
Human desires are unlimited. Therefore, tasks are unlimited. By only
considering tasks that are _currently_ being preformed, you just
committed the fallacy we call "The Tyranny of the Status Quo".
To place it in a slightly different context, your failure here is the
same as people who call for greater efficiency to reduce resource use.
If you are _really_ concerned with total resource use, then increasing
efficiency has to be the worst thing you can do. Increasing the
efficient utilization of a resource makes it effectively cheaper, which
means more of it is used.
That, probably in a nutshell, is why the luddites have always been
wrong. Replacing humans with machines ultimately means you need even
more humans. (Note, you often need _different_ humans. There is a
human cost in that.)