If workers train the robots built to replace them, what do they deserve in return?
Tesla factory workers asked to wear motion-capture suits to teach Optimus robots objected that they knew the robots were designed to eventually replace them, and Tesla responded by moving the work to dedicated teams. When a person’s movements and skills become the training data for their own replacement, what do they deserve in return: a wage, a stake in what the robot earns, or the right to refuse?
Commentaires (1)
The September 27 episode of Minds, Bodies, and Terawatts looked at The Information’s report that Tesla is now building several hundred Optimus robots a week, yet every hand and forearm is still assembled manually from more than 100 screws and small parts, and the AI takes days to learn a basic task. The robot sold as the end of manual labor still needs human hands to build it and human bodies to teach it. What stood out to us is how Tesla handled the objection: it changed who does the teaching, not what the teacher gets. That leaves the real question unanswered, because the robot isn’t close today, but recordings of people doing the work are exactly what closes the gap. Give the episode a listen and tell us where you land: is being paid for the shift enough, or does teaching a machine your job earn you a share of what it goes on to produce?
Related reading on unscarcity.ai:
Envie d'aller plus loin ?
Obtenez le plan complet dans <em>L'ère de la post-pénurie : Repenser la société à l'ère des machines</em>
