By that same logic Jeff Bezos is just a tool I use to get some obscure math textbook written in English shipped to my apartment in Eastern Europe overnight.

The point is that a horse can only do a dramatically narrow functions. It's basically a big walking engine. Conversely Jeff Bezos can tend a garden, build a house, create art, write documents, package goods, negotiate contracts, recruit employees, organise a company, care for children, drive a car, take out the trash, cook diner, etc, etc.

Comparing people and horses in terms of jobs they can do, and their ability to adapt to new tasks is so unbelievably dumb it's staggering it even needs to be pointed out. This is why these arguments for automation imminently putting vast swathes of people permanently out of work has never come true, in the hundreds of years it's been predicted.

Automation hasn’t put humanity out of work yet because humanity has been better at knowledge work. What happens when they’re not?

That's a good point, but talking about horses pulling carts muddies that to the point it's completely obscure.

As BurningFrog says, please find an actual human analogy. You can argue until your face is blue that this applies to humans, but if so you should be able to find an actual example.

Meanwhile developed world economies are close to full employment and have many more vacant positions than unemployed people. We have a skills problem, not an unemployment problem.

An example would be “due to X, essentially all humans are unemployable, except as sources of entertainment for the rich, or as meat”. As this is also the conclusion, it can’t be used as an in-advance example for why the argument is or isn’t reasonable. (Inverse begging the question, I think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question)

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say.

I’m saying “if so you should be able to find an actual example.” is false.

CGP Grey argued (paraphrased) “if X happens in the future, Y will be like Z”, you are arguing that Y will never be like Z in the future because Y is not currently like Z.

But X has happened many times, and Y has never yet become like Z. Automation has replaced workers on massive, ginormous, gigantuan scales. Factories have replaced manual workers, then more efficient factories have replaced those factories, and then that's happened again several times over. Yet still we have near full employment and many, many more open positions than we have unemployed.

How long are we supposed to wait for this prediction to come true, and how many times does this have to be disproved across how many economies?

X is “AGI invented”. Not special purpose AI, not automation, AGI — the G stands for “general”. If this has ever happened, it wasn’t on Earth (unless you count evolution producing us, in which case the example is “Neanderthals are all dead”).

I don't see what that's got to do with horses then. It seems like that's just completely obscuring the point.

I see. I don’t know how to rephrase it to be better, but I’ll have a go:

Horses represent the importance of muscle power in the economy, which was made vanishing small by mechanisation; AGI would do the same for intellectual labour.

Difference being you can re-train Amazon SWEs as more things are automated / become more efficient.

But to do what? If the economic future this piece presents is right then AI will be able to do everything that humans do.

The difference between this and previous tech improvements is that this one replaces human thought, not manual labor. That’s fundamentally different than everything that’s come before.

People have choices. They can work for another company, they can start their own business, they can go live in the forest and live off the land. People can do whatever they want.

If they want to get money and work at a specific company, don't claim they are slaves. Amazon makes an offer: hey, if you work here you get X amount, and they accept.

You can claim an employee is a tool for the company, but you can also claim a company is a money generator for an employee. It's a work-money trade between 2 parties. Don't claim it's slavery.

Those choices will become illusions.

> Work for another company -> compete for decreasing number of jobs with increasing number of candidates.

> start their own business -> compete with everyone that is smarter than you and/or had a better starting position.

> go live in the forest and live off the land -> this is called poverty.

I agree with you.

But I think there might be a way out:

Spend as little as possible and use all your extra cash to buy stocks. Not meme stocks of course but either an index fund or if you really trust your skill go ahead and pick stocks. If there is a wealth transfer you will be at least partially on the receiving end.

Not to mention in the USA:

Leave your job -> Lose health insurance and anything you paid towards your deductible

More often than not its "take this abusive offer or starve to death". Not much of a choice there. The way I see it, what you're describing is an outdated ideology, which does not apply in practice in most parts of the world, except for a few privileged places.

Come on, this is a very narrow view of things. There are a lot of people that can't just quit their job and start their own business, because well, they don't have any savings or access to credit. The work-money trade could be very very unequal.