> Well, this one could really be problematic for everyone. We're talking about social unrest and revolts on a global scale.
Not necessarily.
Firstly it's not even clear that AI will eliminate jobs without creating new ones. It's not clear that any development in AI will be any different than the transition to mechanization in the 19th and early 20th century.
Secondly, it's not clear that even if AI were to successfully automate away labor that we would have a problem. For one, we have a demographic cliff rapidly approaching whereby a lot of countries population is falling, and even where it's not, the population is rapidly aging. There's already protests in France about raising retirement age. What if AI lets us have our cake and retire earlier too?
At any rate, if AI is busy automating away labor, then the world is getting more efficient. And that means there are more resources to support people. All those debates are worth having, but you gotta cross that bridge when you get there, if you get there.
I would say that's pretty clear in the long run. AI will most likely create jobs, but how many jobs can it create ? Every white collar job potentially affected against what exactly ?
but you gotta cross that bridge when you get there, if you get there
So we can have more of the "gene out of the bottle" or "train has left the station" response ?
Yeah, it's not like there was an industrial revolution or anything...
The impact of AI on jobs is a topic of ongoing debate among experts. While some argue that AI will lead to significant job losses, others believe that it will create new opportunities and stimulate economic growth.
To understand the potential impact of AI on jobs, we can draw parallels with the Industrial Revolution. The Industrial Revolution, which began in the late 18th century, marked a period of rapid technological advancement and social change, as new machines and manufacturing processes were introduced.
Initially, the Industrial Revolution led to job losses in traditional industries, such as agriculture and textiles, as machines replaced manual labor. However, it also created new jobs in manufacturing, engineering, and other industries. Over time, as the benefits of industrialization became clear, the economy grew, and new opportunities emerged.
Similarly, AI is expected to create new jobs in industries such as robotics, data analysis, and software development. These jobs will require specialized skills and training, and may not be accessible to all workers. However, they are likely to pay well and offer opportunities for career advancement.
At the same time, AI may also lead to job losses in certain industries, particularly those that rely on routine, repetitive tasks. For example, automated manufacturing systems may replace human workers in factories, and self-driving vehicles may reduce the demand for truck drivers.
Overall, the impact of AI on jobs is difficult to predict, as it will depend on a variety of factors, such as the rate of technological progress, the availability of training and education programs, and government policies. However, history has shown us that technological advancement can both create and destroy jobs, and that the economy can adapt and evolve over time.
-----
> AI will most likely create jobs, but how many jobs can it create ? Please walk me through the parallelism with the Industrial Revolution.
The creation of AI-powered machines and systems is expected to generate new types of jobs in addition to replacing some existing ones like data entry clerks or accountants. However, there are concerns about how many net job gains will occur as a result of the automation revolution that has already begun with robots taking over repetitive tasks such as manufacturing assembly lines and warehouses.
The Industrial Revolution brought significant changes to society through mechanization in industries like textiles or steel, but it also created new jobs for skilled workers who were needed to operate the machines. Similarly, AI will create opportunities for professionals with expertise such as data scientists and machine learning engineers that can help design algorithms and train models using large datasets.
The parallelism between these two revolutions is evident in their impact on society's labor market: both have led to job losses due to automation, but also created new jobs for skilled workers who were needed to operate the machines or run AI-powered systems respectively.
both have led to job losses due to automation, but also created new jobs for skilled workers who were needed to operate the machines or run AI-powered systems respectively
which does prove my point, no ? Operate machines across all industries vs data science ?
> Operate machines across all industries vs data science ?
Operate the machines across all industries vs run AI-powered systems across all industries.
(Those chatgpt-like responses miss a major factor, though. Automatisation of agricultural processes didn't result in 95% of the population operating agricultural machines: it freed them to do other things.)
Sooo...data scientists ? Isn't the focal point of all of this the realization that given time (most likely a lot less than people thought before gpt's) AI systems won't need human oversight ? Isn't this the goal of OpenAI ? This is why I think making comparison to whatever that was is wrong. Our current situation is too distinctive. We're being potentially freed up to do things other than cognitive tasks - by the rise of AGI, or maybe a very refined language model.
> Sooo...data scientists ?
If someone using an AI-powered system is a data scientist (?) does that make someone using an electricity-powered system an electrical engineer?
So the analogy of steam engines suggests that this can be quite dangerous indeed.
Also, we do have historical evidence at how fast human society reacts to changes when technology causes great shifts in needed jobs - not fast at all. Even getting to terms with decades-long changes caused significant social upheaval and strife, as in, for example, the automation of textile industry; If the current speed of technological change would cause a disruption in jobs which happens over the course of just a few years, it will be hectic and violent even if there is the same number of new, different jobs created.
> for example, the automation of textile industry
How many horses and mules were working in the textile industry again?
The cotton gin revolutionized the industry while it was still people-powered, including by slave labor (edit: and also horse-powered); and the Luddites (some decades after Ned Ludd) rebelled not against the looms being powered by steam but rather against the Jacquard loom - an add-on to the exiting looms which allowed complex products to be weaved by unskilled people, removing their bargaining power despite not changing a thing about how the loom was powered.
"Although some were driven by animal power, most early mills were built in rural areas at fast-flowing rivers and streams using water wheels for power.[3] The development of viable steam engines by Boulton and Watt from 1781 led to the growth of larger, steam-powered mills allowing them to be concentrated in urban mill towns, like Manchester, which with neighbouring Salford had more than 50 mills by 1802.[4]"
Your concern is theoretical "social unrest" due to being replaced by automation even in the face of factual social unrest due to extension of retirement age.
Even if automation replaces jobs en masse, It's not as if this would happen in a vacuum even if it does. We already have social safety nets (even in US) like unemployment insurance, medicaid, food stamps, etc not to mention a robust private charity network. And government already showed, for example, during the pandemic, that it was willing to fund people in an emergency if and when it happens.
One thing I do know about AGI/AI and automation in general, is that it's not going to sweep through entire industries overnight all at once. It takes time to deploy, time to deal with edge cases, time to refine, time to reconstruct processes around automation, time to adapt to whatever downstream changes and efficiencies the automation creates, time to effect prices in the marketplace, etc. Time to see if other jobs not previously anticipated when a new tech replaces an old one, like "web designer" or "web developer" or "SEO specialist" did with respect to newspapers or letter carriers or television programming being replaced or reduced by the existence of the internet.
Are we really worried about elderly revolting?
I think this is a bridge you have to strongly consider if we want to cross _well in advance,_ given that it is likely to set on fire and fall down behind us if we do, trapping us on the other side whether we like it or not.
Our mistake is to be human-centric. We think our work will be stolen by AI bots, but we can't imagine AI creating business and hiring people. When AGI comes, we will have to care for the needs of humans + the needs of AGI. And it has needs, so there will be jobs. And AGI might be more prolific in development than we are, there might be plenty of work for us.
I don't think many people see this because the "mythical We" is used all the time. "If "we do this", "we must do that", as if all of humanity can act together coherently or ever has. People seldom think about how imaginary this viewpoint is.
If the world is getting more efficient, then why would those resources go to people that are intrinsically less efficient? The current state of the economy is to funnel capital to those who efficiently allocate; the amount of intentional inefficient allocation reduces as efficiency grows (as the world gets more productive, less of this output lands in the hands of workers). Why think that the distribution model will change significantly in a timescale relevant to people?
Our culture takes it as axiomatic that more efficiency is good. But its not clear to me that it is. The principle goal of society should be the betterment of the lives of people. Yes, efficiency has historically been a driver of widespread prosperity, but it's not obvious that there isn't a local maximum past which increased efficiency harms the average person. Historically, efficiency was driven by innovation that brings a decrease in the costs of transactions. This saw an explosion of the space of viable economic activity and with it an explosion of prosperity. Productivity and wages remained coupled up until recent decades. Modern automation has seen productivity and wages begin to decouple. Decoupling will only accelerate due to AI. We may already be on the other side of the critical point.
put another way, we have a labor shortage at today's level of output already. BUT, I don't know anyone who doesn't want more output. I mean, we're not going to run out of stuff to do!? what about space? curing diseases, etc. what about having time to make more art?
if an AI can do work, or make work easier, what makes us certain that we'll just settle for getting the same amount done vs doing more?
In this hyper-efficient future, is being paid for this stuff going to be viable? Why would anyone allocate money to your inefficient endeavors? There's this strange blindspot in people who think that more economic efficiency means you'll have time to do intrinsically inefficient labor. Who is going to feed and house you when your labor is irrelevant to the workings of the economy? UBI is a nice dream, but how do we get there from the current ruthless efficiently allocating system?
Should we tax robots? - https://news.mit.edu/2022/robot-tax-income-inequality-1221
> What if the U.S. placed a tax on robots? The concept has been publicly discussed by policy analysts, scholars, and Bill Gates (who favors the notion). Because robots can replace jobs, the idea goes, a stiff tax on them would give firms incentive to help retain workers, while also compensating for a dropoff in payroll taxes when robots are used. Thus far, South Korea has reduced incentives for firms to deploy robots; European Union policymakers, on the other hand, considered a robot tax but did not enact it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robot_tax
There is a lot of material out there both for and against taxing robots.
Efficiency here could mean less need for equity funding and angel investing in early stage projects.
so you mean utterly hellish?
>https://martyrmade.substack.com/p/martyrmade-22-whose-americ...
In the meantime, for vast majority, it improved standards of living, hourly wages, etc. You can't just look at arbitrary data points in early 1900s or late 1800s. Hellish wars, famines, civil strifes, rebellions, assassinations, religious battles, etc go back millenia.
> https://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/2018/01/historic_photos_f... > https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/ford-factory-wor... > https://worldsfairchicago1893.com/ >
Why do people always say this in response to UBI as if it is a universal fact?
UBI doesn't create new money by itself. It redistributes money. Its impact on inflation will therefore be in the shifting of demand curves. However that won't be uniform. Demand for certain products is rather static and therefore those prices won't be impacted much.
For example, if you give me the money to double my food budget, I will go to nicer restaurants and buy higher quality items from the supermarket. I'm not simply going to buy twice the amount of everything I used to buy. Demand for basic staples like milk and eggs won't go up and therefore their price won't go up much. The biggest increases will be in luxury goods and services. The inflation caused by UBI would be progressive which is completely in line with the goals of UBI in providing a base level of money for people to live on.
And this isn't even getting into the supply side response to these demand changes which will act as another counter to inflation. If there suddenly is increased demand, suppliers will bring more products to market. They aren't just going to jack up their prices unless there is a complete lack of competition (which is its own issue that would need to be addressed regardless of UBI).
The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again.
Also, prices absolutely rise when there is a surge in demand. That’s literally economics 101.
What are you basing this conclusion on? If what you say is true, minimum wage increases would be worthless as they would just be swallowed by inflation. However, studies on the topic show this isn't true. Minimum wage increases have a negligible impact on inflation. This should be obvious because minimum wage positions do not make up the entirety of the labor market and the labor costs do not make up the entirety of business costs. So why would all prices increase in pace with the minimum wage?
>The point remains that it’s harder to find cheap employees. So the cost of labor goes up. So prices rise. Specifically they rise until the poor folks must work at a low wage to survive again.
I didn't say there would be no inflation. I said inflation would be progressive in that it wouldn't have much of an impact on stables in which demand is inelastic and working class people spend a relatively higher percentage of their income.
That is the natural balance. People need to be paid enough to be incentivized to work. Work sucks. Especially low income work. But society needs these jobs to be done.
> If what you say is true, minimum wage increases would be worthless as they would just be swallowed by inflation. However, studies on the topic show this isn't true. Minimum wage increases have a negligible impact on inflation. This should be obvious because minimum wage positions do not make up the entirety of the labor market and the labor costs do not make up the entirety of business costs. So why would all prices increase in pace with the minimum wage?
That’s mostly true. But this is not a minimum wage increase. This is taking away the most valuable part of the paycheck: the part you need to survive. People aren’t going to work hard for $8 an hour if they’re taken care of by the government. It’s simply not worth it.
> I didn't say there would be no inflation. I said inflation would be progressive in that it wouldn't have much of an impact on stables in which demand is inelastic and working class people spend a relatively higher percentage of their income
It’s a supply side effect. Not a demand one.
Also, basically any non trivial inflation is enough to make UBI not UBI because it’s supposed to be just enough to be liveable.
You didn't just say that giving poor people money causes inflation. You said that giving poor people money causes the exact right amount of inflation to cancel out the money you give them. Where is the idea of this balance coming from other than it being theoretically convenient? Do you think society has some innate poverty rate that wage increases can never alter? If so, why is the US poverty rate higher than our peers like Canada, Germany, France, etc?
>That’s mostly true. But this is not a minimum wage increase. This is taking away the most valuable part of the paycheck: the part you need to survive. People aren’t going to work hard for $8 an hour if they’re taken care of by the government. It’s simply not worth it.
Do you make minimum wage? If not, why do you work as many hours as you do if you could be "taken care of" working less?
Most people don't work just to get the bare minimum to survive or else most people would be working a lot less.
>Also, basically any non trivial inflation is enough to make UBI not UBI because it’s supposed to be just enough to be liveable.
Peg UBI to inflation like minimum wage should be.
I did not say that. That statement is of course stupidly wrong. I said inflation would rise to the point at which a person with no assets cannot survive without working. That is not the same thing by a large margin.
> Do you make minimum wage? If not, why do you work as many hours as you do if you could be "taken care of" working less?
Marginal decrease in the utility of money. $100 is worth a lot if you’re broke, a good amount if you have $1000, and basically nothing if you have $1000000.
The logic of working extra hours to get extra cash is a function of how much money you have and how much money you will get. If you have enough money (income) to survive, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to work low end jobs for a trivial amount of money. You will not earn enough to accumulate meaningful savings. I might work extra hours on my job if it meant larger rewards. But not linear gains. Heck for me personally I’d rather work 20% less and earn 20% less.
Think about it. In scenario A the worker is being kept alive by doing his job. In Scenario B the worker gets $64 in disposable income. Do you think those are equally powerful incentives?
Of course they are not. The Scenario B worker needs more incentive to work as hard as the Scenario A worker. The classic “single mom working two jobs” isn’t going to maintain that lifestyle if she doesn’t need to.
Not that it’s ideal for a single mom to be working two jobs.
I’d much rather we simply raise the minimum wage and pay people to raise kids.
> Big tech monopolizing the models, data, and hardware.
This ought to create a neofeudalist society. This is really dangerous.
> Copyright concerns.
We create something if I know it'll be part of chatgpt and effectively replace me? This will affect creativity and critical thinking for sure.
> Job security.
Well, this one could really be problematic for everyone. We're talking about social unrest and revolts on a global scale.
> AIs becoming sentient and causing harm for their own ends.
We're not close to that but should be discussed since I saw on twitter someone stating that we need for "sentient" AIs.
> Corporations intentionally using AI to cause harm for their own ends.
Hand in hand with the first issue.
> Feedback loops will flood the internet with content of unknown provenance, which get included in the next model, etc.
> AI hallucinations resulting in widespread persistent errors that cause an epistemological crisis.
> The training set is inherently biased; human knowledge and perspectives not represented in this set could be systematically wiped from public discourse.
These three go together too. No trust whatsoever since you don't know if what you're reading is truth, etc... This would be the ideal for any government or politician, to commit unspeakable acts without any accountability since no one will trust anything on the internet.
This decade will define everything going forward for future generations. These topics are no joke.