What forces act on this trend? How can we make predictions? An interesting metric, which tracks the aggregate of many complex factors is the distribution of wealth, which could be seen as proxy for the distribution of power or agency of a person in their society. Median income as a fraction of total wealth decreased nearly 50% in real terms over this same period. [3]
Now inversely, during the period where life quality increased most the last century (1920 - 1980) inequality was _falling_.
How is super-human AI advanced through 2030, 2040, 2050 likely to affect things? Will it sharpen the inequality or relax it?
With AI the cost of raw resources to products goes down, but it's likely inequality increases. It's not obvious which force has a bigger impact on human quality of life as things shake out. However, I think the strongest argument – which also explains the steady improvements in QoL through previous changes you mentioned – has been to follow inequality, or median share of power in society.
- [0] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp
- [1] https://www.socialprogress.org/social-progress-index
>- [0] https://www.numbeo.com/quality-of-life/indices_explained.jsp
It's hard to take that metric seriously when the top city is Raleigh, NC. If that were the best city you'd expect people to vote with their feet and move their in droves.
Once started lifespans in Manchester and London FELL compared to the countryside. Labor violence was intense with private security and death and violence.
Mechanization/railroads/industrially produced weapons allowed violence on a new level against native populations around the world. All industrial revolution deaths.
Great depression Americans wanting to work literally starved to death, 12.8% of maternal deaths were from septic abortion because woman had no access to doctors but couldn't afford a child. That was part of the 'transition' process post industrialization. Industrialization didn't guarantee better for them but it did take away subsistence farming as an option.
2 Industrial world wars enabling horrors never before seen. It took decades for nations to recover and ended in nuclear standoff.
We pretend like the 1880s blacksmith became a 1950s American suburbanite. They moved to shared housing in the city for poverty wages and a shorter lifespan, lost their fingers/arms in machines (because Industrial barons cared about safety as much as AI titans do) and ended up living on skid row, the section of town for failures who couldn't 'adapt' to the new modern industrial age world. Their children died in WW1 in a trench to industrial produced gas. Their children's children died storming a beach in WW2. And their children's children's children lived on meager 1940-60 diets as the world rebuilt it's food stocks destroyed by industrialized war, eating new industrial food replacements like margarine and SPAM (staples through the 1980s).
That all gets waived away with 'always worked to society's benefit'. It took almost 70 years and the post WW2 destruction of the rest of the worlds economies/infrastructure to create that 1950s American suburbanite world. 'always worked to society's benefit over the long term' is just handwaving not based on the reality of people's lives and the 100-200 million dead, the native populations forced at gunpoint to change their ways of life wanted or not on the way to today.
And because we now talk in AI speak with a weird ass final AI sounding point...and the thing is people/nations didn't even have a choice. Japan tried. But they were forced to 'modernize'. Once one nation passed through that door, every nation had to follow. Post industrial revolution those that didn't join in were all subjugated.
We have to be very careful about fallacies of division.
That's... just not remotely true, unless you're talking about it as a maybe-it-happened-to-someone story. In fact it's basically a lie.
Every income group in the US (and recognize that "blacksmiths" represent skilled trades workers who earned well above median and had for thousands of years!) saw huge, huge, HUGE increases between 1880 and 1950. I mean... are you high?
> It took almost 70 years and the post WW2 destruction of the rest of the worlds economies/infrastructure to create that 1950s American suburbanite world.
Again, big citation needed on this one. Western Europe was very close to US quality-of-life numbers by the 60's, and the more successful nations started to pass it in the 90's. (Also recognize that the US had already pulled ahead in the 30's, Germany and France were lagging even before the war). You're looking at something along the lines of a decade to rebuild, tops.
https://www.scienceandindustrymuseum.org.uk/objects-and-stor...
https://healthinnovationmanchester.com/cottonopolis-to-metro...
You don't think there are 70 years between 1880 and the end of WW2 and the real start of suburban American prosperity we think of when we think of the end results today? And I need a citation? Or are you saying I should use 1960 not 1950s as the point, since it took a decade to rebuild in much of the world?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Revolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb#Postwar_suburban_expans...
Or are you arguing that butter use recovered over margarine before the 1970s? https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2016/july/butter-and-ma...
Which is to say, you cherry picked the data rather than looking at aggregates. Manchester industrialization being terribly managed isn't an indictment of steel machining or electrification, it means the government fucked up.
What you are claiming (that the industrial revolution led to lower quality of life generally) is simply false, period. And it won't be true of AGImageddon either, no matter how deeply you believe it. Economics just doesn't work that way.
I picked THE Industrial Revolution city. THE CITY where it all happened. Did your high school not have a history class? I picked where it went wrong, the first go live site. That's what you do for analyzing things. You don't pick go live 500. That isn't cherry picking, that's what we do when we discuss scenarios that INITIALLY came up so they don't happen again. We don't just whitewash like you would like. I guess AI possibly being change on the level of the Industrial Revolution isn't worth you know, actual planning/discussion? Just hope and prayers that a Manchester doesn't happen again? Is that your idea of a plan?
I claimed the industrial revolution led to lower quality of life for the blacksmith. The modern narrative when talking about AI implies they just turned into 1950s style suburbanites and waives away any thought/planning/discussion like you are trying to do. The reality, as it factually happened, was a much worse life and it is worth considering when implementing something that could be just as impactful.
People like you want to just handwave away the inconvenient fact that I am more likely to be the blacksmith in Manchester than to be born in some post-work AI Utopia that may exist in 70 years after things settle. why can't we even discuss this? Why do we have to stumble blindly into it, to the point you call me a liar/cherry picker for pointing out basic history taught in high school and basic root cause analysis concepts?.
And all the same logic applies to AI. Do we need to be willing to re-regulate and adjust as this is deployed? Almost certainly. Will it make us all wealthier? Undeniably.
You didn't know basic level history, called me liar, then a cherry picker for using the gold standard example.
You might want to check yourself before you tell people to stop, call them liars, cherry pickers, or make claims. No need to mis-represent me. My point is that 70 years of upheaval prior to the modern version of the world get ignored in the discussion. My point is that original people impacted, the proverbial blacksmith or buggy whip maker that 'adapted' had worse, shorter lives because of adapting.
Over time with the speed of technological development compounding on itself, the rate of change becoming much more acute, there's a debate to happen on the "what if this change happens over 5-10 years"? Can you imagine a world where in 10 years most well-paid office jobs are automated away, there's no generational change to re-educate and employ people, there would be loads of unemployable people who were highly-specialised to a world that ceased to exist, metaphorically overnight in the span of a human life.
Pushing this concern away with "it happened in history and we're fine" leaves a lot of room for catastrophising, at least a measured discussion about this scenario needs to be had, just in case it happens in a way that our historical past couldn't account for. No need to be a doomer, nor a luddite, to have the discussion: can we be in any way prepared for this case?
[1] "Blacksmithing" didn't disappear, obviously, but it survives as an expert craft for luxury goods. That's sort of what's going to happen to "hacking" in the future, I suspect.
[2] Likewise, some of the best positions survived as "personal assistants" for executive staff too lazy to learn to type. Interestingly these positions are some of the first being destroyed by the OpenClaw nonsense.
The professional typist' role evolved - to serving through other ways, as you say - by become executive assistants. Much like a Bank Tellers' role also evolved.
And its not because they (executives) are too lazy to type. They actually need people to manage their calendar, monitor emails etc. Moreover, the personal computing revolution led to an expansion of firms that needed more of said people.
Could this be disrupted by things like OpenClaw? Maybe. Personally I doubt it. Trust is a huge element that LLMs have yet to overcome and may never over come. Its the same reason Apple pulled "Apple Intelligence". I know this place is full of doom and gloom, but I am not a SWE by trade so I can see the bigger picture and not get bogged down by the fact it might affect my income.
Moreover, work is more 'fun' with people around. So to you it may seem irrational to keep employed for that basis (call it Culture) but to others, and in particular the executive class - nope. People will start realising things like this once the hysteria dies down.
The "role" might have evolved, but the jobs disappeared. There are, what, maybe two or three orders of magnitude fewer "executive assistants" than there were typists in the 70's? I was making an argument about economics, not job classification.
Do we? I mean, isn't "because they always have" enough of an argument on its own?
I am hardly a libertarian ideologue nor AI-first LLM jockey. But I do think people tend to catastrophize too much. Blacksmiths were killed dead by the industrial revolution. "Secretary" is a forgotten art. It's been decades since an actuary actually calculated a sum on an actual table. And the apocalypse didn't arrive. All those jobs, and more, were backfilled by new stuff that was previously too expensive to contemplate. We're eating at more restaurants. We can find jobs as content creators and twitch streamers.
Life not only goes on after rapid technological change, it improves. That's not to say that every individual is going to appreciate it in the moment or that regulation and safety net work needs to happen at the margins. But, we'll all be fine.
AGImageddon is, at its core, just another economic phenomenon driven by technology. And that's basically always worked to society's benefit over the long term.