4 ms·

There's a difference between shifting labor around between sectors (e.g. moving agriculture jobs into manufacturing or new industries) and a situation in which,

by outlace 11y ago

There's a difference between shifting labor around between sectors (e.g. moving agriculture jobs into manufacturing or new industries) and a situation in which, almost instantaneously, every job that a human can do can be outdone by an AI. I think it would be naive to think the advent of superintelligent AI is comparable to relatively incremental advances of the industrial era.

bduerst 11y ago
This argument is back at the lump labor fallacy. With agricultural automation, the 30% change was filled mostly with new service jobs, not labor jobs. The same goes with A.I. automation - suddenly service jobs that were not possible before become possible. Jobs are not a zero-sum game.
- outlace 11y ago
  But any new job that is created can be done by the superintelligent AI, and better than humans. Even if somehow a million new service jobs are created, those jobs can be done better by an AI. So where does that leave humans? There would be no place for human labor if we cared about efficiency. Edit: I see superintelligent AI as not mere automation, but in effect creating an infinite supply of new labor. Humans are diluted out.
  - bduerst 11y ago
    Again, the types of jobs unlocked are not possible by A.I. because those are already filled. You're making the same zero sum fallacy. Also, the idea that this super intelligent A.I. can do everything is almost a god of the gaps fallacy. There are still many things that humans can do that a computer cannot.
    - outlace 11y ago
      Thanks for engaging. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument, I'm honestly still stuck on this point. It seems like you have a different understanding of what a super intelligent AI is. To me, that is when there is an AI with all the intellectual faculties of a human except with much faster processing speed and greatly enhanced memory. In this case, there would be nothing a human can do that cannot be done by such an AI (assuming you give some AIs a humanoid robot body). Perhaps the AI could help improve the human species so that we "catch up" to the AI in intellect. I don't see how this is anything like the God of the gaps fallacy, I'm not claiming AI created the universe or any other such claims.

by outlace 11y ago

bduerst 11y ago

This argument is back at the lump labor fallacy. With agricultural automation, the 30% change was filled mostly with new service jobs, not labor jobs. The same goes with A.I. automation - suddenly service jobs that were not possible before become possible. Jobs are not a zero-sum game.

outlace 11y ago
But any new job that is created can be done by the superintelligent AI, and better than humans. Even if somehow a million new service jobs are created, those jobs can be done better by an AI. So where does that leave humans? There would be no place for human labor if we cared about efficiency. Edit: I see superintelligent AI as not mere automation, but in effect creating an infinite supply of new labor. Humans are diluted out.
- bduerst 11y ago
  Again, the types of jobs unlocked are not possible by A.I. because those are already filled. You're making the same zero sum fallacy. Also, the idea that this super intelligent A.I. can do everything is almost a god of the gaps fallacy. There are still many things that humans can do that a computer cannot.
  - outlace 11y ago
    Thanks for engaging. I'm not trying to argue for the sake of argument, I'm honestly still stuck on this point. It seems like you have a different understanding of what a super intelligent AI is. To me, that is when there is an AI with all the intellectual faculties of a human except with much faster processing speed and greatly enhanced memory. In this case, there would be nothing a human can do that cannot be done by such an AI (assuming you give some AIs a humanoid robot body). Perhaps the AI could help improve the human species so that we "catch up" to the AI in intellect. I don't see how this is anything like the God of the gaps fallacy, I'm not claiming AI created the universe or any other such claims.