3 ms·

Something I never see answered in these discussions: What are the previous workers to do, those whose jobs were so simple that a properly configured AI can perf

Something I never see answered in these discussions: What are the previous workers to do, those whose jobs were so simple that a properly configured AI can perform it faster and better. Every other job that they would be capable of is just as likely to be replaced by another properly configured machine. If every possible tasks a person would be capable of handling can be solved by a specific machine in a better way then what should these people do? I am not talking about engineers or white collar workers. I'm talking about people who were unfortunately born with what I'd for a lack of a better word call "low IQ" though I know that the term and the science behind it is highly flawed. Currently, those persons are in the vast minority. Only a small percentile of the human population falls into this category. But as AI gets smarter, year over year, the minimal job requirement will grow. I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it.

agentultra 10y ago
First there's a slippery slope there. You presume that all menial tasks will be taken over by AI or robots. You also assume that some or all people who presently perform these menial tasks are not smart enough or capable of performing tasks beyond the menial ones. The problem I have with that is that economic and political forces often keep people, intelligent people, in menial jobs for no better reason than circumstance. There are plenty of smart, capable people with real passions for music or mathematics who are stuck filling forms in an office because they need to a job to pay the rent and bills. There are many ways they could have ended up at that job. But if they were given the opportunity to be free from that circumstance, what do you think they would do? If the economic output of the region is the same regardless, does it matter if they do nothing? I have a belief that people will find more productive things to do that they previously never could. > I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it. That's what I meant when I suggested we would need to shift our economic models away from the ideals set out by Max Weber. Criticisms about the formation of capitalism aside it traded serfdom for indentured servitude. It allowed us to transform our world and build great things... but I think it's time is nearing an end. But yet the greatest opponents to change are those with the most to lose. And they have quite a lot of money and power. update grammar.
CuriouslyC 10y ago
Life has had billions of years to evolve into an efficient system, from a thermodynamic standpoint. We may make AI backed robots that eclipse humans in terms of capabilities, but I strongly doubt we'll approach human price/performance ratio for highly varied tasks for a very long time, if ever. Positions that involve a wide variety of fairly simple but involved skills such as landscapers, mechanics, or maids will probably be around for a long time. Don't forget the fact that as other jobs are automated away, the supply of these sorts of laborers will increase, resulting in lower wages.
random_upvoter 10y ago
IMO programmers have got more to worry about the future of their job than bricklayers. It seems rather obvious to me that the job of software developer would be the first victim of advances in AI.

agentultra 10y ago

First there's a slippery slope there. You presume that all menial tasks will be taken over by AI or robots. You also assume that some or all people who presently perform these menial tasks are not smart enough or capable of performing tasks beyond the menial ones. The problem I have with that is that economic and political forces often keep people, intelligent people, in menial jobs for no better reason than circumstance. There are plenty of smart, capable people with real passions for music or mathematics who are stuck filling forms in an office because they need to a job to pay the rent and bills. There are many ways they could have ended up at that job. But if they were given the opportunity to be free from that circumstance, what do you think they would do? If the economic output of the region is the same regardless, does it matter if they do nothing? I have a belief that people will find more productive things to do that they previously never could. > I, personally, think that we have to accept that there'll be a world where not everybody will be able to have a job. And we should prepare for it. That's what I meant when I suggested we would need to shift our economic models away from the ideals set out by Max Weber. Criticisms about the formation of capitalism aside it traded serfdom for indentured servitude. It allowed us to transform our world and build great things... but I think it's time is nearing an end. But yet the greatest opponents to change are those with the most to lose. And they have quite a lot of money and power. update grammar.

CuriouslyC 10y ago

Life has had billions of years to evolve into an efficient system, from a thermodynamic standpoint. We may make AI backed robots that eclipse humans in terms of capabilities, but I strongly doubt we'll approach human price/performance ratio for highly varied tasks for a very long time, if ever. Positions that involve a wide variety of fairly simple but involved skills such as landscapers, mechanics, or maids will probably be around for a long time. Don't forget the fact that as other jobs are automated away, the supply of these sorts of laborers will increase, resulting in lower wages.

random_upvoter 10y ago

IMO programmers have got more to worry about the future of their job than bricklayers. It seems rather obvious to me that the job of software developer would be the first victim of advances in AI.