15 ms·

Gregory Clark's work on tracking English class mobility in the 1700s-1900 (The Son Also Rises & A Farewell to Alms) indicates that this isn't the first time thi

Gregory Clark's work on tracking English class mobility in the 1700s-1900 (The Son Also Rises & A Farewell to Alms) indicates that this isn't the first time this has happened (ie, the obsolescence of a large portion of the labor force), and that it's possible to manage the transition with a fairly minimal amount of law enforcement resources.

ZenoArrow 10y ago
This time it's different. Our most valuable asset as workers is our minds, if AI can make inroads into white-collar work as well as blue-collar and pink-collar work, what will be left for humans to do? We're not just talking about low-skilled workers losing their jobs, we're also looking at previously safe jobs like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc... due to be facing very strong competition from the growth of AI (both in terms of cost and aptitude). If we do continue to work, the only scenario that makes any sense to me is if we do work for self-satisfaction rather than need. There's still going to be enjoyment to be had in refining skills and pursuing goals.
- schrodinger 10y ago
  I don't think we're anywhere near doctors and lawyers losing their jobs to automation. It's mostly lower class jobs.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I'd recommend watching this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
  - SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
    I would argue that we're already at the point where the law industry has begun shedding paralegals and clerks because of technology, and that we'll see this rapidly accelerate, followed by AI beginning to take over the work of lawyers as such, with only a few humans overseeing the AI teams. The medical industry is likewise on the cusp of beginning to have AI assisted diagnosis, which will put a dent in the number of doctors needed for routine check-ups and supervising patient care, eg, overseeing a course of chemo (in that a single doctor will be able to oversee more cases with AI doing the heavy lifting and the human merely verifying its conclusions). The problem with AI isn't that it's going to get rid of all the people in any industry -- it's that it's going to get rid of 90% of them, skewed towards the lower skilled and entry level positions. If this happens across enough industries at the same time, it's a question of what the less talented and younger will do to be part of the economy.
    - DougWebb 10y ago
      For the medical industry, it's not the doctors that are ripe for being automated away; it's all of the administrative assistants managing paperwork and offices. If the mess that's today's US medical records, billing systems, and insurance ever gets straightened out, it can all be reduced down to a data-entry system that the doctor uses directly while interacting with patients. Just about everything else could be automated.
  - stevetrewick 10y ago
    Actually-and perhaps surprisingly-a sizeable swathe of doctors are directly in the firing line for automation and have been for some time[0]. Medical and legal expert systems have been an AI research goal from the very beginning. Economically speaking, it may make sense to automate high cost labour sooner than low cost. [0] https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=uGnoV6-AC8eVUaq4goAH&q=ai+outperforms+doctors&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41l3.0.0.0.3182.1.1.0.1.1.0.67.67.1.1.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-hp..0.1.12.3.BgvgAtbjTys https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=uGnoV6-AC...
- h4nkoslo 10y ago
  A peasant's most valuable asset was his mind as well; you have to go pretty far down the curve before you find a worker's manual labor power output to be their most valuable asset (oxen are usually cheaper) or where obvious mental retardation isn't a disadvantage. The historical solution (eg in the context of manorialism) was that if you couldn't afford to have a family, you didn't (and if you did, the kid got shunted into a monastery or the equivalent and was prevented from reproducing), so the "surplus" peasant population effectively shrank, and the English lower classes ended up being the descendants of downwardly-mobile gentry, who mostly found employment in different sectors. That solution breaks down in the context of modern welfare systems.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    > "A peasant's most valuable asset was his mind as well" All jobs require a certain level of intelligence to do, that much is true, but the call for creative thinking does vary from job to job, and there are plenty of jobs that are largely repetitive. As for the historical solution, I'm sure UBI and population control aren't mutually exclusive, though I don't think it'll ever fly that population control only applies to the poor, if it's going to happen it should be applied across the board (i.e. to the rich too). This has the added benefit of making it in everyone's interests to find better solutions to overpopulation than forcing people not to have kids (it should ideally be voluntary if it's ever needed).

ZenoArrow 10y ago

This time it's different. Our most valuable asset as workers is our minds, if AI can make inroads into white-collar work as well as blue-collar and pink-collar work, what will be left for humans to do? We're not just talking about low-skilled workers losing their jobs, we're also looking at previously safe jobs like doctors, lawyers, accountants, etc... due to be facing very strong competition from the growth of AI (both in terms of cost and aptitude). If we do continue to work, the only scenario that makes any sense to me is if we do work for self-satisfaction rather than need. There's still going to be enjoyment to be had in refining skills and pursuing goals.

schrodinger 10y ago
I don't think we're anywhere near doctors and lawyers losing their jobs to automation. It's mostly lower class jobs.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I'd recommend watching this. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
- SomeStupidPoint 10y ago
  I would argue that we're already at the point where the law industry has begun shedding paralegals and clerks because of technology, and that we'll see this rapidly accelerate, followed by AI beginning to take over the work of lawyers as such, with only a few humans overseeing the AI teams. The medical industry is likewise on the cusp of beginning to have AI assisted diagnosis, which will put a dent in the number of doctors needed for routine check-ups and supervising patient care, eg, overseeing a course of chemo (in that a single doctor will be able to oversee more cases with AI doing the heavy lifting and the human merely verifying its conclusions). The problem with AI isn't that it's going to get rid of all the people in any industry -- it's that it's going to get rid of 90% of them, skewed towards the lower skilled and entry level positions. If this happens across enough industries at the same time, it's a question of what the less talented and younger will do to be part of the economy.
  - DougWebb 10y ago
    For the medical industry, it's not the doctors that are ripe for being automated away; it's all of the administrative assistants managing paperwork and offices. If the mess that's today's US medical records, billing systems, and insurance ever gets straightened out, it can all be reduced down to a data-entry system that the doctor uses directly while interacting with patients. Just about everything else could be automated.
- stevetrewick 10y ago
  Actually-and perhaps surprisingly-a sizeable swathe of doctors are directly in the firing line for automation and have been for some time[0]. Medical and legal expert systems have been an AI research goal from the very beginning. Economically speaking, it may make sense to automate high cost labour sooner than low cost. [0] https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=uGnoV6-AC8eVUaq4goAH&q=ai+outperforms+doctors&oq=&gs_l=mobile-gws-hp.1.0.41l3.0.0.0.3182.1.1.0.1.1.0.67.67.1.1.0....0...1c..64.mobile-gws-hp..0.1.12.3.BgvgAtbjTys https://www.google.co.uk/search?site=&source=hp&ei=uGnoV6-AC...
h4nkoslo 10y ago
A peasant's most valuable asset was his mind as well; you have to go pretty far down the curve before you find a worker's manual labor power output to be their most valuable asset (oxen are usually cheaper) or where obvious mental retardation isn't a disadvantage. The historical solution (eg in the context of manorialism) was that if you couldn't afford to have a family, you didn't (and if you did, the kid got shunted into a monastery or the equivalent and was prevented from reproducing), so the "surplus" peasant population effectively shrank, and the English lower classes ended up being the descendants of downwardly-mobile gentry, who mostly found employment in different sectors. That solution breaks down in the context of modern welfare systems.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  > "A peasant's most valuable asset was his mind as well" All jobs require a certain level of intelligence to do, that much is true, but the call for creative thinking does vary from job to job, and there are plenty of jobs that are largely repetitive. As for the historical solution, I'm sure UBI and population control aren't mutually exclusive, though I don't think it'll ever fly that population control only applies to the poor, if it's going to happen it should be applied across the board (i.e. to the rich too). This has the added benefit of making it in everyone's interests to find better solutions to overpopulation than forcing people not to have kids (it should ideally be voluntary if it's ever needed).