4 ms·

It's amazing how this keeps coming up and people keep try to make these arguments that there isn't really much to worry about in the long run, without looking a

It's amazing how this keeps coming up and people keep try to make these arguments that there isn't really much to worry about in the long run, without looking at this from the right perspective. 18th and 19th century didn't replace humans it replaced either animals or mechanisms (water-mills) or laborious human physical processes. The replacement we are looking at today is about replacing not just the solutions of the 18th and 19th century but about replacing human laborious intellectual processes. In the 18th and 19th century you could still point to the human mind and say well at least they can't do that. But this is now an argument that is becoming less and less true. What a lot of people who try to claim automation isn't doing anything to jobs forget that most jobs doesn't actually require the whole human being they only require parts of what a human can do. A job is a function in a process even some of those who seem to require the whole human (like experts) The real way to look at this is too look at what types of jobs requires general human intelligence and which ones require specialized human knowledge or intelligence and what we find is that the cleaning lady is more likely to keep her job for a while while the radiologis function in the process of detection can be compressed into much fewer (and almost none in the long run) people. And compression is IMO the right way to think about the job market and why it's going to be less and less an area that humans are going to have any dealing with. In other words automation is about replacing higher and higher levels of abstractions. I don't know of any level beyond human intellect and that is why you can't make comparison with 18th or 19th century progress. The last people to listen to IMO are the economist as they treat technology as an externality when it's really at the core the job market discussion. Sure we might end up in some post scarcity society but getting there needs serious attention as it affects how we tax, where we tax, who we tax and to what extent. Currently politicians listen to economist, they need to listen to technologist way more.

dzdt 9y ago
Yes, this. As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish. This is analagous to the fate of horses after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. Most everyone on this site has the education and skills to stay ahead of the AI revolution for some time. But many other people already have fallen behind. If the only things you know how to do can be done by machines at less cost than a living wage, then what hope do you have to compete?
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  > As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish. Empirical data shows the opposite. Machines have been getting more capable for at least 100 years, and job creation has soared. Even if you just look at a snapshot of data from today, the societies with the most capable machines are also the societies with the best standards of living and lowest unemployment rates.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    No thats not what empirical data is showing. You need to account for a couple of really really important factors. 1) Population growth 2) Globalization 3) Technological acceleration 4) Cost of switching to automation 5) Monetary policies to keep economy going 6) The way employment are measured Unemployment rates aren't what you think they are. In the US 95% of the jobs created since 2010 are temp jobs not actual structurally solid jobs. Furthermore the wages are stagnating while the cost of living is soaring. So you are looking at this from the wrong angel. Empirical data all points to the fact that humans in normal jobs makes less and less money because their role as a function of the given industry are diminishing. Only a small group of people actually experience growth (and accelerating too).
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
danans 9y ago
Long before the human intellect is replaced, technology will make the individual human intellect far more productive, which will itself reduce demand for employment in certain niches. The canonical example I recall is junior legal discovery lawyers who used to pore over paper documents. Such routine tasks are automated and a smaller number of more senior lawyers who do the work of integration and interpretation. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-art... https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-...
remir 9y ago
I agree. Our past references don't apply anymore and this is what people need to understand.
snowwrestler 9y ago
The importance of human intelligence to a functioning economy is overrated. Humans are social animals; we are each interested in ourselves, and interested in each other. It was true before we developed intelligence and it remains true today. We want to be healthy, socially connected, and entertained; we can never get enough of those. And they can't be automated--a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you. There is no reason to doubt that an economy that is 30% health care, 30% social communications, 30% entertainment, and 10% everything else, can work. Or even an economy that is 99% entertainment, and 1% everything else. Comparing today to even just 200 years ago, we're already well on our way.
- edanm 9y ago
  "[...] a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you." You're right of course, but you're not addressing an actual argument. No one is saying that. What people are talking about are AI's replacing doctor's and other health care professionals, replacing Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry, etc. We as consumers could still be consuming all of these things, but that says nothing about who is producing it.
  - snowwrestler 9y ago
    You can't replace Hollywood with AI because the whole point of entertainment is that it is about humans. You have to have humans making entertainment or it is not entertaining. I'll give you an example: people still watch bicycle racing. We all know a motorcycle is more advanced technology that could easily beat any human on a bike. So what did we do? We invented rules out of thin air that exclude motorcycles, just so that we can keep watching humans agonizingly grind their way up a mountain on a bike. Because we find that entertaining. There's motorcycle racing too of course but again--who's on the back of the motorcycle? A long-held concern is that we'll get rid of all the old jobs, but no new jobs will be created. My point is that even in an economy in which all physical needs are provided for free, there will still be plenty of reasons to create new jobs.
    - ThomPete 9y ago

dzdt 9y ago

Yes, this. As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish. This is analagous to the fate of horses after the introduction of the internal combustion engine. Most everyone on this site has the education and skills to stay ahead of the AI revolution for some time. But many other people already have fallen behind. If the only things you know how to do can be done by machines at less cost than a living wage, then what hope do you have to compete?

snowwrestler 9y ago
> As machines get more capable, the economic role of humans diminish. Empirical data shows the opposite. Machines have been getting more capable for at least 100 years, and job creation has soared. Even if you just look at a snapshot of data from today, the societies with the most capable machines are also the societies with the best standards of living and lowest unemployment rates.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  No thats not what empirical data is showing. You need to account for a couple of really really important factors. 1) Population growth 2) Globalization 3) Technological acceleration 4) Cost of switching to automation 5) Monetary policies to keep economy going 6) The way employment are measured Unemployment rates aren't what you think they are. In the US 95% of the jobs created since 2010 are temp jobs not actual structurally solid jobs. Furthermore the wages are stagnating while the cost of living is soaring. So you are looking at this from the wrong angel. Empirical data all points to the fact that humans in normal jobs makes less and less money because their role as a function of the given industry are diminishing. Only a small group of people actually experience growth (and accelerating too).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

danans 9y ago

Long before the human intellect is replaced, technology will make the individual human intellect far more productive, which will itself reduce demand for employment in certain niches. The canonical example I recall is junior legal discovery lawyers who used to pore over paper documents. Such routine tasks are automated and a smaller number of more senior lawyers who do the work of integration and interpretation. https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-artificial-intelligence.html https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/03/19/technology/lawyers-art... https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-smarter-machines-cause-mass-unemployment-automation-and-anxiety https://www.economist.com/news/special-report/21700758-will-...

remir 9y ago

I agree. Our past references don't apply anymore and this is what people need to understand.

snowwrestler 9y ago

The importance of human intelligence to a functioning economy is overrated. Humans are social animals; we are each interested in ourselves, and interested in each other. It was true before we developed intelligence and it remains true today. We want to be healthy, socially connected, and entertained; we can never get enough of those. And they can't be automated--a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you. There is no reason to doubt that an economy that is 30% health care, 30% social communications, 30% entertainment, and 10% everything else, can work. Or even an economy that is 99% entertainment, and 1% everything else. Comparing today to even just 200 years ago, we're already well on our way.

edanm 9y ago
"[...] a robot can't be healthy for you, or feel emotions for you." You're right of course, but you're not addressing an actual argument. No one is saying that. What people are talking about are AI's replacing doctor's and other health care professionals, replacing Hollywood and the rest of the entertainment industry, etc. We as consumers could still be consuming all of these things, but that says nothing about who is producing it.
- snowwrestler 9y ago
  You can't replace Hollywood with AI because the whole point of entertainment is that it is about humans. You have to have humans making entertainment or it is not entertaining. I'll give you an example: people still watch bicycle racing. We all know a motorcycle is more advanced technology that could easily beat any human on a bike. So what did we do? We invented rules out of thin air that exclude motorcycles, just so that we can keep watching humans agonizingly grind their way up a mountain on a bike. Because we find that entertaining. There's motorcycle racing too of course but again--who's on the back of the motorcycle? A long-held concern is that we'll get rid of all the old jobs, but no new jobs will be created. My point is that even in an economy in which all physical needs are provided for free, there will still be plenty of reasons to create new jobs.
  - ThomPete 9y ago