12 ms·

See the lump of labor fallacy. There's not a fixed amount of work out there and automating one process might make another one cheaper / more efficient causing g

See the lump of labor fallacy. There's not a fixed amount of work out there and automating one process might make another one cheaper / more efficient causing growth in overall employment.

chongli 9y ago
Tell that to the horses whose jobs were replaced by machines and cars during the industrial revolution. Now what use do we have for them? Entertainment. That's it. I've often heard supporters of that so-called fallacy invoke the idea of humans maintaining and repairing robots. That's a pretty weak argument. Warren Bennis has the right of it: The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.
- andrewjl 9y ago
  You're comparing humans to horses, which isn't a good comparison in this case. It assumes they're both equally adaptable, except they're not, humans are infinitely more so.
  - chongli 9y ago
    Horses provided the muscle to replace human muscles in antiquity. Mechanical muscles (machines) replaced horses. Now we are building AI (mechanical minds). Is there any reason to believe AI won't eventually replace humans for all mental tasks? I can't see one.
    - andrewjl 9y ago
      Muscles are infinitely less complex than the mind. We still don't understand how the human brain works, what makes us conscious, and many other aspects of cognition. And we've been studying these for centuries. It's unrealistic to think we can simulate something we don't understand. BTW the same rhetoric was being said in the 80's regarding expert systems, as what folks are saying today about deep learning. In the former case expectations exceeded the result, and we got a decade long "AI winter". Why should this time be any different? IMO AI won't be capable of replacing humans for centuries, maybe millennia. I predict we'll progressively automate more and more routine activities via AI, freeing humans to focus on more creative / higher value activities while being more efficient. We got the same deal from the Industrial Revolution, which also brought us the vast levels of prosperity we enjoy today.
      - chongli 9y ago
        The difference is that the industrial revolution created tons of jobs that anyone could do. The AI revolution is going to leave only jobs that experts can do. Most people simple can't become experts. It's only going to take a few percentage points at the bottom of the income scale to create a crisis. Heck, we're already seeing that in countries like Greece and Spain. It's a cascade effect. If we don't solve the problems created by structural unemployment then we'll see our society collapse long, long before we see the very last job automated by AI.

See the lump of labor fallacy. There's not a fixed amount of work out there and automating one process might make another one cheaper / more efficient causing growth in overall employment.

chongli 9y ago

Tell that to the horses whose jobs were replaced by machines and cars during the industrial revolution. Now what use do we have for them? Entertainment. That's it. I've often heard supporters of that so-called fallacy invoke the idea of humans maintaining and repairing robots. That's a pretty weak argument. Warren Bennis has the right of it: The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment.

andrewjl 9y ago
You're comparing humans to horses, which isn't a good comparison in this case. It assumes they're both equally adaptable, except they're not, humans are infinitely more so.
- chongli 9y ago
  Horses provided the muscle to replace human muscles in antiquity. Mechanical muscles (machines) replaced horses. Now we are building AI (mechanical minds). Is there any reason to believe AI won't eventually replace humans for all mental tasks? I can't see one.
  - andrewjl 9y ago
    Muscles are infinitely less complex than the mind. We still don't understand how the human brain works, what makes us conscious, and many other aspects of cognition. And we've been studying these for centuries. It's unrealistic to think we can simulate something we don't understand. BTW the same rhetoric was being said in the 80's regarding expert systems, as what folks are saying today about deep learning. In the former case expectations exceeded the result, and we got a decade long "AI winter". Why should this time be any different? IMO AI won't be capable of replacing humans for centuries, maybe millennia. I predict we'll progressively automate more and more routine activities via AI, freeing humans to focus on more creative / higher value activities while being more efficient. We got the same deal from the Industrial Revolution, which also brought us the vast levels of prosperity we enjoy today.
    - chongli 9y ago
      The difference is that the industrial revolution created tons of jobs that anyone could do. The AI revolution is going to leave only jobs that experts can do. Most people simple can't become experts. It's only going to take a few percentage points at the bottom of the income scale to create a crisis. Heck, we're already seeing that in countries like Greece and Spain. It's a cascade effect. If we don't solve the problems created by structural unemployment then we'll see our society collapse long, long before we see the very last job automated by AI.