4 ms·

The argument that AI will take all the job is commonly made, but I agree with you that it's a poor argument. Much more plausible and concerning, however, is th

The argument that AI will take all the job is commonly made, but I agree with you that it's a poor argument. Much more plausible and concerning, however, is that AI will stratify the labor force into 3 groups: highly-paid engineers (who manage the AI), highly-paid services job (i.e. doctors, lawyers, psychiatrist), and poorly-paid services job (i.e. barista). This stratification has already happened as our economy advances (you mentioned baristas---in the past, those workers could have earned middle class manufacturing wages). The wage distribution in the services sector nowadays looks like a dumbbell [1]. Wage stratification can lead to political stratification as poor people don't have the resources to fight for their rights. Political stratification can lead to further wage stratification, continuing the cycle. That's why I believe that it's important to deal with the AI threat, now. [1] https://seii.mit.edu/research/study/how-does-growth-in-the-u-s-service-sector-impact-labor-polarization/ https://seii.mit.edu/research/study/how-does-growth-in-the-u...

legitster 8y ago
I agree that wage stratification has already occurred, but I think AI will do nothing to make it worse than tech already did. It will do nothing to replace service workers or laborers. Again, it's only a threat to managers and decision makers.
- JackFaker 8y ago
  Many of the middle income jobs in the U.S seem vulnerable to automation. Professions like truck drivers, longshoreman and radiology techs that provide compensation between 40K and 70K could probably be mostly or completely automated in less than the span of a generation.
root_axis 8y ago
That seems like an arbitrary stratification. By the time AI is sophisticated enough to have significant ripple-effects throughout the economy, the "highly paid engineer" is going to be a tiny fraction of the labor force, akin to the hedge fund manager of today. Also, why do I need to hire a team of engineers when I can just spin up a few AWS AI instances.
- noobhacker 8y ago
  That's entirely possible. I'm thinking more about the labor force of the next 40-50 years. In 100 years (or however long it takes for AI to improve itself), engineers may also be obsolete.
cm2187 8y ago
Kind of like Marc Andreessen's "The spread of computers and the internet will put jobs in two categories: people who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do"
jfaucett 8y ago
> Much more plausible ... I disagree about stratification to a certain extent, that is, I only see 2 groups emerging. Here's my thinking. Highly paid service jobs will remain unscathed only in so far as they have regulatory barriers to entry i.e. someone has to have gone to medical school, be licensed by a community of medical professionals, etc, in order to practice medicine. This applies to lawyers, doctors, psychiatrist, teachers, professors, architects but notably not to software engineers, carpenters, plumbers, etc (note: this split depends on country specific laws). Those fields that can simply block out or control the rate of progress and labor supply will see the least disruption in terms of wages. Also note, that most of these "future stable" fields are occupations which are tied closest to governmental law and regulation and are occupied by the upper echelon of society. Occupations such as mail carrier, brick mason, railroad operator, gas station operator, steel worker, etc. which are currently well-paying middle class jobs, will evaporate over the coming decades in the face of innovation and automation due in large part to the absence of the ability to set arbitrary barriers to entry. Within this "unprotected" category of jobs, i.e. those which cannot write regulations in law to protect themselves, those will persist for which it is simply more economical to maintain the status quo. Perhaps, something like a barista, or a part-time McDonalds worker or something of that sort. For these job categories, even though it may be feasible to have an android pour peoples coffee and bring it to their table and ask them about their day, people may dislike the service and/or the cost of producing such a product may simply be too high for that particular occupation. This, I think, is how we should look at which job categories are more future / AI secure or not. Its at least the prediction metric I would use.

legitster 8y ago

I agree that wage stratification has already occurred, but I think AI will do nothing to make it worse than tech already did. It will do nothing to replace service workers or laborers. Again, it's only a threat to managers and decision makers.

JackFaker 8y ago
Many of the middle income jobs in the U.S seem vulnerable to automation. Professions like truck drivers, longshoreman and radiology techs that provide compensation between 40K and 70K could probably be mostly or completely automated in less than the span of a generation.

root_axis 8y ago

That seems like an arbitrary stratification. By the time AI is sophisticated enough to have significant ripple-effects throughout the economy, the "highly paid engineer" is going to be a tiny fraction of the labor force, akin to the hedge fund manager of today. Also, why do I need to hire a team of engineers when I can just spin up a few AWS AI instances.

noobhacker 8y ago
That's entirely possible. I'm thinking more about the labor force of the next 40-50 years. In 100 years (or however long it takes for AI to improve itself), engineers may also be obsolete.

cm2187 8y ago

Kind of like Marc Andreessen's "The spread of computers and the internet will put jobs in two categories: people who tell computers what to do, and people who are told by computers what to do"

jfaucett 8y ago

> Much more plausible ... I disagree about stratification to a certain extent, that is, I only see 2 groups emerging. Here's my thinking. Highly paid service jobs will remain unscathed only in so far as they have regulatory barriers to entry i.e. someone has to have gone to medical school, be licensed by a community of medical professionals, etc, in order to practice medicine. This applies to lawyers, doctors, psychiatrist, teachers, professors, architects but notably not to software engineers, carpenters, plumbers, etc (note: this split depends on country specific laws). Those fields that can simply block out or control the rate of progress and labor supply will see the least disruption in terms of wages. Also note, that most of these "future stable" fields are occupations which are tied closest to governmental law and regulation and are occupied by the upper echelon of society. Occupations such as mail carrier, brick mason, railroad operator, gas station operator, steel worker, etc. which are currently well-paying middle class jobs, will evaporate over the coming decades in the face of innovation and automation due in large part to the absence of the ability to set arbitrary barriers to entry. Within this "unprotected" category of jobs, i.e. those which cannot write regulations in law to protect themselves, those will persist for which it is simply more economical to maintain the status quo. Perhaps, something like a barista, or a part-time McDonalds worker or something of that sort. For these job categories, even though it may be feasible to have an android pour peoples coffee and bring it to their table and ask them about their day, people may dislike the service and/or the cost of producing such a product may simply be too high for that particular occupation. This, I think, is how we should look at which job categories are more future / AI secure or not. Its at least the prediction metric I would use.