4 ms·

Same was true many times throughout the history. Why do people still pay musicians to play in live concerts when they could listen to a recording? Why do people

by p1esk 5y ago

Same was true many times throughout the history. Why do people still pay musicians to play in live concerts when they could listen to a recording? Why do people still watch other people play chess when they could watch two AIs play much better chess? Think long term. Eventually AI will be able to do most of human jobs. As a result, products and services will become cheaper. As a result, people will have to work less for a living. As a result, more people will be able to draw and paint for pleasure, and not necessarily to make a buck.

Bud 5y ago
There are a couple gigantic blind spots here: 1) AI appears to have approximately zero chance of making housing and food and other basic needs cheaper. 2) Artists WANT to make money for creating art, music, etc.
- emteycz 5y ago
  I'm working on applying this technology to housing as we speak, you're very wrong IMHO. Yeah some people are going to loose jobs over this, happens all the time. People are not isolated from the market, they function on it and need to take it into account.
bckr 5y ago
> As a result, products and services will become cheaper. As a result, people will have to work less for a living. I think we've seen this play out before and instead of reducing work, our standards of living increase and people keep working about the same amount. See e.g. the post industrial world where homemakers had to scrub clothes, then got machines to do the scrubbing, but subsequently had to clean the clothes more frequently. We might be able to reduce the overall amount of human work only through extremely successful social/political reforms similar to the ones that outlawed child labor and established the 40 hour work week. Assuming the technology will cause it to happen is bound to lead to disappointment.
badRNG 5y ago
> Think long term. Eventually AI will be able to do most of human jobs. As a result, products and services will become cheaper. As a result, people will have to work less for a living. As a result, more people will be able to draw and paint for pleasure, and not necessarily to make a buck. This is ahistorical. The fact is that you must at least seem to produce more market value than your total compensation in order for a company to hire you. There will simply be less people who make a "livable" wage while those who own these automations will become increasingly wealthy. Depending on how the market changes, there may also be increasing unemployment. But why would that matter? Unless unemployment gets too high, the market will continue to work as usual. There's simply no reason for the owners and inheritors of an increasingly automated economy to share the value increase with their workers. The worker's wages will be market-determined just as before. Perhaps if unemployment gets too high it will be in their interests to offer something like UBI, though no reason for anything beyond what's strictly necessary for the economy to function, and the minimum required to avoid excessive social turmoil.
- gbasin 5y ago
  Your claim is very theoretical. In practice, everyone in the world has grown increasingly wealthy, and unemployment levels are lower than ever.
  - ckw 5y ago
    In the United States, the labor force participation rate for men has been in secular decline since 1950 (and perhaps earlier—-the Fred data only goes back to 1948): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 For women, since about 2000: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 Combined: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART

by p1esk 5y ago

Bud 5y ago

There are a couple gigantic blind spots here: 1) AI appears to have approximately zero chance of making housing and food and other basic needs cheaper. 2) Artists WANT to make money for creating art, music, etc.

emteycz 5y ago
I'm working on applying this technology to housing as we speak, you're very wrong IMHO. Yeah some people are going to loose jobs over this, happens all the time. People are not isolated from the market, they function on it and need to take it into account.

bckr 5y ago

> As a result, products and services will become cheaper. As a result, people will have to work less for a living. I think we've seen this play out before and instead of reducing work, our standards of living increase and people keep working about the same amount. See e.g. the post industrial world where homemakers had to scrub clothes, then got machines to do the scrubbing, but subsequently had to clean the clothes more frequently. We might be able to reduce the overall amount of human work only through extremely successful social/political reforms similar to the ones that outlawed child labor and established the 40 hour work week. Assuming the technology will cause it to happen is bound to lead to disappointment.

badRNG 5y ago

> Think long term. Eventually AI will be able to do most of human jobs. As a result, products and services will become cheaper. As a result, people will have to work less for a living. As a result, more people will be able to draw and paint for pleasure, and not necessarily to make a buck. This is ahistorical. The fact is that you must at least seem to produce more market value than your total compensation in order for a company to hire you. There will simply be less people who make a "livable" wage while those who own these automations will become increasingly wealthy. Depending on how the market changes, there may also be increasing unemployment. But why would that matter? Unless unemployment gets too high, the market will continue to work as usual. There's simply no reason for the owners and inheritors of an increasingly automated economy to share the value increase with their workers. The worker's wages will be market-determined just as before. Perhaps if unemployment gets too high it will be in their interests to offer something like UBI, though no reason for anything beyond what's strictly necessary for the economy to function, and the minimum required to avoid excessive social turmoil.

gbasin 5y ago
Your claim is very theoretical. In practice, everyone in the world has grown increasingly wealthy, and unemployment levels are lower than ever.
- ckw 5y ago
  In the United States, the labor force participation rate for men has been in secular decline since 1950 (and perhaps earlier—-the Fred data only goes back to 1948): https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300001 For women, since about 2000: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LNS11300002 Combined: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/CIVPART