7 ms·

Disagree. AI will cause mass unemployment because it’s way more efficient than a human, doesn’t get sick (relatively less than humans) and costs less. Simple e

Disagree. AI will cause mass unemployment because it’s way more efficient than a human, doesn’t get sick (relatively less than humans) and costs less. Simple economics. I’ll give you one example. The checkout counters in supermarkets, if the supermarkets would have hired young people on those positions not only we might have less young people going towards drugs and hooliganism but it would have also made them better productive citizens as they gain skills in their teen years. Corporates need to understand that their greed for infinite profit will eventually create a singularity which will consume them one day. People without jobs buy less. May be we will finally get rid of the consumerism.

hezralig 4y ago
When capitalism gets to the point that it has rid itself of consumers, I fear it means it will get 'rid' of consumers.
BurningFrog 4y ago
We have replaced human labor with machines that are way more efficient than a human for 250 years now. Mass unemployment has always been feared as a result, and it has always not happened. I strongly expect trends to continue.
- frosted-flakes 4y ago
  Is that because we've always been able to specialise further? But is there an end point to that? We can only specialise so much.
- john_the_writer 4y ago
  The real difference is the pace. It took 20 years for self checkout to really catch on. It's not even fully there yet. It took months for Book and Magazine publishers to say. No more submissions please, we have enough content for a while. The winner of a massive photography comp in the US took no pictures, had no subjects and didn't write the back stories of his "subjects". He AI'd the lot.
  - tome 4y ago
    These sounds interesting. I’ve never heard about them. Could you share some references please?
- camillomiller 4y ago
  You’re applying what I would call the fallacy of scale. Your take is correct as long as these singularity happen at relative scales. We don’t know at all what happens when massive scale becomes a factor. Computers and the internet allowed virtualization and we now base our economies largely on virtualization and abstraction. That also means almost infinite replicability. In turn, infinite replicability allows levels of scale never before seen. Now we are at the verge of a large optimization of the economy at a level of scale that we have never ever experienced before. While I’m sure that in the time of a couple generations we would probably find ways to rewire our brains around the new AI normal like we did in the past, we will probably have to face an unemployment risk to a level we haven’t experienced so far. With inequalities growing, the question is if societies can grow through this phase unscathed, or if it will be enough of a critical mass and tipping point for partial or complete collapse.
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    I love this topic, maybe too much... Don't you think that a lot of what you're talking about depends on how people react to this technology and it's use? To ask another way, if everyone around you is in complete suffering and misery from "AI", we're all broke, hungry and miserable, maybe people will just not want to use AI and prefer to buy and trade services with other humans so that we maintain a nice quality of life? There is an assumption Silicon Valley is making here which is whether we like it or not, we're all going to have to give up everything, our money, careers, professions, lives and just use AI(tm) because they've made it and while economists will tell me I'm wrong, because "economies of scale etc", I'm certainly not going to trade everything, and everyone I know so I can get images cheaper than I can today from Getty Images. Maybe <Insert billionaires who control all the bots> will just build his own robocops who will come and make sure I do what I'm told, or maybe even just wipe me out completely for growing my own food and trading goods and services with others who are out of work, I don't know. But I just can't see humans, who still actually do have brains btw, to just roll over and let our lives descend into chaos over Clippy. Edit: I want to say that even to this day, I actually buy things from people who grow things locally etc just to support them rather than go to the grocer, I do this because I know it's doing some good for my community, I'll just be doing more of this in the future if people aren't working.
- 1letterunixname 4y ago
  Then you're blissfully unaware of the real labor participation rate and of gradual phenomena.
im3w1l 4y ago
> People without jobs buy less. I believe we can solve it by having robots buying the goods. They should be able to process it into trash just as well as a human could /s
herbst 4y ago
Good example actually. In Switzerland nearly every store has automated checkouts and depending on the local demographic more and more people are using them. There is one human supervising like 4-16 automated checkouts, or 1 open real checkout that keeps an eye on the machines. That is at least 2-3 workers less for every single store in the country in just the last few years.
- Slartie 4y ago
  You should also mention that one classic checkout line with an average-skilled worker is, in practice, easily as fast with regard to the "items processed per minute" metric as 4-8 self-checkouts where average-talented customers perform self checkout.
  - herbst 4y ago
    Interesting point, I haven't really thought about that yet.
mythrwy 4y ago
Cashierless checkout counters didn't really reduce labor though. They just shifted it from a paid cashier to buyers doing it for free.

hezralig 4y ago

When capitalism gets to the point that it has rid itself of consumers, I fear it means it will get 'rid' of consumers.

BurningFrog 4y ago

We have replaced human labor with machines that are way more efficient than a human for 250 years now. Mass unemployment has always been feared as a result, and it has always not happened. I strongly expect trends to continue.

frosted-flakes 4y ago
Is that because we've always been able to specialise further? But is there an end point to that? We can only specialise so much.
john_the_writer 4y ago
The real difference is the pace. It took 20 years for self checkout to really catch on. It's not even fully there yet. It took months for Book and Magazine publishers to say. No more submissions please, we have enough content for a while. The winner of a massive photography comp in the US took no pictures, had no subjects and didn't write the back stories of his "subjects". He AI'd the lot.
- tome 4y ago
  These sounds interesting. I’ve never heard about them. Could you share some references please?
camillomiller 4y ago
You’re applying what I would call the fallacy of scale. Your take is correct as long as these singularity happen at relative scales. We don’t know at all what happens when massive scale becomes a factor. Computers and the internet allowed virtualization and we now base our economies largely on virtualization and abstraction. That also means almost infinite replicability. In turn, infinite replicability allows levels of scale never before seen. Now we are at the verge of a large optimization of the economy at a level of scale that we have never ever experienced before. While I’m sure that in the time of a couple generations we would probably find ways to rewire our brains around the new AI normal like we did in the past, we will probably have to face an unemployment risk to a level we haven’t experienced so far. With inequalities growing, the question is if societies can grow through this phase unscathed, or if it will be enough of a critical mass and tipping point for partial or complete collapse.
- ChatGTP 4y ago
  I love this topic, maybe too much... Don't you think that a lot of what you're talking about depends on how people react to this technology and it's use? To ask another way, if everyone around you is in complete suffering and misery from "AI", we're all broke, hungry and miserable, maybe people will just not want to use AI and prefer to buy and trade services with other humans so that we maintain a nice quality of life? There is an assumption Silicon Valley is making here which is whether we like it or not, we're all going to have to give up everything, our money, careers, professions, lives and just use AI(tm) because they've made it and while economists will tell me I'm wrong, because "economies of scale etc", I'm certainly not going to trade everything, and everyone I know so I can get images cheaper than I can today from Getty Images. Maybe <Insert billionaires who control all the bots> will just build his own robocops who will come and make sure I do what I'm told, or maybe even just wipe me out completely for growing my own food and trading goods and services with others who are out of work, I don't know. But I just can't see humans, who still actually do have brains btw, to just roll over and let our lives descend into chaos over Clippy. Edit: I want to say that even to this day, I actually buy things from people who grow things locally etc just to support them rather than go to the grocer, I do this because I know it's doing some good for my community, I'll just be doing more of this in the future if people aren't working.
1letterunixname 4y ago
Then you're blissfully unaware of the real labor participation rate and of gradual phenomena.

im3w1l 4y ago

> People without jobs buy less. I believe we can solve it by having robots buying the goods. They should be able to process it into trash just as well as a human could /s

herbst 4y ago

Good example actually. In Switzerland nearly every store has automated checkouts and depending on the local demographic more and more people are using them. There is one human supervising like 4-16 automated checkouts, or 1 open real checkout that keeps an eye on the machines. That is at least 2-3 workers less for every single store in the country in just the last few years.

Slartie 4y ago
You should also mention that one classic checkout line with an average-skilled worker is, in practice, easily as fast with regard to the "items processed per minute" metric as 4-8 self-checkouts where average-talented customers perform self checkout.
- herbst 4y ago
  Interesting point, I haven't really thought about that yet.

mythrwy 4y ago

Cashierless checkout counters didn't really reduce labor though. They just shifted it from a paid cashier to buyers doing it for free.