4 ms·

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, an

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.
  - camillomiller 4y ago
    This is a good point but I’m not sure we can really compare the size and reach of what corporations can do with this tool with smaller circular and local economies driven by ethics. It’s again a problem of scale :)
    - ChatGTP 4y ago
      Do you honestly think corporations can just contain all AI research, know how etc? Keep those genies in those bottles forever? I highly doubt it.
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  My steelman of what you're saying is that "this time it's different" because this will be a much bigger change than the normal yearly loss of 2-4% of all jobs. I'd add that it's different in that it will hit us college educated professionals who are not at all used to this, instead of the usual blue collar industries. We as a group are not ready and will scream very very loudly if/when this happens :) It's important to remember that a society consumes as much as it produces. This is how "rich" it is in aggregate. And job losses like this come from being able to produce as much as before with fewer people. So even if no one finds a new job, the society is as rich as before. All experience is that those losing their jobs find/create new ones after an adjustment period. Maybe this adjustment period will be longer, but it will clear in time. Unless, of course, Eliezer is right and AI kills us all.
1letterunixname 4y ago
Then you're blissfully unaware of the real labor participation rate and of gradual phenomena.

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.
- camillomiller 4y ago
  This is a good point but I’m not sure we can really compare the size and reach of what corporations can do with this tool with smaller circular and local economies driven by ethics. It’s again a problem of scale :)
  - ChatGTP 4y ago
    Do you honestly think corporations can just contain all AI research, know how etc? Keep those genies in those bottles forever? I highly doubt it.
BurningFrog 4y ago
My steelman of what you're saying is that "this time it's different" because this will be a much bigger change than the normal yearly loss of 2-4% of all jobs. I'd add that it's different in that it will hit us college educated professionals who are not at all used to this, instead of the usual blue collar industries. We as a group are not ready and will scream very very loudly if/when this happens :) It's important to remember that a society consumes as much as it produces. This is how "rich" it is in aggregate. And job losses like this come from being able to produce as much as before with fewer people. So even if no one finds a new job, the society is as rich as before. All experience is that those losing their jobs find/create new ones after an adjustment period. Maybe this adjustment period will be longer, but it will clear in time. Unless, of course, Eliezer is right and AI kills us all.

1letterunixname 4y ago

Then you're blissfully unaware of the real labor participation rate and of gradual phenomena.