6 ms·

The analogy is between AI and the sun. Just as the sun provides free labor and puts candle-makers out of a job, AI will soon provide free labor and put humans w

The analogy is between AI and the sun. Just as the sun provides free labor and puts candle-makers out of a job, AI will soon provide free labor and put humans working in industry X out of a job. Bastiat's argument is that there will be a net benefit to humanity from such free labor effects.

musicale 4y ago
> The analogy is between AI and the sun The sun is owned and operated by corporations for their own benefit?
simonebrunozzi 4y ago
The problem is whether the then-candlemakers, or today's knowledge workers, will be out of a job, or not. In his other recent newsletter post, Marc Andreessen actually claims that AI will not cause unemployment [0]. [0]: https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-wont-cause-unemployment https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-wont-cause-unemployment
- tapland 4y ago
  A ton of jobs have become obsolete. The candlemaker did lose his job to technology. It’s not obvious that other sectors will be there to offer them a new one, so the fear is justified.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    I believe that candles weren't cheap. I honestly wonder if we have fewer candlemakers as a percent of the population now as we did, if not in 1845, then in 1345?
  - jprete 4y ago
    I agree, and it’s not even easy to switch careers. Retraining for some other work means learning a lot of new knowledge and skills, with a body and brain that are not nearly as good as they were at 20. The worker also takes a huge loss in income and status by starting again from the bottom. All this assumes that they even succeed at the change.
- nicoburns 4y ago
  More generally, the problem is how the profits from the saved labour are shared around society. That distribution need not necessarily be distributed in return for labour.
  - LewisVerstappen 4y ago
    > the problem is how the profits from the saved labour are shared around society Not really. You can take an Econ 101 class to see that high profits will lead to more competition which leads to lowering of prices... which kills the excess profits and results in higher consumer surplus. There are scenarios of market failures, where you might have a monopolistic entity but we have safety checks for that too with anti-trust policy.
    - nhchris 4y ago
      > we have safety checks for that too with anti-trust policy. Yeah I remember when Microsoft came perilously close to dominating the desktop OS market and using that dominance to push their other products, like their suite of Office software. Fortunately the safety checks of anti-trust policy kicked in and they were forced to break up the company to prevent such abuses from happening in the future. The same thing routinely happens when ISP, TV, and media companies merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#Existing_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#Existing_programs https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consolidation/ https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consoli...
    - nicoburns 4y ago
      Ok, perhaps I was not precise in my terminology. The problem is how that consumer surplus will be distributed. And whether those who lose their jobs are able to find an alternative source of income. If consumer goods are cheaper, but people are still unable to afford them because they no longer have an income (or a greatly reduced one) then we still have a problem.
- dan-robertson 4y ago
  Obviously it’s in his interests to write that. There’s likely some trivial sense where it’s true but there are always jobs being destroyed in some parts and created in others. Ignoring that sense, I think it’s a reasonable opinion to hold today, even if it turns out to be wrong. Fun fact: there are more bank tellers in America now than when ATMs were invented.
  - anonymouskimmer 4y ago
    > Fun fact: there are more bank tellers in America now than when ATMs were invented. Proportionate to the population?
    - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
      Yes. At least, that’s ostensibly how things were right-up until the mid-2000s when online banking (and then covid) upended retail banking - but the general gist of the story is: The introduction of ATMs meant that a branch could be operated by far fewer people than before, which reduces their operating costs - but more importantly: the investment or business risk involved in opening a new branch in the first place. Where previously a branch could only be opened in a city with a population big enough to supply, say, 10 branch employees, after the introduction of ATMs it becomes possible to open far more branches in more cities and locations as only, say, 3 people, would be needed to run it. So previously there would be a smaller number of larger branches, now there’s a larger number of smaller branches, but more people employee overall.
anonymouskimmer 4y ago
To the extent AI fills in for a deficit of labor then the comparison to Bastiat is apt (for this is how candles and lantern oils were always used, for when the 'labor' of the Sun went away). To the extent AI replaces available labor, then I'm not so sure. It may effectively be what Bastiat was sarcastically calling for here: "First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?" The parallel does not align. Ludditism and import restriction come from differing motivations, even when they call for the same actions. If AI is cheaper than human labor, AI will be preferred by industry. When human labor is cheaper than AI (such as free help from a friend or neighbor), then human labor will be preferred. But sunlight is almost always preferred to candlelight or lamp light.
operatingthetan 4y ago
Why are the concerns always 'will this fire people?' instead of 'how much of a multiplier will this be for a person?' Should maintaining the status quo of work be our first concern?
- idontwantthis 4y ago
  The Luddites did not want to ban progress - they wanted to be compensated with a portion of the increased revenues from automation. They weren't crazy, the world is.
- dccoolgai 4y ago
  We are concerned with it precisely because when the concern is "how much more productive one person can be", the wealth created by that production is invariably captured by the global elite and used to inflict misery and ruin on everyone else. Rise up and be manipulated and crucified by people like Stalin. Stay your hand and have it chewed off by people like Musk, or have toxic chemicals dumped in your back yard like in East Palestine. It's been that way since the industrial revolution.
- weard_beard 4y ago
  Given how they mock monopoly, If the tallow makers of France saw what we had done to capitalism they might fear our barons of industry would charge for sunlight or blot it out. Universal human good appears on no financial report nor ballot sheet or any other objective of the mass of human work on the face of the earth (except perhaps a byline in a shrinking church or fraternal order). If new suns are in store, how exactly are we to organize its distribution and protect its fertility? What commons has not been spoiled? What resource has not been extracted and hoarded? The black gold of AI will be pumped from ground to mingle with the water of art and truth and community and education and as sure as such extraction has polluted the land it will sully our minds and squeeze our wallets.
- InvaderFizz 4y ago
  Because the losses are concentrated and the gains are dispersed. The total economy will be drastically better off with AI and robots to do more work for us, but a small overall fraction will see the greatest losses in employment and employability. It's the illegal immigration debate all over again. Economically, they are a boon to the US economy over the long term. If you are low skilled or in other industries where you are competing with those migrants, it sucks for you. For everyone else, it is great. (Speaking purely from the standpoint of bringing in workers in their prime working years, ignoring cultural or other issues that arise with concentrations of out groups)
28304283409234 4y ago
Except the sun is not owned by investors with ulterior motives.

musicale 4y ago

> The analogy is between AI and the sun The sun is owned and operated by corporations for their own benefit?

simonebrunozzi 4y ago

The problem is whether the then-candlemakers, or today's knowledge workers, will be out of a job, or not. In his other recent newsletter post, Marc Andreessen actually claims that AI will not cause unemployment [0]. [0]: https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-wont-cause-unemployment https://pmarca.substack.com/p/why-ai-wont-cause-unemployment

tapland 4y ago
A ton of jobs have become obsolete. The candlemaker did lose his job to technology. It’s not obvious that other sectors will be there to offer them a new one, so the fear is justified.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  I believe that candles weren't cheap. I honestly wonder if we have fewer candlemakers as a percent of the population now as we did, if not in 1845, then in 1345?
- jprete 4y ago
  I agree, and it’s not even easy to switch careers. Retraining for some other work means learning a lot of new knowledge and skills, with a body and brain that are not nearly as good as they were at 20. The worker also takes a huge loss in income and status by starting again from the bottom. All this assumes that they even succeed at the change.
nicoburns 4y ago
More generally, the problem is how the profits from the saved labour are shared around society. That distribution need not necessarily be distributed in return for labour.
- LewisVerstappen 4y ago
  > the problem is how the profits from the saved labour are shared around society Not really. You can take an Econ 101 class to see that high profits will lead to more competition which leads to lowering of prices... which kills the excess profits and results in higher consumer surplus. There are scenarios of market failures, where you might have a monopolistic entity but we have safety checks for that too with anti-trust policy.
  - nhchris 4y ago
    > we have safety checks for that too with anti-trust policy. Yeah I remember when Microsoft came perilously close to dominating the desktop OS market and using that dominance to push their other products, like their suite of Office software. Fortunately the safety checks of anti-trust policy kicked in and they were forced to break up the company to prevent such abuses from happening in the future. The same thing routinely happens when ISP, TV, and media companies merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#Existing_programs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating#Existing_programs https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consolidation/ https://fortune.com/longform/media-company-ownership-consoli...
  - nicoburns 4y ago
    Ok, perhaps I was not precise in my terminology. The problem is how that consumer surplus will be distributed. And whether those who lose their jobs are able to find an alternative source of income. If consumer goods are cheaper, but people are still unable to afford them because they no longer have an income (or a greatly reduced one) then we still have a problem.
dan-robertson 4y ago
Obviously it’s in his interests to write that. There’s likely some trivial sense where it’s true but there are always jobs being destroyed in some parts and created in others. Ignoring that sense, I think it’s a reasonable opinion to hold today, even if it turns out to be wrong. Fun fact: there are more bank tellers in America now than when ATMs were invented.
- anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  > Fun fact: there are more bank tellers in America now than when ATMs were invented. Proportionate to the population?
  - DaiPlusPlus 4y ago
    Yes. At least, that’s ostensibly how things were right-up until the mid-2000s when online banking (and then covid) upended retail banking - but the general gist of the story is: The introduction of ATMs meant that a branch could be operated by far fewer people than before, which reduces their operating costs - but more importantly: the investment or business risk involved in opening a new branch in the first place. Where previously a branch could only be opened in a city with a population big enough to supply, say, 10 branch employees, after the introduction of ATMs it becomes possible to open far more branches in more cities and locations as only, say, 3 people, would be needed to run it. So previously there would be a smaller number of larger branches, now there’s a larger number of smaller branches, but more people employee overall.

anonymouskimmer 4y ago

To the extent AI fills in for a deficit of labor then the comparison to Bastiat is apt (for this is how candles and lantern oils were always used, for when the 'labor' of the Sun went away). To the extent AI replaces available labor, then I'm not so sure. It may effectively be what Bastiat was sarcastically calling for here: "First, if you shut off as much as possible all access to natural light, and thereby create a need for artificial light, what industry in France will not ultimately be encouraged?" The parallel does not align. Ludditism and import restriction come from differing motivations, even when they call for the same actions. If AI is cheaper than human labor, AI will be preferred by industry. When human labor is cheaper than AI (such as free help from a friend or neighbor), then human labor will be preferred. But sunlight is almost always preferred to candlelight or lamp light.

operatingthetan 4y ago

Why are the concerns always 'will this fire people?' instead of 'how much of a multiplier will this be for a person?' Should maintaining the status quo of work be our first concern?

idontwantthis 4y ago
The Luddites did not want to ban progress - they wanted to be compensated with a portion of the increased revenues from automation. They weren't crazy, the world is.
dccoolgai 4y ago
We are concerned with it precisely because when the concern is "how much more productive one person can be", the wealth created by that production is invariably captured by the global elite and used to inflict misery and ruin on everyone else. Rise up and be manipulated and crucified by people like Stalin. Stay your hand and have it chewed off by people like Musk, or have toxic chemicals dumped in your back yard like in East Palestine. It's been that way since the industrial revolution.
weard_beard 4y ago
Given how they mock monopoly, If the tallow makers of France saw what we had done to capitalism they might fear our barons of industry would charge for sunlight or blot it out. Universal human good appears on no financial report nor ballot sheet or any other objective of the mass of human work on the face of the earth (except perhaps a byline in a shrinking church or fraternal order). If new suns are in store, how exactly are we to organize its distribution and protect its fertility? What commons has not been spoiled? What resource has not been extracted and hoarded? The black gold of AI will be pumped from ground to mingle with the water of art and truth and community and education and as sure as such extraction has polluted the land it will sully our minds and squeeze our wallets.
InvaderFizz 4y ago
Because the losses are concentrated and the gains are dispersed. The total economy will be drastically better off with AI and robots to do more work for us, but a small overall fraction will see the greatest losses in employment and employability. It's the illegal immigration debate all over again. Economically, they are a boon to the US economy over the long term. If you are low skilled or in other industries where you are competing with those migrants, it sucks for you. For everyone else, it is great. (Speaking purely from the standpoint of bringing in workers in their prime working years, ignoring cultural or other issues that arise with concentrations of out groups)

28304283409234 4y ago

Except the sun is not owned by investors with ulterior motives.