4 ms·

I'm sure secretaries had similar thoughts about the arrival of personal computers. Yet, few would argue that computers have made the world a worse place. The tr

I'm sure secretaries had similar thoughts about the arrival of personal computers. Yet, few would argue that computers have made the world a worse place. The truth is people will do less work, or it will feel like it. Most of our ancestors did not have the comfortable software jobs we have today. Life will become easier, products and services will become more abundant. Of course, the transition will be harder for those who refuse to adapt and resist change. It'll be interesting to see what happens when AI truly surpasses human level intelligence, as in, being able to completely replace human jobs, but we're not there yet. It's likely that when we reach that stage, the world will change dramatically and we will either live lives of abundance and leisure or face extinction :)

jwestbury 4y ago
> we will either live lives of abundance and leisure or face extinction Third option, the workers no longer control the means of production, and we see levels of inequality that make the railroad barons look like they were middle class.
- olalonde 4y ago
  I doubt this third option exists. If the AI(s) lack empathy for us and we are useless to them, they will either exterminate us directly, or indirectly by denying us resources. If they have empathy for us, they will probably let us live good lives. I doubt we will be useful to them, so I doubt there is a scenario where we live miserable lives working for the AI(s).
  - anon7725 4y ago
    It’s happening now with closed AI models. The era of open computing may be ending. The models are essentially a new type of computer and they will remain fundamentally closed, accessible only through an API.
  - freeone3000 4y ago
    It’s not the AIs who are in charge, it’s rich humans.
    - olalonde 4y ago
      By super intelligent, I meant AIs that have a will of their own. In the meantime, AIs are just a tool at our disposition. And I don't see why those tools would just be in the hands of the rich, anymore than electricity, the Internet, the personal computer or the smartphone is.
WillAdams 4y ago
Yes, but there aren't many secretaries working these days, and certainly the skill set has changed (though I'll never forget the company owner who was surprised when he was called out on promises made to women running a local college and couldn't understand how they could repeat his statements back to him verbatim along w/ the time/date of the phone call in question --- had to explain that they'd all come up through the secretarial pool, and so knew shorthand). The bottom line is, at some point in time, automation is going to reduce the amount of human work which needs to be done, and render some folks unemployable --- how does society cope with that? Universal Basic Income is the only reasonable suggestion I've yet seen, but doesn't address the age-old problem of socialism --- it only works until one runs out of other people's money. Back when computers were first announced, taxing CPUs so as to cover benefits for newly unemployed folks was suggested --- can we put that back on the table? For a fictional take on this see: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1 https://marshallbrain.com/manna1
- chordalkeyboard 4y ago
  > The bottom line is, at some point in time, automation is going to reduce the amount of human work which needs to be done Jevons paradox [0] proposes that as automation reduces the cost of labor then people will find new uses for automation, and this seems to be the historical trajectory. Hundreds of years since the industrial revolution and we still haven't run out of work to do (this could be better or worse given your philosophical premises). > and render some folks unemployable If automation truly causes more actually productive work to be done, then as a first-order effect there should be a surplus available to support these people without making anyone else (much) worse off. However as you observe the higher-order consequences of this are very much an open issue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
  - WillAdams 4y ago
    Yes, but how much more head room do we have for that sort of thing? the current climate crisis suggests that we are running out: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
computerex 4y ago
> It'll be interesting to see what happens when AI truly surpasses human level intelligence, as in, being able to completely replace human jobs, but we're not there yet. But we are there. This is a reality we live in for a lot of people. That's why the existential crisis in the OP.
ipatec 4y ago
Most of our ancestors actually had less stressful jobs and worked less than we do today. The average agricultural worker 100 years ago was not even doing a part-time in terms of time spent doing actual work. More like 2h/day on average.
- olalonde 4y ago
  You could still live like that today. But most people chose not to.
lezojeda 4y ago
[dead]

jwestbury 4y ago

> we will either live lives of abundance and leisure or face extinction Third option, the workers no longer control the means of production, and we see levels of inequality that make the railroad barons look like they were middle class.

olalonde 4y ago
I doubt this third option exists. If the AI(s) lack empathy for us and we are useless to them, they will either exterminate us directly, or indirectly by denying us resources. If they have empathy for us, they will probably let us live good lives. I doubt we will be useful to them, so I doubt there is a scenario where we live miserable lives working for the AI(s).
- anon7725 4y ago
  It’s happening now with closed AI models. The era of open computing may be ending. The models are essentially a new type of computer and they will remain fundamentally closed, accessible only through an API.
- freeone3000 4y ago
  It’s not the AIs who are in charge, it’s rich humans.
  - olalonde 4y ago
    By super intelligent, I meant AIs that have a will of their own. In the meantime, AIs are just a tool at our disposition. And I don't see why those tools would just be in the hands of the rich, anymore than electricity, the Internet, the personal computer or the smartphone is.

WillAdams 4y ago

Yes, but there aren't many secretaries working these days, and certainly the skill set has changed (though I'll never forget the company owner who was surprised when he was called out on promises made to women running a local college and couldn't understand how they could repeat his statements back to him verbatim along w/ the time/date of the phone call in question --- had to explain that they'd all come up through the secretarial pool, and so knew shorthand). The bottom line is, at some point in time, automation is going to reduce the amount of human work which needs to be done, and render some folks unemployable --- how does society cope with that? Universal Basic Income is the only reasonable suggestion I've yet seen, but doesn't address the age-old problem of socialism --- it only works until one runs out of other people's money. Back when computers were first announced, taxing CPUs so as to cover benefits for newly unemployed folks was suggested --- can we put that back on the table? For a fictional take on this see: https://marshallbrain.com/manna1 https://marshallbrain.com/manna1

chordalkeyboard 4y ago
> The bottom line is, at some point in time, automation is going to reduce the amount of human work which needs to be done Jevons paradox [0] proposes that as automation reduces the cost of labor then people will find new uses for automation, and this seems to be the historical trajectory. Hundreds of years since the industrial revolution and we still haven't run out of work to do (this could be better or worse given your philosophical premises). > and render some folks unemployable If automation truly causes more actually productive work to be done, then as a first-order effect there should be a surplus available to support these people without making anyone else (much) worse off. However as you observe the higher-order consequences of this are very much an open issue. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
- WillAdams 4y ago
  Yes, but how much more head room do we have for that sort of thing? the current climate crisis suggests that we are running out: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/ https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...

computerex 4y ago

> It'll be interesting to see what happens when AI truly surpasses human level intelligence, as in, being able to completely replace human jobs, but we're not there yet. But we are there. This is a reality we live in for a lot of people. That's why the existential crisis in the OP.

ipatec 4y ago

Most of our ancestors actually had less stressful jobs and worked less than we do today. The average agricultural worker 100 years ago was not even doing a part-time in terms of time spent doing actual work. More like 2h/day on average.

olalonde 4y ago
You could still live like that today. But most people chose not to.

lezojeda 4y ago

[dead]