7 ms·

The discussion is creating 3 groups: First group is sure AI will be an enabler and it won't replace them; The second group is saying AI won't replace them at le

The discussion is creating 3 groups: First group is sure AI will be an enabler and it won't replace them; The second group is saying AI won't replace them at least in the near future (1~10 years); Then we have the third group, which is basically the sentiment the op is living rn: AI is taking away their hopes, dreams, and livelihood. Now, I think we'll see the strongest counterculture in human history against AI and the biggest social unrest to date. I'm talking about massive protests , massive regulations, etc... just because no one, specially the government, is prepared for what's coming.

habibur 4y ago
And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs, rather created more. So did computers in the 80s and 90s. I remember typesetters in our locality were protesting in the 80s that computers were taking off their jobs. They started something like "burn the computers" movement. More people were later employed as composers than there were typesetters.
- TeMPOraL 4y ago
  Those typesetters were likely right, tho. Sure, Industrial Revolution and computer revolution ended up creating more jobs than they took out - but what everyone conveniently doesn't mention is, those new jobs went to different people. These kinds of transitions are large scale wealth redistribution. Your random typesetter 20 years into their career, with experience, good pay, and whole life built around economic conditions they spent those decades working hard to achieve, is not going to jump into a role of senior offset printer specialist, or DTP team manager. They're going to become a junior designer at best, most likely fall out of industry and into a junior whatever role. With commensurate drop in salary. If you're over 30, imagine dropping down to whatever you earned when you were 20, and tell me that people protesting automation don't have an argument. And remember: it's only your career that resets; your health and obligations and remaining years to live do not.
- Xenoamorphous 4y ago
  Sure, as a whole the industrial revolution might have created more jobs. But what about individuals? Are we expecting some dude in his fifties whose job is going to be taken away by AI to switch careers just like that? That stuff is hard enough when someone is in their thirties. And in my country the unemployment rate is already 13%, there’s hundreds of candidates for any decent job opening.
  - lezojeda 4y ago
    To those who are in our 20s and 30s they just answer "be a capitalist, become an entrepeneur, use GPT to build a business". Never have seen what the answer to people in 40s and 50s with family who can't do a career reset. I guess they'll just have to take a huge pay cut and deal with it, I don't know.
- AmericanChopper 4y ago
  Ludditism has been around since at least the 18th century, probably much longer than that, and that’s exactly what this is. It’s not even the hyperbolic “grandpa doesn’t like iPads” type of ludditism, it’s the literal raging against technological innovation because you’re scared it’s going to take your job type of ludditism. The guy in the OP didn’t even have his job taken, he just had to use a new tool that made his work far more efficient.
  - elforce002 4y ago
    The thing is that if AI matches the hype around it, there won't be any more jobs left. The economy depends on the middle class working, earning a living, buying things. The government collect taxes from businesses and its citizens. At risk and low-income people depend on the government to assist them with basic things. If AI destroys the middle class, then the whole system collapses. No middle class = no spending = less businesses = more low-income and at risk people, and the cycle continues. We'll basically create a neofeudalist society where the rich will control everything and the people will work for them (food, housing, etc...). It seems crazy, etc... but not improbable. I'm not a conspiracy person, but I can't stop thinking about this: These advancements align with "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy" sentence from the WEF.
    - AmericanChopper 4y ago
      Yes I’m sure AI will be the very first technology to match its own hype. The technology that destroys the middle class has finally arrived. The days of falsely prophesying that a technology is about to destroy the middle class are over.
      - elforce002 4y ago
        C'mon man. It's not that far fetched. I'm not saying that this will happen tomorrow but if ai gets "there", we don't want to see desperation on a global scale.
        4y ago
- grumbel 4y ago
  > And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs It absolutely did take jobs. It's just that the job loss in one area was compensated by the growth in other areas. However hoping that it'll be the same with AI is incredible naive. The job shift in the industrial revolution was possible since there were still lots of tasks left that the machines couldn't do. The areas that can't be done by a machine now are dramatically shrinking with advanced AI. There is not much area left where jobs can shift too. The creative jobs can be automated just the same as everything dealing with digital data. Skilled trades, carpenter, plumbers and electricians might still be safe for some years, as robots still struggle with climbing a ladder or even just stairs, but those are areas that don't seem to be destined for rapid growth. Whatever new job you can think of, will probably be automated away before a human ever get a chance to touch it. The most impressive part with ChatGPT and friends after all isn't just that they are reasonably good at what they are doing, but how universal they are. ChatGPT didn't need to be meticulously programmed to do the things it does, it learned most of that by itself just from the data feed into it. Meaning there really isn't any domain that you can't automate with AI in the long run. What's left for humans? No idea.
  - elforce002 4y ago
    > What's left for humans? No idea. Exactly. The ramifications of this tech will brake the current system for sure. Why someone will spend 15 years of his/her life studying medicine if by that time AI will replace him/her? The more we keep going down the rabbit hole, the more we can see there's no utopia at the end of the tunnel. This is no hyperbole, we don't know what to expect if you automate everything. Just look for some answers here: - "Blue collar jobs are safe". Really? What happens when everyone is an electrician, plumber, taxi driver, etc...? - "I use it to amplify my productivity". What happens when AI is so good that it can literally swap you - "Just create a business around it". There's no competitive edge anymore. Everyone can do "everything" and won't need any expertise at all when AI gets "there". I'm a SWE but I'm trying to purchase land and invest in things that AI can't replace, like food production, hehe. Agriculture will make a strong comeback this decade. Forget airbnb, a farm is where the $$$$$ is going to be, if not, ask Gates why is he buying land and becoming the biggest "farmer" in the US. I'm not a conspiracy person, but I can see the "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" getting dangerously close to reality.
- kajaktum 4y ago
  Created more jobs, sure but what kind of jobs? More complicated, mind draining jobs that many, many people are simply not capable of. The general human intelligent cannot catch up with the rate that the market is asking for.
- Macha 4y ago
  Industrial revolution cities were famously a meat grinder though. Disease, poor quality accomodation, reckless safety considerations in early factories meant a lot of those displaced from rural artisan jobs to work in the cities literally died as a result. Many of the new jobs' employees were from population growth, people that lived in the countryside thanks to the growth in food production that otherwise wouldn't have, then moved to the cities, etc, as sanitation improved a general fall in the death rate prior to the fall in the birth rate (but later than the initial migration to cities). Nor was the city standard of living equivalent as people move from rural households (admittedly often multi generational ones, so more crowded than modern ones) to overcrowded tenements. So the story people gloss over is that all the rural cobblers went to the city and became factory workers and everything is fine. But while it might be a reassuring story that _society_ survives and evolves, it's not at all clear that individuals did as well.
- iainctduncan 4y ago
  The fact that one change produced a given result is no guarantee that a different change will have the same effect.
- lowbloodsugar 4y ago
  >And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs, rather created more. This is your thinking: "Because all previous technological revolutions created more jobs, it follows that the AI technological revolution will create more jobs." However there is an obvious difference between all previous revolutions and this one: previous revolutions replaced labor. The AI revolution replaces thought. Even the computer revolution replaced labor, such as "typing things onto paper" or "updating a ledger". For me, the whole ChatGPT debacle just showed me that 99% (or 100%) of humans are, themselves, just autocompletion generators, with the training model being a religious text, a political manifesto or propaganda masquerading as a school system.
amelius 4y ago
Well, I can tell you that the first time I see some sufficiently advanced AI walking in the streets between the public, I will grab my baseball bat and smash it to pieces.
- number6 4y ago
  AIs should have human rights, if we are able to upload our us into computer we need a precedence that post humans are humans too.
  - ben_w 4y ago
    Maybe, but a pre-requisite to doing that right, is that we must first understand what this mysterious "consciousness" thing even is. I can play word games like saying "consciousness" is the opposite of "unconsciousness" (or alternatively and IMO not entirely compatibility that it is the opposite of "subconsciousness"), but every time I've looked at this, it's either ended with (1) circular definitions, (2) definitions that accidentally include VHS players connected to TV set, or (3) things that humans regularly fail at. None of that actually helps figure out whether or not a machine does or doesn't have that which makes us have the experience of being. Getting it wrong, in either direction, is a Bad Ending. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/06/18/lamda-turing-test-sentience/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/06/18/lamda-turin...
- boplicity 4y ago
  Yeah, but what if it's just a little canister scrubbing public toilets,trash cans, or something similar. Do you really want to destroy that? Will you even realize what you're seeing?
- ben_w 4y ago
  I find it curious that even here there are people who conflate a robot body with an artificial mind. Sure, you can put the computer running the mind that controls the body into the body itself, and there might even be good reasons to given spotty wifi or mobile data, but you don't have to. Also: why embody them in human form at all? https://www.tesla.com/drive https://www.tesla.com/drive https://www.bostondynamics.com/products/spot https://www.bostondynamics.com/products/spot https://www.parrot.com/us/partner-ecosystem https://www.parrot.com/us/partner-ecosystem (FWIW I've never heard of these before, I just searched for AI drones…)
cmrdporcupine 4y ago
My concern is around the class/income composition of the groups specifically in your group 3, and what kind of political forces their disillusionment and anger unleashes. There are maybe parallels here to the 20s and early 30s in Europe, an era when there was a similar mass disenfranchisement of professional middle classes ("petit bourgeois"), artisans, and specialists... a corresponding mass anger and disillusionment. And it was in large part those people who formed the base of the rising authoritarian right-wing / fascist movements in Europe. It's not the most working class people who will lose the most jobs. There's no AIs coming to take away people's jobs cleaning cafeteria trays and mopping floors. It's paradoxically more expensive to automate manual labour or jobs with a high physical component. Competent meatspace robotics are hard and expensive. For now. Instead it's people like us, used to a higher-privilege lifestyle, who have withstood the wave of previous automation and de-skilling. We're very expensive. And the people signing our paycheques I'm sure are salivating at the opportunity to de-skill and automate us away. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear what could happen politically.
philwelch 4y ago
If you take one look at the demographics of developed countries, the reality is that we absolutely need to replace the majority of human labor in order to maintain any sustainable material standard of living. Old age entitlements are a ticking time bomb, with fewer workers in each generation to support the growing share of longer and longer lived retirees. You want social unrest, take a look at France, which is on fire at the moment because the government had the temerity to try and raise the legal retirement age to 64.
- cmrdporcupine 4y ago
  Firstly, we are talking in this thread about intellectual, not physical labour. There's no AI or robot forthcoming that will replace (already brutally underpaid) personal support workers or nurses in nursing homes. Instead it's the higher paying or more satisfying intellectual, artisan, and creative work done by those senior's children that are on the chopping block. Secondly, even if jobs are automated to support the aging population, the economic model we have doesn't facilitate this leading to an improved life. The incentives to automate in our market economy are strong, and produce amazing efficiencies. Unfortunately that incentive is to reduce labour costs, and there's always a period of unemployment and reskilling afterwards. And in places like the US, unemployment = no health care, among other insecurities. And in the past a lucky few reskilled towards more intellectual, creative, or informational-managerial jobs. Turns out those will be easier to automate than we thought. Building a robot is expensive. Automating a factory a huge capital investment. But once the R&D phase is done, reproducing and distributing software is dirt cheap. Machine automation of intellectual tasks will happen far more rapidly and with more brutal results than factory automation ever has. The Alvin Toffler fantasy of information age prosperity looks more preposterous every day.
  - elforce002 4y ago
    100% agreed with you. The more we go down the rabbit hole, the more we see there's no utopia at the of the tunnel.
  - philwelch 4y ago
    > Firstly, we are talking in this thread about intellectual, not physical labour. There's no AI or robot forthcoming that will replace (already brutally underpaid) personal support workers or nurses in nursing homes. Instead it's the higher paying or more satisfying intellectual, artisan, and creative work done by those senior's children that are on the chopping block. Cool, then we can free up a lot of those workers to do other work. And it’s not just a matter of nurses and the like. Retirees need food, energy, goods and services just like everyone else; it’s just that they no longer participate in the process of producing those goods and services. Plus, a ton of health care is knowledge work too. > And in the past a lucky few reskilled towards more intellectual, creative, or informational-managerial jobs. Turns out those will be easier to automate than we thought. Which is good. Half of the population has an IQ under 100, and there are just as many people with an IQ below 80 as there are above 120. Which means most people can’t reskill to knowledge work. However, the use of AI will allow these people to reskill to productive work just as POS systems allowed people to work as cashiers without the ability to do arithmetic. The only actual problem you’ve identified is a threat to the egos of knowledge workers whose sense of self-worth lies in their self-perception of having above average intelligence, or perhaps in not having to do any sort of physical labor. Just like the myth of John Henry, we’re going to feel compelled to eulogize the email jobs. Our grandchildren probably won’t pine for the days of open offices and daily standups though.
somethingreen 4y ago
That's how I see it too. Big neo-luddite movement, anti-AI unions, "AI Free" labeling with corresponding certification, registries of AI users (and witch hunts of course), AIs being weaponized to destroy or corrupt other AIs. AI providers need to be at the forefront of lobbying for reasonable AI control laws, or they are up for a rude awakening.
- elforce002 4y ago
  The government needs to regulate ai & tech companies before you have 10x of what's happening in France.

habibur 4y ago

And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs, rather created more. So did computers in the 80s and 90s. I remember typesetters in our locality were protesting in the 80s that computers were taking off their jobs. They started something like "burn the computers" movement. More people were later employed as composers than there were typesetters.

TeMPOraL 4y ago
Those typesetters were likely right, tho. Sure, Industrial Revolution and computer revolution ended up creating more jobs than they took out - but what everyone conveniently doesn't mention is, those new jobs went to different people. These kinds of transitions are large scale wealth redistribution. Your random typesetter 20 years into their career, with experience, good pay, and whole life built around economic conditions they spent those decades working hard to achieve, is not going to jump into a role of senior offset printer specialist, or DTP team manager. They're going to become a junior designer at best, most likely fall out of industry and into a junior whatever role. With commensurate drop in salary. If you're over 30, imagine dropping down to whatever you earned when you were 20, and tell me that people protesting automation don't have an argument. And remember: it's only your career that resets; your health and obligations and remaining years to live do not.
Xenoamorphous 4y ago
Sure, as a whole the industrial revolution might have created more jobs. But what about individuals? Are we expecting some dude in his fifties whose job is going to be taken away by AI to switch careers just like that? That stuff is hard enough when someone is in their thirties. And in my country the unemployment rate is already 13%, there’s hundreds of candidates for any decent job opening.
- lezojeda 4y ago
  To those who are in our 20s and 30s they just answer "be a capitalist, become an entrepeneur, use GPT to build a business". Never have seen what the answer to people in 40s and 50s with family who can't do a career reset. I guess they'll just have to take a huge pay cut and deal with it, I don't know.
AmericanChopper 4y ago
Ludditism has been around since at least the 18th century, probably much longer than that, and that’s exactly what this is. It’s not even the hyperbolic “grandpa doesn’t like iPads” type of ludditism, it’s the literal raging against technological innovation because you’re scared it’s going to take your job type of ludditism. The guy in the OP didn’t even have his job taken, he just had to use a new tool that made his work far more efficient.
- elforce002 4y ago
  The thing is that if AI matches the hype around it, there won't be any more jobs left. The economy depends on the middle class working, earning a living, buying things. The government collect taxes from businesses and its citizens. At risk and low-income people depend on the government to assist them with basic things. If AI destroys the middle class, then the whole system collapses. No middle class = no spending = less businesses = more low-income and at risk people, and the cycle continues. We'll basically create a neofeudalist society where the rich will control everything and the people will work for them (food, housing, etc...). It seems crazy, etc... but not improbable. I'm not a conspiracy person, but I can't stop thinking about this: These advancements align with "You'll own nothing, and you'll be happy" sentence from the WEF.
  - AmericanChopper 4y ago
    Yes I’m sure AI will be the very first technology to match its own hype. The technology that destroys the middle class has finally arrived. The days of falsely prophesying that a technology is about to destroy the middle class are over.
    - elforce002 4y ago
      C'mon man. It's not that far fetched. I'm not saying that this will happen tomorrow but if ai gets "there", we don't want to see desperation on a global scale.
      - 4y ago
grumbel 4y ago
> And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs It absolutely did take jobs. It's just that the job loss in one area was compensated by the growth in other areas. However hoping that it'll be the same with AI is incredible naive. The job shift in the industrial revolution was possible since there were still lots of tasks left that the machines couldn't do. The areas that can't be done by a machine now are dramatically shrinking with advanced AI. There is not much area left where jobs can shift too. The creative jobs can be automated just the same as everything dealing with digital data. Skilled trades, carpenter, plumbers and electricians might still be safe for some years, as robots still struggle with climbing a ladder or even just stairs, but those are areas that don't seem to be destined for rapid growth. Whatever new job you can think of, will probably be automated away before a human ever get a chance to touch it. The most impressive part with ChatGPT and friends after all isn't just that they are reasonably good at what they are doing, but how universal they are. ChatGPT didn't need to be meticulously programmed to do the things it does, it learned most of that by itself just from the data feed into it. Meaning there really isn't any domain that you can't automate with AI in the long run. What's left for humans? No idea.
- elforce002 4y ago
  > What's left for humans? No idea. Exactly. The ramifications of this tech will brake the current system for sure. Why someone will spend 15 years of his/her life studying medicine if by that time AI will replace him/her? The more we keep going down the rabbit hole, the more we can see there's no utopia at the end of the tunnel. This is no hyperbole, we don't know what to expect if you automate everything. Just look for some answers here: - "Blue collar jobs are safe". Really? What happens when everyone is an electrician, plumber, taxi driver, etc...? - "I use it to amplify my productivity". What happens when AI is so good that it can literally swap you - "Just create a business around it". There's no competitive edge anymore. Everyone can do "everything" and won't need any expertise at all when AI gets "there". I'm a SWE but I'm trying to purchase land and invest in things that AI can't replace, like food production, hehe. Agriculture will make a strong comeback this decade. Forget airbnb, a farm is where the $$$$$ is going to be, if not, ask Gates why is he buying land and becoming the biggest "farmer" in the US. I'm not a conspiracy person, but I can see the "You'll own nothing and you'll be happy" getting dangerously close to reality.
kajaktum 4y ago
Created more jobs, sure but what kind of jobs? More complicated, mind draining jobs that many, many people are simply not capable of. The general human intelligent cannot catch up with the rate that the market is asking for.
Macha 4y ago
Industrial revolution cities were famously a meat grinder though. Disease, poor quality accomodation, reckless safety considerations in early factories meant a lot of those displaced from rural artisan jobs to work in the cities literally died as a result. Many of the new jobs' employees were from population growth, people that lived in the countryside thanks to the growth in food production that otherwise wouldn't have, then moved to the cities, etc, as sanitation improved a general fall in the death rate prior to the fall in the birth rate (but later than the initial migration to cities). Nor was the city standard of living equivalent as people move from rural households (admittedly often multi generational ones, so more crowded than modern ones) to overcrowded tenements. So the story people gloss over is that all the rural cobblers went to the city and became factory workers and everything is fine. But while it might be a reassuring story that _society_ survives and evolves, it's not at all clear that individuals did as well.
iainctduncan 4y ago
The fact that one change produced a given result is no guarantee that a different change will have the same effect.
lowbloodsugar 4y ago
>And then industrial revolution didn't take out jobs, rather created more. This is your thinking: "Because all previous technological revolutions created more jobs, it follows that the AI technological revolution will create more jobs." However there is an obvious difference between all previous revolutions and this one: previous revolutions replaced labor. The AI revolution replaces thought. Even the computer revolution replaced labor, such as "typing things onto paper" or "updating a ledger". For me, the whole ChatGPT debacle just showed me that 99% (or 100%) of humans are, themselves, just autocompletion generators, with the training model being a religious text, a political manifesto or propaganda masquerading as a school system.

amelius 4y ago

Well, I can tell you that the first time I see some sufficiently advanced AI walking in the streets between the public, I will grab my baseball bat and smash it to pieces.

number6 4y ago
AIs should have human rights, if we are able to upload our us into computer we need a precedence that post humans are humans too.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Maybe, but a pre-requisite to doing that right, is that we must first understand what this mysterious "consciousness" thing even is. I can play word games like saying "consciousness" is the opposite of "unconsciousness" (or alternatively and IMO not entirely compatibility that it is the opposite of "subconsciousness"), but every time I've looked at this, it's either ended with (1) circular definitions, (2) definitions that accidentally include VHS players connected to TV set, or (3) things that humans regularly fail at. None of that actually helps figure out whether or not a machine does or doesn't have that which makes us have the experience of being. Getting it wrong, in either direction, is a Bad Ending. https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/06/18/lamda-turing-test-sentience/ https://kitsunesoftware.wordpress.com/2022/06/18/lamda-turin...
boplicity 4y ago
Yeah, but what if it's just a little canister scrubbing public toilets,trash cans, or something similar. Do you really want to destroy that? Will you even realize what you're seeing?
ben_w 4y ago
I find it curious that even here there are people who conflate a robot body with an artificial mind. Sure, you can put the computer running the mind that controls the body into the body itself, and there might even be good reasons to given spotty wifi or mobile data, but you don't have to. Also: why embody them in human form at all? https://www.tesla.com/drive https://www.tesla.com/drive https://www.bostondynamics.com/products/spot https://www.bostondynamics.com/products/spot https://www.parrot.com/us/partner-ecosystem https://www.parrot.com/us/partner-ecosystem (FWIW I've never heard of these before, I just searched for AI drones…)

cmrdporcupine 4y ago

My concern is around the class/income composition of the groups specifically in your group 3, and what kind of political forces their disillusionment and anger unleashes. There are maybe parallels here to the 20s and early 30s in Europe, an era when there was a similar mass disenfranchisement of professional middle classes ("petit bourgeois"), artisans, and specialists... a corresponding mass anger and disillusionment. And it was in large part those people who formed the base of the rising authoritarian right-wing / fascist movements in Europe. It's not the most working class people who will lose the most jobs. There's no AIs coming to take away people's jobs cleaning cafeteria trays and mopping floors. It's paradoxically more expensive to automate manual labour or jobs with a high physical component. Competent meatspace robotics are hard and expensive. For now. Instead it's people like us, used to a higher-privilege lifestyle, who have withstood the wave of previous automation and de-skilling. We're very expensive. And the people signing our paycheques I'm sure are salivating at the opportunity to de-skill and automate us away. I hope I'm wrong, but I fear what could happen politically.

philwelch 4y ago

If you take one look at the demographics of developed countries, the reality is that we absolutely need to replace the majority of human labor in order to maintain any sustainable material standard of living. Old age entitlements are a ticking time bomb, with fewer workers in each generation to support the growing share of longer and longer lived retirees. You want social unrest, take a look at France, which is on fire at the moment because the government had the temerity to try and raise the legal retirement age to 64.

cmrdporcupine 4y ago
Firstly, we are talking in this thread about intellectual, not physical labour. There's no AI or robot forthcoming that will replace (already brutally underpaid) personal support workers or nurses in nursing homes. Instead it's the higher paying or more satisfying intellectual, artisan, and creative work done by those senior's children that are on the chopping block. Secondly, even if jobs are automated to support the aging population, the economic model we have doesn't facilitate this leading to an improved life. The incentives to automate in our market economy are strong, and produce amazing efficiencies. Unfortunately that incentive is to reduce labour costs, and there's always a period of unemployment and reskilling afterwards. And in places like the US, unemployment = no health care, among other insecurities. And in the past a lucky few reskilled towards more intellectual, creative, or informational-managerial jobs. Turns out those will be easier to automate than we thought. Building a robot is expensive. Automating a factory a huge capital investment. But once the R&D phase is done, reproducing and distributing software is dirt cheap. Machine automation of intellectual tasks will happen far more rapidly and with more brutal results than factory automation ever has. The Alvin Toffler fantasy of information age prosperity looks more preposterous every day.
- elforce002 4y ago
  100% agreed with you. The more we go down the rabbit hole, the more we see there's no utopia at the of the tunnel.
- philwelch 4y ago
  > Firstly, we are talking in this thread about intellectual, not physical labour. There's no AI or robot forthcoming that will replace (already brutally underpaid) personal support workers or nurses in nursing homes. Instead it's the higher paying or more satisfying intellectual, artisan, and creative work done by those senior's children that are on the chopping block. Cool, then we can free up a lot of those workers to do other work. And it’s not just a matter of nurses and the like. Retirees need food, energy, goods and services just like everyone else; it’s just that they no longer participate in the process of producing those goods and services. Plus, a ton of health care is knowledge work too. > And in the past a lucky few reskilled towards more intellectual, creative, or informational-managerial jobs. Turns out those will be easier to automate than we thought. Which is good. Half of the population has an IQ under 100, and there are just as many people with an IQ below 80 as there are above 120. Which means most people can’t reskill to knowledge work. However, the use of AI will allow these people to reskill to productive work just as POS systems allowed people to work as cashiers without the ability to do arithmetic. The only actual problem you’ve identified is a threat to the egos of knowledge workers whose sense of self-worth lies in their self-perception of having above average intelligence, or perhaps in not having to do any sort of physical labor. Just like the myth of John Henry, we’re going to feel compelled to eulogize the email jobs. Our grandchildren probably won’t pine for the days of open offices and daily standups though.

somethingreen 4y ago

That's how I see it too. Big neo-luddite movement, anti-AI unions, "AI Free" labeling with corresponding certification, registries of AI users (and witch hunts of course), AIs being weaponized to destroy or corrupt other AIs. AI providers need to be at the forefront of lobbying for reasonable AI control laws, or they are up for a rude awakening.

elforce002 4y ago
The government needs to regulate ai & tech companies before you have 10x of what's happening in France.