3 ms·

Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, but from the perspective of a business owner, the choice is to put money into something expensive like local human labor, or s

by dahart 4y ago

Okay, it’s not a perfect analogy, but from the perspective of a business owner, the choice is to put money into something expensive like local human labor, or something cheaper whether it’s remote labor or automation of some kind. Lots of tools have been accused of stealing jobs over the years, from factory machines to vehicles to computers. In that sense, I’m only borrowing an analogy with a long rich tradition. The wealth concentration difference between labor and machines is one of the systemic outcomes, it’s one of the consequences that business owners don’t necessarily intend to cause, it’s just an emergent property of certain choices, right? This is precisely one of the reasons we need to recognize that this is a choice, because the consequences of the choice will matter.

fnimick 4y ago
Who's making the choice though? There's no one person or even one group of people in charge, short of political regulation. If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn't use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That's the unfortunate reality of markets. Wealth always becomes more and more concentrated until a democratic initiative opposes it.
- dahart 4y ago
  It’s a good & important question to ask who’s making the choices, and who’s subject to the consequences of the choices. That’s very much one of the reasons I think it’s healthy to view this as a choice. Not necessarily one you and I are making, but it is one being made by someone somewhere, and it will affect us. In the context of “stealing jobs”, the choice is being made by the people who have jobs to offer, the business owners. In the context of building AI, the choice is in the hands of the researchers and engineers, and the businesses investing in AI. Some of the choice is being made by all of us, via interest in AI, discussion, clicks, Google searching, curiosity. > If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn’t use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That’s the unfortunate reality of markets. Generally true, I agree. Though we can and do exercise choices to prevent negative social and economic outcomes. Children, for example, are cheaper to employ than adults, but we don’t legally allow it. We can, similarly, choose whether and what AI we want to allow, if we’re sufficiently motivated, right? The choice in this case is in the hands of the populace and the government.
weatherlite 4y ago
What do you mean when you say choice? Who is choosing? No one asked me or you or most of the people, this is barely on anyone's political platform. Sanders talked about it a bit but he is not influential and even he has more important agenda than A.I. Deciding about this 5-10 years from now will be too little too late imo, something should have been done years ago. This tech is already everywhere, companies will be able to "offshore" expensive labor to A.I running in cheap countries. We can try taxing these things, or creating some kind of UBI but that's about it regarding "choice".
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rob74 4y ago
Why don't we first automate the jobs that need to be done, but nobody wants to do anymore? One example: sorting mixed garbage and filtering out recyclable plastics (of various types), cans, paper etc. would be a great application for AI, wouldn't take away anyone's job (at least not in developed countries), and would be good for the environment.
- throwaway22032 4y ago
  People do want to do them. That's why they do them. They simply don't ask for more money than the AI would require yet. Once there's a sufficient margin in it, not exactly at the cut-off but perhaps at 150-200%, they're gone.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    > People do want to do them. That's why they do them. Incredibly naive. Very few people enjoy their jobs. I imagine job satisfaction of anything dealing with garbage is low. The only reason people stick to it is because it pays decently, plus maybe some sort of factor intrinsic to the job like not having to deal with people. But generally, people do their job because they have to do them in order to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
    - throwaway22032 4y ago
      I am not interested in convincing you that people do indeed choose their jobs so we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
    - rented_mule 4y ago
      In middle school (in 1981), my buddy and I took an elective called Custodial Services. We were helpers for the school janitor. That often meant picking up garbage and cleaning things. We like it a lot. We were almost always outside getting exercise, but it also gave us lots of time to think. We talked a lot about whether that was the right career for us. I went on to get a degree in math and become a software engineer. That buddy is a high school janitor. We've often talked about who picked a better career. Mine has clearly been better financially. But, in terms of fulfillment, it's less clear and probably leans towards his choice. When the movie Good Will Hunting came out, we were quite amused.

by dahart 4y ago

fnimick 4y ago

Who's making the choice though? There's no one person or even one group of people in charge, short of political regulation. If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn't use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That's the unfortunate reality of markets. Wealth always becomes more and more concentrated until a democratic initiative opposes it.

dahart 4y ago
It’s a good & important question to ask who’s making the choices, and who’s subject to the consequences of the choices. That’s very much one of the reasons I think it’s healthy to view this as a choice. Not necessarily one you and I are making, but it is one being made by someone somewhere, and it will affect us. In the context of “stealing jobs”, the choice is being made by the people who have jobs to offer, the business owners. In the context of building AI, the choice is in the hands of the researchers and engineers, and the businesses investing in AI. Some of the choice is being made by all of us, via interest in AI, discussion, clicks, Google searching, curiosity. > If AI is less expensive than humans, then anyone who doesn’t use AI will get outcompeted by those who do. That’s the unfortunate reality of markets. Generally true, I agree. Though we can and do exercise choices to prevent negative social and economic outcomes. Children, for example, are cheaper to employ than adults, but we don’t legally allow it. We can, similarly, choose whether and what AI we want to allow, if we’re sufficiently motivated, right? The choice in this case is in the hands of the populace and the government.

weatherlite 4y ago

What do you mean when you say choice? Who is choosing? No one asked me or you or most of the people, this is barely on anyone's political platform. Sanders talked about it a bit but he is not influential and even he has more important agenda than A.I. Deciding about this 5-10 years from now will be too little too late imo, something should have been done years ago. This tech is already everywhere, companies will be able to "offshore" expensive labor to A.I running in cheap countries. We can try taxing these things, or creating some kind of UBI but that's about it regarding "choice".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

rob74 4y ago

Why don't we first automate the jobs that need to be done, but nobody wants to do anymore? One example: sorting mixed garbage and filtering out recyclable plastics (of various types), cans, paper etc. would be a great application for AI, wouldn't take away anyone's job (at least not in developed countries), and would be good for the environment.

throwaway22032 4y ago
People do want to do them. That's why they do them. They simply don't ask for more money than the AI would require yet. Once there's a sufficient margin in it, not exactly at the cut-off but perhaps at 150-200%, they're gone.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
  > People do want to do them. That's why they do them. Incredibly naive. Very few people enjoy their jobs. I imagine job satisfaction of anything dealing with garbage is low. The only reason people stick to it is because it pays decently, plus maybe some sort of factor intrinsic to the job like not having to deal with people. But generally, people do their job because they have to do them in order to put a roof over their head and food on the table.
  - throwaway22032 4y ago
    I am not interested in convincing you that people do indeed choose their jobs so we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
  - rented_mule 4y ago
    In middle school (in 1981), my buddy and I took an elective called Custodial Services. We were helpers for the school janitor. That often meant picking up garbage and cleaning things. We like it a lot. We were almost always outside getting exercise, but it also gave us lots of time to think. We talked a lot about whether that was the right career for us. I went on to get a degree in math and become a software engineer. That buddy is a high school janitor. We've often talked about who picked a better career. Mine has clearly been better financially. But, in terms of fulfillment, it's less clear and probably leans towards his choice. When the movie Good Will Hunting came out, we were quite amused.