4 ms·

Counterpoint - what if AI automates away that labour and _nothing_ replaces it for the people who are automated away? Our history has not been kind to people w

Counterpoint - what if AI automates away that labour and _nothing_ replaces it for the people who are automated away? Our history has not been kind to people whose jobs have been obsoleted, why would we assume any different this time, that because the technology that is obsoleting jobs is AI that the beneficiaries of that enhanced efficiency would choose to spread those savings back around? If they cared about that in the first place, why would they even chase the efficiency of replacing people with AI? I think this is a bridge you have to strongly consider if we want to cross _well in advance,_ given that it is likely to set on fire and fall down behind us if we do, trapping us on the other side whether we like it or not.

visarga 4y ago
It's not replacing people, it is doing something else than we do. Even the fact that AI is scalable and doesn't get tired indicates the job replacement idea is wrong. AI will do massive work, something we couldn't have done with 100x more people. Our mistake is to be human-centric. We think our work will be stolen by AI bots, but we can't imagine AI creating business and hiring people. When AGI comes, we will have to care for the needs of humans + the needs of AGI. And it has needs, so there will be jobs. And AGI might be more prolific in development than we are, there might be plenty of work for us.
golemotron 4y ago
It's worse than that. You refer to the mythical "we" that is able to act coherently and make effective decisions about AI use. There is no such thing. The world is a set of competing individuals, countries, and corporations; each with its own interests, acting independently. I don't think many people see this because the "mythical We" is used all the time. "If "we do this", "we must do that", as if all of humanity can act together coherently or ever has. People seldom think about how imaginary this viewpoint is.
- elforce002 4y ago
  Exactly. There's no "we", just competing interests.
- DanHulton 4y ago
  You're 100% correct, I just didn't want to sound _too_ doom-and-gloom about AI, it feels like that's a quick way to get massively downvoted.

visarga 4y ago

It's not replacing people, it is doing something else than we do. Even the fact that AI is scalable and doesn't get tired indicates the job replacement idea is wrong. AI will do massive work, something we couldn't have done with 100x more people. Our mistake is to be human-centric. We think our work will be stolen by AI bots, but we can't imagine AI creating business and hiring people. When AGI comes, we will have to care for the needs of humans + the needs of AGI. And it has needs, so there will be jobs. And AGI might be more prolific in development than we are, there might be plenty of work for us.

golemotron 4y ago

It's worse than that. You refer to the mythical "we" that is able to act coherently and make effective decisions about AI use. There is no such thing. The world is a set of competing individuals, countries, and corporations; each with its own interests, acting independently. I don't think many people see this because the "mythical We" is used all the time. "If "we do this", "we must do that", as if all of humanity can act together coherently or ever has. People seldom think about how imaginary this viewpoint is.

elforce002 4y ago
Exactly. There's no "we", just competing interests.
DanHulton 4y ago
You're 100% correct, I just didn't want to sound _too_ doom-and-gloom about AI, it feels like that's a quick way to get massively downvoted.