3 ms·

Nobody knows how many jobs will “be automated”

3 points by nickwritesit 3y ago

coldtea 3y ago
>The “folk model” of automation is that it throws humans out of work — today you had a job performing some sort of valuable work, and tomorrow you’re on the welfare rolls. This is not how things have worked out in the past — we’ve been deploying automation technology for centuries, and as of 2023, pretty much every human who wants a job has a job. Do they have the same sector and same quality job as before? Or they got thrown out of a nice job by some technological development, and now they're forced into a much worse job, in one of the few available domains left for them? It's easy to be nonchalant like this guy about AI job replacement until it affects you personally. "I went from X industry employee to a Walmart greeter" still counts as "having a job", but is a much worse deal when lived through. And that's even before we deal with the fact that AI (especially if it gets closer to AGI) wont be the same as just taking some old agricultural or whatever job to replace it with an office job. It will come for office jobs. "There will always be room for unique human creativity". Gee, thanks. How many more creatives the post-AI economy will need though? And what if one is not "creative" like that, but still has a job today with something more menial (so like millions do)? They will be liberated into homelessness? >If one job is destroyed by automation and two more are created for higher wages, workers obviously won out. Yeah, I'm sure that would be the case. Plus everybody will get a free pony.
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Read further in the essay. It discusses this very imprecision in the "studies" and the idiotic reporting about them. It's also worth reading for the way it puts the boot into the utterly abysmal Frey and Osborne study that started this whole shtick.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    Yeah, the survey he refers to could be bogus. But I'm focusing on the author's own reasoning.

3 points by nickwritesit 3y ago

>The “folk model” of automation is that it throws humans out of work — today you had a job performing some sort of valuable work, and tomorrow you’re on the welfare rolls. This is not how things have worked out in the past — we’ve been deploying automation technology for centuries, and as of 2023, pretty much every human who wants a job has a job. Do they have the same sector and same quality job as before? Or they got thrown out of a nice job by some technological development, and now they're forced into a much worse job, in one of the few available domains left for them? It's easy to be nonchalant like this guy about AI job replacement until it affects you personally. "I went from X industry employee to a Walmart greeter" still counts as "having a job", but is a much worse deal when lived through. And that's even before we deal with the fact that AI (especially if it gets closer to AGI) wont be the same as just taking some old agricultural or whatever job to replace it with an office job. It will come for office jobs. "There will always be room for unique human creativity". Gee, thanks. How many more creatives the post-AI economy will need though? And what if one is not "creative" like that, but still has a job today with something more menial (so like millions do)? They will be liberated into homelessness? >If one job is destroyed by automation and two more are created for higher wages, workers obviously won out. Yeah, I'm sure that would be the case. Plus everybody will get a free pony.

tuatoru 3y ago
Read further in the essay. It discusses this very imprecision in the "studies" and the idiotic reporting about them. It's also worth reading for the way it puts the boot into the utterly abysmal Frey and Osborne study that started this whole shtick.
- coldtea 3y ago
  Yeah, the survey he refers to could be bogus. But I'm focusing on the author's own reasoning.