4 ms·

I think a more appropriate conclusion to draw is that big leaps in automation required huge, costly reorganizations of society to ensure enough people have jobs

I think a more appropriate conclusion to draw is that big leaps in automation required huge, costly reorganizations of society to ensure enough people have jobs to avoid civil unrest, increasingly in ways that were dubiously productive compared to, say, directly providing for the people whose labor had suddenly become worthless. Whether the next big leap(or, for that matter, the next two or five big leaps) will finally require a retool whose cost we can't afford is very much an open question.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
That's an interesting viewpoint, and I think it's one way to look at it. But, we have to go back and ask: let's suppose we CAN make sure that enough people get jobs to avoid civil unrest, to use your terminology. What will those jobs be? They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule. Thus, the only jobs left will be the kind that is already increasing today: some small cog in a massive corporate scheme that somehow has not yet been automated yet. I believe there are at least some alternatives, such as: we could form a new conglomeration (perhaps a union or cartel of sorts) of people who refuse to use AI in their business, and who refuse to do business with anyone using AI. Obviously, it would take some effort, but maybe it's possible. In this union, we would operate society normally, but with a code of ethics that prevents the use of advanced AI and maybe other dangerous technologies, and we would develop a more sustainable way of living that involves sustainable farming and being more reliant on each other instead of letting massive, soulless tech companies control us. I am formulating a more detailed proposal but that's the gist of one of my ideas.
- JimtheCoder 3y ago
  "They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule" This doesn't make sense to me. If AI eliminates most creative jobs, yet there are still humans who can do better (modern Dostoyevskys) would it not make sense for businesses to hire creative people to "out creative" their competitors, who just use the AI?
  - jrumbut 3y ago
    Dostoyevsky (to stay with the specific example) produced literary fiction that really challenges the reader on many levels. He might have written some of the "best" novels, but even devoted literary fiction readers need something lighter and simpler sometimes. AI can probably already write a serviceable beach novel.
    - jdkee 3y ago
      "AI can probably already write a serviceable beach novel." So far...
- jrumbut 3y ago
  > What will those jobs be? Jobs that require human contact might be good. Babysitter, massage therapist, counselor, police officer, waiter, nurse, aesthetician, etc. Hard to say with certainty though.
- sokoloff 3y ago
  There are communities today who, by policy/choice, have been extremely selective in adopting modern technology, the Plain People (Amish et al). I’m not sure if that model would scale up to “uses all tech except pledges to not use advanced AI”, because the unifying thread of religion has a somewhat unique level of power that mere commercial pledges seem to not have, but it would be worth looking into the existing practices as a potential model and trying to project the good and bad that would come from it.
  - vouaobrasil 3y ago
    That is an interesting viewpoint, and I like it. Perhaps humanity needs a new "religion", which doesn't have the cult-like effects of old ones. Perhaps something grounded in Buddhism/meditation and a profound respect for the natural world like some indigenous tribes.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

That's an interesting viewpoint, and I think it's one way to look at it. But, we have to go back and ask: let's suppose we CAN make sure that enough people get jobs to avoid civil unrest, to use your terminology. What will those jobs be? They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule. Thus, the only jobs left will be the kind that is already increasing today: some small cog in a massive corporate scheme that somehow has not yet been automated yet. I believe there are at least some alternatives, such as: we could form a new conglomeration (perhaps a union or cartel of sorts) of people who refuse to use AI in their business, and who refuse to do business with anyone using AI. Obviously, it would take some effort, but maybe it's possible. In this union, we would operate society normally, but with a code of ethics that prevents the use of advanced AI and maybe other dangerous technologies, and we would develop a more sustainable way of living that involves sustainable farming and being more reliant on each other instead of letting massive, soulless tech companies control us. I am formulating a more detailed proposal but that's the gist of one of my ideas.

JimtheCoder 3y ago
"They will unlikely be creative jobs, since most of those will be taken over by AI. Perhaps there will be a few creative jobs left (I sincerely doubt AI will be able to write the next Dostoyevsky novel in my lifetime, but you never know). But even IF there are a few creative jobs left, they will be rather miniscule" This doesn't make sense to me. If AI eliminates most creative jobs, yet there are still humans who can do better (modern Dostoyevskys) would it not make sense for businesses to hire creative people to "out creative" their competitors, who just use the AI?
- jrumbut 3y ago
  Dostoyevsky (to stay with the specific example) produced literary fiction that really challenges the reader on many levels. He might have written some of the "best" novels, but even devoted literary fiction readers need something lighter and simpler sometimes. AI can probably already write a serviceable beach novel.
  - jdkee 3y ago
    "AI can probably already write a serviceable beach novel." So far...
jrumbut 3y ago
> What will those jobs be? Jobs that require human contact might be good. Babysitter, massage therapist, counselor, police officer, waiter, nurse, aesthetician, etc. Hard to say with certainty though.
sokoloff 3y ago
There are communities today who, by policy/choice, have been extremely selective in adopting modern technology, the Plain People (Amish et al). I’m not sure if that model would scale up to “uses all tech except pledges to not use advanced AI”, because the unifying thread of religion has a somewhat unique level of power that mere commercial pledges seem to not have, but it would be worth looking into the existing practices as a potential model and trying to project the good and bad that would come from it.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago
  That is an interesting viewpoint, and I like it. Perhaps humanity needs a new "religion", which doesn't have the cult-like effects of old ones. Perhaps something grounded in Buddhism/meditation and a profound respect for the natural world like some indigenous tribes.