3 ms·

We don't know at all what additional jobs will spring up from AI or will be removed - we already see the hype cycle ending on genAI. For example, I expect an ex

We don't know at all what additional jobs will spring up from AI or will be removed - we already see the hype cycle ending on genAI. For example, I expect an explosion in bureaucracy with associated jobs from AI.

vouaobrasil 3y ago
Exactly, which is why I recommend caution and ethical investigations, instead of hoping that this new stuff will just be hype and burn itself out. Caution is a lot better a strategy than guess and check.
ChatGTP 3y ago
Going to be too bad if no new ones pop up?
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  There is already a whole compliance industry springing up around AI use.
ben_w 3y ago
If — and it will remain "if" right up until we have actually made it — if we get an AI which is as general as a human mind, then every job can be automated, including the new ones. What that means depends how much the AI costs to run. Assuming the hardware stays working long enough to amortise to a rounding error, $100,000 per year at $0.05/kWh is 228 kW (and by extension $10k/year is about 23 kW), so a "good enough" AI can "afford" to draw a lot of electricity while still being cheaper than many experts, or to draw more electricity than most households while still being cheaper than per-capita income in 15 of the G20 countries. On the other hand, if the best we can figure out how to do while giving it human-level generality is an IQ of 85, and it's a thing that runs on 1 kW, that makes 16% of humans uncompetitive even at the UN "abject poverty" threshold, while smarter people can still be gainfully employed. Current AI is neither, as it's a combination of absurd training costs, low inference costs, and being very good at specifically and (IMO) exclusivity at the things we use to define "intelligent", but also without the stuff we don't count as "intelligence" because approximately every human has it and it's not a differentiator.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  You'd still need to build the physical stuff for the AI, just intelligence is not enough for every job: the bookshelf cleaning machine needs more than thinking.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    The hard part of robotics isn't the actuators, it's the brains. We had vacuum cleaners (and pre-programmable factory equipment in the form of punch card looms) for a century before the Roomba.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      That hardware costs money and making complex hardware vs using a human could have a non-trivial cost boundary for a long time. I don't expect a cost efficient bookshelf cleaner robot any time soon (or even a robot vacuum cleaner that works in non-trivial settings).
- version_five 3y ago
  IQ doesn't mean anything here.

vouaobrasil 3y ago

Exactly, which is why I recommend caution and ethical investigations, instead of hoping that this new stuff will just be hype and burn itself out. Caution is a lot better a strategy than guess and check.

ChatGTP 3y ago

Going to be too bad if no new ones pop up?

RandomLensman 3y ago
There is already a whole compliance industry springing up around AI use.

ben_w 3y ago

If — and it will remain "if" right up until we have actually made it — if we get an AI which is as general as a human mind, then every job can be automated, including the new ones. What that means depends how much the AI costs to run. Assuming the hardware stays working long enough to amortise to a rounding error, $100,000 per year at $0.05/kWh is 228 kW (and by extension $10k/year is about 23 kW), so a "good enough" AI can "afford" to draw a lot of electricity while still being cheaper than many experts, or to draw more electricity than most households while still being cheaper than per-capita income in 15 of the G20 countries. On the other hand, if the best we can figure out how to do while giving it human-level generality is an IQ of 85, and it's a thing that runs on 1 kW, that makes 16% of humans uncompetitive even at the UN "abject poverty" threshold, while smarter people can still be gainfully employed. Current AI is neither, as it's a combination of absurd training costs, low inference costs, and being very good at specifically and (IMO) exclusivity at the things we use to define "intelligent", but also without the stuff we don't count as "intelligence" because approximately every human has it and it's not a differentiator.

RandomLensman 3y ago
You'd still need to build the physical stuff for the AI, just intelligence is not enough for every job: the bookshelf cleaning machine needs more than thinking.
- ben_w 3y ago
  The hard part of robotics isn't the actuators, it's the brains. We had vacuum cleaners (and pre-programmable factory equipment in the form of punch card looms) for a century before the Roomba.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    That hardware costs money and making complex hardware vs using a human could have a non-trivial cost boundary for a long time. I don't expect a cost efficient bookshelf cleaner robot any time soon (or even a robot vacuum cleaner that works in non-trivial settings).
version_five 3y ago
IQ doesn't mean anything here.