3 ms·

Yeah it has been quite the problem to think about ever since the original release of ChatGPT, as it was already obvious where this will be going and multimodal

Yeah it has been quite the problem to think about ever since the original release of ChatGPT, as it was already obvious where this will be going and multimodal models more or less confirmed it. There's two ways this goes: UBI or gradual population reduction through unemployment and homelessness. There's no way the average human will be able to produce any productive value outside manual labor in 20 years. Maybe not even that, looking at robots like Digit that can already do warehouse work for $25/hour.

spaceman_2020 3y ago
More than efficiency and costs, I think the real driver of AI adoption in big corp will be the reduction of all the baggage human beings bring. AI will never ask for sick days, will never walk in with a hangover, never be unproductive because their 3 month old baby kept them up all night... An AI coder will always be around, always be a "team player", always be chipper and friendly. That's management's wet dream.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  I don't think humans will stay competitive long enough for that to even matter, frankly. It's a no brainer to go for the far cheaper, smarter, and most importantly a few magnitudes faster worker. On the offshoot that we hit some sort of inteligence ceiling and don't get ASI tier models in the next few years then that will definitely do it though. Companies start going from paying lots of local workers to paying a few select corporations what's essentially a SAAS fee (some are already buying ChatGPT Plus for all employees and reducing headcount) which accumulates all the wealth that would've gone to the workers into the hands of those renting GPU servers. The middle class was in decline already, but this will surely eradicate it.
  - spaceman_2020 3y ago
    Well anecdotally, there's been a massive drop in on-campus hiring in India this year. The largest recruiters - the big IT companies (Infosys, TCS, etc.) haven't apparenlty made any hires at all.
  - astrange 3y ago
    None of this will happen because jobs are based on comparative advantage, and not absolute advantage, which means it doesn't matter if someone else would be better at your job than you are. Because that person (or AI) is doing the job they're best suited to, which is not yours. Other fun second-order effects include Jevon's paradox (which is why inventing ATMs caused more employment for bank tellers, not less.) I can be very confident about this because it's just about the strongest finding there is in economics. If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job.
    - akoboldfrying 3y ago
      >If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job. Well, in times past, kings have been known to do this. But more generally, you raise an interesting point. I think your reasoning succeeds at dispelling the often-touted strong form of the claim ("AI can do my job better than I can therefore I will lose my job to AI") but doesn't go all the way to guaranteeing its opposite ("No possible developments in AI could result in my job being threatened"). Job threat level will just continue to depend on a complicated way on everyone's aptitude at every job.
      - astrange 3y ago
        Many things could result in your job being threatened. Since I think the kind of AI they're describing would increase employment, I'm equally willing to believe an opposite trend would decrease it. So that could be productivity decreases, rises in energy prices or interest rates, war, losing industries to other countries…
        moffkalast 3y ago
        To quote CGP Grey "There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right." I mean I don't know, maybe you're right and this will Jevons us towards even more demand for AI-assisted jobs but I think only to a point where it's still just AI complementing humans at being better and more efficient at their jobs (like LLMs are doing right now) and not outright replacing them. As per your example, bank tellers are still here because ATMs can only dispense money and change PINs, they can't do their job but only leave the more complex stuff to be handled by less overworked humans since they don't have to do the menial stuff. Make an ATM that does everything (e.g. online banking) and there's literally nothing a bank teller needs to exist for. Most online banks don't even have offices these days. For now classical brick and mortar banks remain, but for how long I'm not sure, probably only until the next crisis when they all fold by not being competitive since they have to pay for all those tellers and real estate rents. And as per Grey's example, cars did not increase demand for horses/humans, they increased demand for cars/AGI.
  - realharo 3y ago
    >Companies start going from... The few companies that will still exist, that is - many of them won't, when their product becomes almost free to replace.
busyant 3y ago
> UBI or gradual population reduction through unemployment and homelessness I actually think that if we get to a superintelligent AGI and ask it to solve our problems (e.g., global warming, etc.), the AGI will say, "You need to slow down baby production." Under good circumstances, the world will see a "soft landing" where we solve our problems by population reduction, and it's achieved through attrition and much lower birth rate. We have met the enemy and he is us.
- moffkalast 3y ago
  Unfortunately we've made the critical mistake of setting up our entire economic system to require constant growth or the house of cards it's built upon immediately starts falling apart. It sure doesn't help that when this all becomes an active problem, climate change will also be hitting us in full force. Now maybe we can actually maintain growth with less people through automation, like we've done successfully for farming, mining, industrial production, and the like, but there was always something new for the bulk of the population to move and be productive in. Now there just won't be anything to move to aside from popularity based jobs of which there are only so many.
- butlike 3y ago
  What if you can have one biological child. One day, you will die, so it's -1 +1. Equals out. If you want more, what about adoption? There's kids out there that need a home. Seems fair to me.

spaceman_2020 3y ago

More than efficiency and costs, I think the real driver of AI adoption in big corp will be the reduction of all the baggage human beings bring. AI will never ask for sick days, will never walk in with a hangover, never be unproductive because their 3 month old baby kept them up all night... An AI coder will always be around, always be a "team player", always be chipper and friendly. That's management's wet dream.

moffkalast 3y ago
I don't think humans will stay competitive long enough for that to even matter, frankly. It's a no brainer to go for the far cheaper, smarter, and most importantly a few magnitudes faster worker. On the offshoot that we hit some sort of inteligence ceiling and don't get ASI tier models in the next few years then that will definitely do it though. Companies start going from paying lots of local workers to paying a few select corporations what's essentially a SAAS fee (some are already buying ChatGPT Plus for all employees and reducing headcount) which accumulates all the wealth that would've gone to the workers into the hands of those renting GPU servers. The middle class was in decline already, but this will surely eradicate it.
- spaceman_2020 3y ago
  Well anecdotally, there's been a massive drop in on-campus hiring in India this year. The largest recruiters - the big IT companies (Infosys, TCS, etc.) haven't apparenlty made any hires at all.
- astrange 3y ago
  None of this will happen because jobs are based on comparative advantage, and not absolute advantage, which means it doesn't matter if someone else would be better at your job than you are. Because that person (or AI) is doing the job they're best suited to, which is not yours. Other fun second-order effects include Jevon's paradox (which is why inventing ATMs caused more employment for bank tellers, not less.) I can be very confident about this because it's just about the strongest finding there is in economics. If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job.
  - akoboldfrying 3y ago
    >If this wasn't true, it'd be good for your career to stop other people from having children in case they take your job. Well, in times past, kings have been known to do this. But more generally, you raise an interesting point. I think your reasoning succeeds at dispelling the often-touted strong form of the claim ("AI can do my job better than I can therefore I will lose my job to AI") but doesn't go all the way to guaranteeing its opposite ("No possible developments in AI could result in my job being threatened"). Job threat level will just continue to depend on a complicated way on everyone's aptitude at every job.
    - astrange 3y ago
      Many things could result in your job being threatened. Since I think the kind of AI they're describing would increase employment, I'm equally willing to believe an opposite trend would decrease it. So that could be productivity decreases, rises in energy prices or interest rates, war, losing industries to other countries…
      - moffkalast 3y ago
        To quote CGP Grey "There isn’t a rule of economics that says better technology makes more, better jobs for horses. It sounds shockingly dumb to even say that out loud, but swap horses for humans and suddenly people think it sounds about right." I mean I don't know, maybe you're right and this will Jevons us towards even more demand for AI-assisted jobs but I think only to a point where it's still just AI complementing humans at being better and more efficient at their jobs (like LLMs are doing right now) and not outright replacing them. As per your example, bank tellers are still here because ATMs can only dispense money and change PINs, they can't do their job but only leave the more complex stuff to be handled by less overworked humans since they don't have to do the menial stuff. Make an ATM that does everything (e.g. online banking) and there's literally nothing a bank teller needs to exist for. Most online banks don't even have offices these days. For now classical brick and mortar banks remain, but for how long I'm not sure, probably only until the next crisis when they all fold by not being competitive since they have to pay for all those tellers and real estate rents. And as per Grey's example, cars did not increase demand for horses/humans, they increased demand for cars/AGI.
- realharo 3y ago
  >Companies start going from... The few companies that will still exist, that is - many of them won't, when their product becomes almost free to replace.

busyant 3y ago

> UBI or gradual population reduction through unemployment and homelessness I actually think that if we get to a superintelligent AGI and ask it to solve our problems (e.g., global warming, etc.), the AGI will say, "You need to slow down baby production." Under good circumstances, the world will see a "soft landing" where we solve our problems by population reduction, and it's achieved through attrition and much lower birth rate. We have met the enemy and he is us.

moffkalast 3y ago
Unfortunately we've made the critical mistake of setting up our entire economic system to require constant growth or the house of cards it's built upon immediately starts falling apart. It sure doesn't help that when this all becomes an active problem, climate change will also be hitting us in full force. Now maybe we can actually maintain growth with less people through automation, like we've done successfully for farming, mining, industrial production, and the like, but there was always something new for the bulk of the population to move and be productive in. Now there just won't be anything to move to aside from popularity based jobs of which there are only so many.
butlike 3y ago
What if you can have one biological child. One day, you will die, so it's -1 +1. Equals out. If you want more, what about adoption? There's kids out there that need a home. Seems fair to me.