3 ms·

>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 k

>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.
  - astrange 3y ago
    Horses are not labor. You can tell because we don't pay them wages and they don't make any effort to be employed. That makes them capital; when humans are treated that way it's called slavery. I don't think you should listen to Youtubers about anything, though all I know about that guy is he has bad aesthetic opinions on flag design.
    - moffkalast 3y ago
      Doesn't every capitalist consider humans capital deep down? Who'd come up with a name like "human resources" otherwise lmao, in ex-socialist countries it's usually called something more normal like cadre service. Besides I don't see the market difference of having to pay to maintain a horse with feed, healthcare, grooming, etc. which likely costs something on a similar order as paying a human's monthly wage that gets used in similar ways. Both come with monthly expenses, generate revenue, eventually retire and die, on paper they should follow the same principle with the exception that you can sell a horse when you want to get rid of it but have to pay severance when doing the same with a person. I doubt that influences the overall lifetime equation much though.
      - astrange 3y ago
        > Doesn't every capitalist consider humans capital deep down? That's slavery, so only if they're bad at it. (The reason economics is called "the dismal science" is slaveowners got mad at them for saying slavery was bad for the economy.) > Besides I don't see the market difference of having to pay to maintain a horse with feed, healthcare, grooming, etc. which likely costs something on a similar order as paying a human's monthly wage that gets used in similar ways. The horse can't negotiate and won't leave you because it gets a competing offer. And it's not up to your what your employee spends their wages on, and their wages aren't set by how much you think they should be spending.

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.
- astrange 3y ago
  Horses are not labor. You can tell because we don't pay them wages and they don't make any effort to be employed. That makes them capital; when humans are treated that way it's called slavery. I don't think you should listen to Youtubers about anything, though all I know about that guy is he has bad aesthetic opinions on flag design.
  - moffkalast 3y ago
    Doesn't every capitalist consider humans capital deep down? Who'd come up with a name like "human resources" otherwise lmao, in ex-socialist countries it's usually called something more normal like cadre service. Besides I don't see the market difference of having to pay to maintain a horse with feed, healthcare, grooming, etc. which likely costs something on a similar order as paying a human's monthly wage that gets used in similar ways. Both come with monthly expenses, generate revenue, eventually retire and die, on paper they should follow the same principle with the exception that you can sell a horse when you want to get rid of it but have to pay severance when doing the same with a person. I doubt that influences the overall lifetime equation much though.
    - astrange 3y ago
      > Doesn't every capitalist consider humans capital deep down? That's slavery, so only if they're bad at it. (The reason economics is called "the dismal science" is slaveowners got mad at them for saying slavery was bad for the economy.) > Besides I don't see the market difference of having to pay to maintain a horse with feed, healthcare, grooming, etc. which likely costs something on a similar order as paying a human's monthly wage that gets used in similar ways. The horse can't negotiate and won't leave you because it gets a competing offer. And it's not up to your what your employee spends their wages on, and their wages aren't set by how much you think they should be spending.