3 ms·

The way I see it, either AI takes off and capital becomes an even greater proportion of production than in the late 19th century, or my job stays relevant. To

The way I see it, either AI takes off and capital becomes an even greater proportion of production than in the late 19th century, or my job stays relevant. To hedge against the first possibility, I want to at least have some presence in the stock market. (A broad presence, not only "AI stocks"). If the current AI boom is a bubble, I will stay employed for another couple of decades, and don't need those savings yet.

quonn 3y ago
If your job does not stay relevant then a large number of other jobs will not stay relevant either. This would impact consumption and therefore also negatively impact those stocks. Unless, of course, political steps are taken, in which case holding stock will not matter.
- trashtester 3y ago
  Consumers are not _really_ needed in an economy, and in particular mass consumers are not needed. It's perfectly possible to imagine an economy where most of the productivity goes into catering to the needs of those who hold capital, such as personal consumption, security and investment into activities that increase the value of their capital. As an example, consider North Korea. Very little goes to the consumption of the regular citizens as most go into the regime and their police and military forces. With AI, it potentially becomes easier for an elite to do this, as the police force can be robotized, meaning a handful of people (or none at all) can monopolize violence without relying on the support of a large group of humans. For instance, if democracy collapses, the tech industry could step in as "saviors" and institute some kind of oligarchic republic or empire where the government is under the control of a wealthy elite (or an individual). Even without a full collapse of democracy, I imagine it may be difficult for a government to fully control industry if AI becomes sufficiently powerful. It is quite plausible to me that the result will be that international corporations will be able to protect 50% or more of value generation from taxation, by relocating to favorable markets, lobbying, clever lawyers, etc, just like today. In both of the scenarios above, we may be seeing a massive increase in the gap between those who own capital and those who do not as labor is no longer needed to generate this value. While it IS conceivable that at least some countries are able to adopt full socialism based on an AI economy, I wouldn't take that for granted.
lucideer 3y ago
> or my job stays relevant As an abstract, I would wager AI will take off AND your job will stay relevant. As an individual, the relevance of your skillset within the professional sphere is more variable - some jobs change more frequently than others, & I do think AI will change the nature of some jobs. The most discussed example is graphic design: if you're a graphic designer "pre-AI take off", there's a reasonable chance you're balancing a more lucrative corporate slog with a less lucrative creative outlet. I'm banking on AI becoming favoured for the slog, but never approaching anything competitive in the creative space. That will lead to job losses or jobs becoming even more vacuous than before, but as an abstract it won't eliminate the actual creative role.

quonn 3y ago

If your job does not stay relevant then a large number of other jobs will not stay relevant either. This would impact consumption and therefore also negatively impact those stocks. Unless, of course, political steps are taken, in which case holding stock will not matter.

trashtester 3y ago
Consumers are not _really_ needed in an economy, and in particular mass consumers are not needed. It's perfectly possible to imagine an economy where most of the productivity goes into catering to the needs of those who hold capital, such as personal consumption, security and investment into activities that increase the value of their capital. As an example, consider North Korea. Very little goes to the consumption of the regular citizens as most go into the regime and their police and military forces. With AI, it potentially becomes easier for an elite to do this, as the police force can be robotized, meaning a handful of people (or none at all) can monopolize violence without relying on the support of a large group of humans. For instance, if democracy collapses, the tech industry could step in as "saviors" and institute some kind of oligarchic republic or empire where the government is under the control of a wealthy elite (or an individual). Even without a full collapse of democracy, I imagine it may be difficult for a government to fully control industry if AI becomes sufficiently powerful. It is quite plausible to me that the result will be that international corporations will be able to protect 50% or more of value generation from taxation, by relocating to favorable markets, lobbying, clever lawyers, etc, just like today. In both of the scenarios above, we may be seeing a massive increase in the gap between those who own capital and those who do not as labor is no longer needed to generate this value. While it IS conceivable that at least some countries are able to adopt full socialism based on an AI economy, I wouldn't take that for granted.

lucideer 3y ago

> or my job stays relevant As an abstract, I would wager AI will take off AND your job will stay relevant. As an individual, the relevance of your skillset within the professional sphere is more variable - some jobs change more frequently than others, & I do think AI will change the nature of some jobs. The most discussed example is graphic design: if you're a graphic designer "pre-AI take off", there's a reasonable chance you're balancing a more lucrative corporate slog with a less lucrative creative outlet. I'm banking on AI becoming favoured for the slog, but never approaching anything competitive in the creative space. That will lead to job losses or jobs becoming even more vacuous than before, but as an abstract it won't eliminate the actual creative role.