3 ms·
One thing about many of those past mechanical inventions is that even though they eliminated a lot of manual labor jobs in some fields, they probably created a
by tzs 3y ago
One thing about many of those past mechanical inventions is that even though they eliminated a lot of manual labor jobs in some fields, they probably created a lot of manual labors jobs to make the machines or obtain the resources to make the machines.
So you might lose your manual labor farm job to a newly invented machine, but there will be a lot of openings for factory workers to assemble those machines and miners to obtain the metal to build them.
When AI takes your job it quite likely doesn't involve any new hardware. It might just be a program running on a computer your (now ex) employer already had. This seems fundamentally more disruptive.
- sebastiennight 3y agoI wonder how true that is. It used to be that 90%+ of citizens were employed in agriculture. Your hypothesis is that we switched from replacing all those farmers with "even more" factory workers building farming machines. This seems like an extraordinary claim. If one tractor replaces 10 farmers, why would you need 10 workers, full-time, to build this one tractor? It seems much more likely that the slow disappearance of all those farming "jobs" was, kind-of coincidentally, timed with the need for building cars, clothing factories etc.
- seoulmetro 3y agoIt's not fundamentally more disruptive. Because it's built on top of the disruptive technology. You just proved how amazing the industrial and information eras were that they could extend beyond their timeline and into the future. AI might be disruptive in a similar vein, but it's comparing giants to small achievements.