4 ms·

At the start I think everyone thought the industrial revolution could be a useful historical reference. But what AI is selling is the obliteration of human kno

At the start I think everyone thought the industrial revolution could be a useful historical reference. But what AI is selling is the obliteration of human knowledge work. It just isn’t informative for that.

softwaredoug 7mo ago
A guild craftsmen weaving / making firearms pre Industrial Revolution would see their work as much about “knowledge” as manual labor. Much of that got obliterated by automation. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes
jonahx 7mo ago
This is the key point. It threatens nearly everything in the limit, not one particular industry. There will be no "leveling up" into higher-order jobs, because the machines will be better at those too.
- softwaredoug 7mo ago
  They thought that too in the industrial revolution. You can look back and see the jobs that came out of it. But at the time, it wasn't obvious to the people effected that there would be jobs again. We may have hindsight bias in evaluating something that happened, but to the people that it happened to it was terrifying.
  - mitthrowaway2 7mo ago
    MIT's motto is mens et manus: mind and hand. These are, basically, the two primary attributes of human labor. They're the reason almost anyone gets hired to do anything. Our brains and our opposable thumbs are what set us ahead of the animal kingdom. The industrial revolution first attempted to replace our hands. But the labor that was displaced had places to go: into smaller-scale manual work, where mass-production machinery was too expensive, and into knowledge work. Now the AI is coming for knowledge work, and robots are getting better at small-scale work. We're not at that point yet, but looking down the road I'm not sure there will really be anything competitive left flesh-and-blood humans can offer to an employer. The only exceptions I can think of are, maybe, athletics, live music performances, and escort services. But with only a few wealthy people as customers, I don't think there will be many job opportunities even in those fields. And I'm not sure that robots won't come for those too.
    - softwaredoug 7mo ago
      Again, this betrays a strong hindsight bias. Nobody had any idea what was coming with the industrial revolution. There wasn't obviously other work for people. And for long periods of time nobody had an answer to that question for large percentage of the population. In hindsight, we know the answers NOW, but then they did not know what was going to happen. We also don't know what's going to happen, it could go as you hypothesize. Or the Jevon's paradox people might be right and there's way more work to do. The uncertainty is the historical lesson, not that "it'll all work out"
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
      - simpaticoder 7mo ago
        Your comment betrays a lazy survivorship bias.
        deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
    - ajam1507 7mo ago
      Why do you need a job in the scenario where machines have replaced all human labor? You're forgetting that work is a means, not an end, for humanity.
      - mitthrowaway2 7mo ago
        You don't need a job, if you can maintain purchasing power without selling your labor. I didn't forget that, I just didn't take such an outcome for granted. In other comments I have expressed support for UBI, as well as for paying parents to stay home and spend time with their children. I think the more automated our society gets, the less people should need to work to earn a living. But I look around and I just don't see anyone implementing such policies.
  - dasil003 7mo ago
    I guess the people in Wall-E didn't really seem unhappy so perhaps you're right. My gut instinct though, is that there is a qualitative difference in the level of abundance and concentration of wealth, power, and influence we have today that needs to be taken seriously on its merits and not hand-waved away with tenuous historical analogies. Yes, two hundred years ago, many people thought reading was a dangerous distraction for young people, just as film, radio, TV and the internet became later. But there is a qualitative difference to having social media in your pocket with vibrating notifications. Pretending its just more of the same honestly feels like slightly willful blindness at this point.
cmrdporcupine 7mo ago
Nah, it's obliterating the distinction -- made by middle class folks and only temporarily true -- between physical labour and intellectual labour. You as a blue collar machine operator, shoving punch cards in and getting answers out, is precisely what your boss always saw you as, or wanted you to be. Our necessity as pseudo-craftsmen holding an intellectual high ground and wizardly/magical skills was always resented by investors, owners, and sometimes customers. Blacksmithing and leather tanning and shoe making and seamstressing and furniture making was human knowledge work, too. The Alvin Toffler stuff was always bullshit, but it's even more bullshit now.
deleted 7mo ago
[deleted]

softwaredoug 7mo ago

A guild craftsmen weaving / making firearms pre Industrial Revolution would see their work as much about “knowledge” as manual labor. Much of that got obliterated by automation. History doesn’t repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes

jonahx 7mo ago

This is the key point. It threatens nearly everything in the limit, not one particular industry. There will be no "leveling up" into higher-order jobs, because the machines will be better at those too.

softwaredoug 7mo ago
They thought that too in the industrial revolution. You can look back and see the jobs that came out of it. But at the time, it wasn't obvious to the people effected that there would be jobs again. We may have hindsight bias in evaluating something that happened, but to the people that it happened to it was terrifying.
- mitthrowaway2 7mo ago
  MIT's motto is mens et manus: mind and hand. These are, basically, the two primary attributes of human labor. They're the reason almost anyone gets hired to do anything. Our brains and our opposable thumbs are what set us ahead of the animal kingdom. The industrial revolution first attempted to replace our hands. But the labor that was displaced had places to go: into smaller-scale manual work, where mass-production machinery was too expensive, and into knowledge work. Now the AI is coming for knowledge work, and robots are getting better at small-scale work. We're not at that point yet, but looking down the road I'm not sure there will really be anything competitive left flesh-and-blood humans can offer to an employer. The only exceptions I can think of are, maybe, athletics, live music performances, and escort services. But with only a few wealthy people as customers, I don't think there will be many job opportunities even in those fields. And I'm not sure that robots won't come for those too.
  - softwaredoug 7mo ago
    Again, this betrays a strong hindsight bias. Nobody had any idea what was coming with the industrial revolution. There wasn't obviously other work for people. And for long periods of time nobody had an answer to that question for large percentage of the population. In hindsight, we know the answers NOW, but then they did not know what was going to happen. We also don't know what's going to happen, it could go as you hypothesize. Or the Jevon's paradox people might be right and there's way more work to do. The uncertainty is the historical lesson, not that "it'll all work out"
    - deleted 7mo ago
      [deleted]
    - simpaticoder 7mo ago
      Your comment betrays a lazy survivorship bias.
      - deleted 7mo ago
        [deleted]
  - ajam1507 7mo ago
    Why do you need a job in the scenario where machines have replaced all human labor? You're forgetting that work is a means, not an end, for humanity.
    - mitthrowaway2 7mo ago
      You don't need a job, if you can maintain purchasing power without selling your labor. I didn't forget that, I just didn't take such an outcome for granted. In other comments I have expressed support for UBI, as well as for paying parents to stay home and spend time with their children. I think the more automated our society gets, the less people should need to work to earn a living. But I look around and I just don't see anyone implementing such policies.
- dasil003 7mo ago
  I guess the people in Wall-E didn't really seem unhappy so perhaps you're right. My gut instinct though, is that there is a qualitative difference in the level of abundance and concentration of wealth, power, and influence we have today that needs to be taken seriously on its merits and not hand-waved away with tenuous historical analogies. Yes, two hundred years ago, many people thought reading was a dangerous distraction for young people, just as film, radio, TV and the internet became later. But there is a qualitative difference to having social media in your pocket with vibrating notifications. Pretending its just more of the same honestly feels like slightly willful blindness at this point.

cmrdporcupine 7mo ago

Nah, it's obliterating the distinction -- made by middle class folks and only temporarily true -- between physical labour and intellectual labour. You as a blue collar machine operator, shoving punch cards in and getting answers out, is precisely what your boss always saw you as, or wanted you to be. Our necessity as pseudo-craftsmen holding an intellectual high ground and wizardly/magical skills was always resented by investors, owners, and sometimes customers. Blacksmithing and leather tanning and shoe making and seamstressing and furniture making was human knowledge work, too. The Alvin Toffler stuff was always bullshit, but it's even more bullshit now.

deleted 7mo ago

[deleted]