5 ms·

So in other words, the theory is that unemployement due to increased automation is still not a systemic problem - it will just take a number of years (perhaps d

by marvin 13y ago

So in other words, the theory is that unemployement due to increased automation is still not a systemic problem - it will just take a number of years (perhaps decades) for the economy to readjust. The somewhat obvious corollary to this theory would be that in the meantime, you want to make sure you're employed in the field which is causing the disruption. This is where the fruits of the increased automation will be seen first. I can accept this theory. Personally, I believe we'll eventually get to a point where the economy will have to do a dramatic shift in the direction of greater taxation of the richest and more leisure time for most people ("most work is automated"), but we might not be close to that point yet. As of right now, these two outcomes are indistinguishable.

bbddg 13y ago
I think we'll eventually get to that point as well. We might even need some form of base salary for everyone. But until we get to that point I think we're gonna see a transition to more creative work. Design, art, music, movies, ect. are all things that will probably take the longest for computers to get as good at as humans. Even when computers do get better at creative work, I think there will still be a large market for art created by humans and not some AI.
- computer 13y ago
  Or do we just need fewer people in the world? Once much is automated, you no longer need a lot of people to sustain the luxurious life styles of the rich (with fewer people: of everybody).
  - queensnake 13y ago
    "Fewer people in the world" solves a lot of employment problems - we're a dime-a-dozen right now.
Udo 13y ago
But at some point in the future, the time it takes for us as a culture to adjust might be drastically out of line with the rate of technological change. It seems like both are speeding up, but if change outpaces the capacity for dealing with that change, we're in trouble. I don't think we're at that point yet, though. Current societal failures such as unemployment and poverty can still be reasonably explained by historical means, by looking at political and other non-technological events.
eli_gottlieb 13y ago
So we should just let people suffer, rot and die for a few decades while the wonderful and loving Invisible Hand of the Free Market adjusts us to its brave new world! </dripping sarcasm>

by marvin 13y ago

bbddg 13y ago

I think we'll eventually get to that point as well. We might even need some form of base salary for everyone. But until we get to that point I think we're gonna see a transition to more creative work. Design, art, music, movies, ect. are all things that will probably take the longest for computers to get as good at as humans. Even when computers do get better at creative work, I think there will still be a large market for art created by humans and not some AI.

computer 13y ago
Or do we just need fewer people in the world? Once much is automated, you no longer need a lot of people to sustain the luxurious life styles of the rich (with fewer people: of everybody).
- queensnake 13y ago
  "Fewer people in the world" solves a lot of employment problems - we're a dime-a-dozen right now.

Udo 13y ago

But at some point in the future, the time it takes for us as a culture to adjust might be drastically out of line with the rate of technological change. It seems like both are speeding up, but if change outpaces the capacity for dealing with that change, we're in trouble. I don't think we're at that point yet, though. Current societal failures such as unemployment and poverty can still be reasonably explained by historical means, by looking at political and other non-technological events.

eli_gottlieb 13y ago

So we should just let people suffer, rot and die for a few decades while the wonderful and loving Invisible Hand of the Free Market adjusts us to its brave new world! </dripping sarcasm>