Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

jeremy-o t1_j0xqrax wrote

AI will definitely replace a bunch of jobs and they won't all be replaced.

That's why economic reforms are so important. In a system of free-market capitalism automation will only increase the wealth gaps and ingrain unemployment and poverty; in a better system the efficiency can mean improved lifestyles for all.

52

xxxhotpocketz t1_j0xv566 wrote

Like the industrial revolution, we’re in an AI revolution

Many jobs will be lost with more and more money going into the pockets of the already ultra rich

Which is why the ultra rich need very high taxes, and the US needs some sort of UBI

5

LizardWizard444 t1_j0xzjrp wrote

I think we might want to take it a step further and look The way we're developing AI right now. In particular we need to do research on allinging artificial intelligence so that it doesn't kill us

elizer yudvowski (a man who speacilizes in AI and decision theory posted) belives that ai development is going "people having kids today might be able to see they're children graduate kindergarten". Ai wiping humanity out may sound like sci-fi but if you think of it as humanity is out swimming in the great unknown i think the "will ai replace artist?" Type question is something big just brushing against humanities leg.

There's a very slim chance it's nothing, but given we just asked a question about something as big as "ART" and whether humanity is gonna still make it I'd rather dump millions of dollar into AI alignment research right the fuck now and look back later and realize it was nothing rather than find out by ending up between the silicon transistor jaws and going extinct.

3

jeremy-o t1_j0y064g wrote

I am as worried about AI killing us as I am hopeful that it will randomly decide to cure cancer and all ailments. That is, not at all.

1

LizardWizard444 t1_j0y0klb wrote

.....are you not worried because if AI is already on the developmental course to paperclip humanity out of exotic there's nothing we can do about it at this point or because ai wiping out large sections of human culture and identity forever in a finacial sense isn't a big enough warning bell to be worth considering?

Seriously though I'd feel much safer if there was more work beimg done in AI Alingmemt. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment

1

jeremy-o t1_j0y0y9p wrote

Technology has preserved more culture than it has destroyed. Identity? I don't see it. We're adapting to globalisation through the internet but otherwise I don't really see your point.

1

LizardWizard444 t1_j0y22cj wrote

My point is that when you start asking "will AI replace artist?" (A question 2 years ago I'd have laughed at and confidently said no) and now it's being asked with seriousness then maybe something is up.

AI has suprised us, and just because that suprise happens to be neat pictures definitely doesn't mean we shouldn't step back and VERY SERIOUSLY considering AI Alingment (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_alignment) because i would much rather spend a bunch of money to check "No AI doing art like this isn't an indication that in the next 5 year's we're going to paperclip ourselves out of existence" and have a very solid and robust feild of research into "preventing AI from killing humanity" than the alternative which is overlooking what really looks like a dead canary in this proverbial coal mine and dying in a truely unavoidable fashion.

Edit: as it stands if humanity tried to automate every job we could with existing AI technology (not new or experimental technology) I'm absolutely certain all capitalist civilization would collapse due to too much of the population being out of the job and unable to buy things. Collapsing civilization is definitely not a small thing and AI can already do it if we where stupid about implementing it.

1

ZestfulClown t1_j0xtfe4 wrote

Industrial machinery will replace a bunch of jobs and they won’t all be replaced. Except it didn’t, new jobs were created and our standard of living went up.

1

shouldsmellitfirst t1_j0xsw5c wrote

Is there actual research supporting this, or are we guessing and theorizing here? Not saying I disagree, just curious how people come to a position like this.

−1

icedrift t1_j0xtogq wrote

Research can only go so far in the social sciences. There is no definitive answer. Having said that, looking at the rust belt it probably one of the best recent examples of mass replacement via uncompetitive labor markets https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rust_Belt

The answer seems to be that yes, the invisible hand won't magically create new jobs in a free market, government investment into propping up new industries is necessary.

The question is can government keep up with the coming replacement.

4

Omnomcologyst t1_j0xv7iq wrote

It comes from how technology has worked in the past.

Think of how the steam engine and industrial revolution took away hundreds of millions of jobs. How every leap in technology replaces the need of thousands of workers, freeing them up for other professions.

If you follow this logic forward, you end up at a point where labor is entirely replaced by machines. It isn't too far fetched, as jobs are already being replaced with bots, and anything you can teach a person, you can make a bot to do the same thing and instead of costing minimum wage, it costs pennies of electricity. There are exceptions to this, but those are being eroded away as time moves forward.

Eventually you run out of professions for people to be freed up for, and you end up with an employment crisis. We tied the ability to live directly to employment, and now that system and the progress of human technology are at direct odds with each other. If tech advances, people lose their jobs. The problem isn't that they lose their jobs, it's that their ability to not starve to death in the street is dependant on their employment. When there's more people than jobs, and no system to deal with this, those people die.

You solve this in 4 ways.

  1. You let them die.

  2. You create jobs for jobs sake (basically menial labor that is meaningless, but exists so people can be employed)

  3. You stop technology. This is simply impossible.

  4. You decouple the ability to survive from employment, and use the surplus generated by the mechanized economy to allow people to live as they wish, while machines and bots do the work.

3

shooketh_not_stireth t1_j0zm5h8 wrote

1a. You encourage them to die, and provide an "ethical" means of suicide

1b. You actively set about eliminating them

We have many examples of genocide from the last century alone for reasons far more petty than the wealthy protecting their hoard. The ultra wealthy are naturally at odds with the interests of the public, and if they have the support of the military, don't even have to pretend to care (e.g. Myanmar).

Couple that with innovations military automatons, and the ultra wealthy may be faced with a choice between living like God Emperors in a world denuded of most human life or having to share their wealth to prevent a second Reign of Terror.

1

jeremy-o t1_j0xu278 wrote

Heaps; get on Google Scholar and do some reading.

(Or you could start with a primer like this)

1