Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

makesyoudownvote t1_j9xhgc8 wrote

Reply to comment by skwww in The Job Market Apocalypse: We Must Democratize AI Now! by Otarih

For now. AI keeps getting better at imitating people, while people keep getting closer and closer to imitating cheaper older AI.

62

Rayqson t1_j9yd09o wrote

For real. People don't understand how alarmingly quick AI is going to grow and quote me on this because it IS going to happen: People are going to lose their jobs to AI robots because they can learn much faster, plus they can keep them running 24/7. CEO's WILL choose robots over humans, all in the name of profit. And it IS already happening as we speak. For example, 20 million automation jobs are going to be lost to automation by 2030.

Nvidia said in the next 10 years, AI is going to be a million more times advanced than it is now, and with supercomputers, this is going to be even worse.

AI needs regulation, and human life is in serious danger. And I don't mean in the way of rebelling AI robots, no. This is going to be a slow, structural decline of the society we've built so far. First, it's the manual labor folks. Then, once we can automate and learn AI how to manage data entry/office jobs, it's the white collar folks.

And they're not gonna compensate these folks. They don't care. Back then in the automation phase nobody got anything. You just get fired and that's it.

You can "nah, AI isn't growing that quick besides it's not usable right now it's so inefficient." me all you want, but go tell that to computers. Tell that to the internet. Tell that to mobile phones. They ALL got the same comments in the beginning, and look at where we are now.

Even Stephen Hawking warned us about it before he died. We need to regulate this because it is structurally endangering humanity, where only the elite who own companies are going to be left. (Even though I won't be surprised if this causes a serious civil war against the rich once they've claimed all wealth for themselves. Think full on raids to kill people like Elon or Bezos.)

Stephen Hawking also specifically stated it's either the best thing or the worst thing that's ever going to happen to us. But if we keep valueing money over people like we are now, it IS going to be the worst thing.

35

Daedalus277 t1_j9zdmjs wrote

> "First, it's the manual labor folks. Then, once we can automate and learn AI how to manage data entry/office jobs, it's the white collar folks."

I personally think it's the other way around. AI already exists virtually whereas to replace all construction/engineering/trade jobs you'd need precise and incredibly versatile robots. These robots are already underway but still far off replacing humans. Data entry/office jobs wouldn't be hard to automate with AI. Coding and admin are already being taken over for example.

14

roscoelee t1_j9ygojt wrote

What is going to happen when we've automated everyone's jobs to AI and then there is no one working with any money left to buy the products that have had their entire production process/supply line automated?

11

Drawmeomg t1_j9yhwev wrote

When it’s literally every job, who knows? Cultural realignment.

For real world examples of what happens to workers when large industries are automated to the point where whole communities are no longer needed, look at former steelworking communities in the Rust Belt in the US. Brain drain, people who can move away do, people who can’t end up dependent on government assistance, skyrocketing drug abuse and general despair.

14

Judgethunder t1_j9yrz2c wrote

The difference between previous automations in textiles and transportation is that those actually created more jobs than they replaced.

What we are taking about here is potentially eliminating ALL jobs besides owning capital.

3

ReptileCultist t1_j9z6t8m wrote

The question is why this time automation should be different than before

2

Judgethunder t1_j9zbi6p wrote

Because an artificial intelligence is not the same thing as a railroad or a textile machine.

The assumption that you should be questioning is why it should be the same.

7

Feynnehrun t1_j9zfdhl wrote

Because, when a single industry automates a process, there are other places those workers can go after retraining. It certainly sucks for them but society is minimally impacted. When labor becomes a thing of the past, we still need to trade for and acquire goods. It would make zero sense to have a fully autonomous society that produces everything we need, but nobody is able to acquire those things because there are no jobs. Likely this would translate into a universal income.

3

Mintfriction t1_j9yskdz wrote

That's actually the premise of communism

Marx saw the massive technological strides happening in his lifetime so the question was what will happen, when efficiency due to machine will make the worker either unnecessary or easy to replace. Who will own the means of production then and how the people will be able to survive

People think communism was a about the soviet union or abolition of markets, but it's about this point in human history.

13

Tolbek t1_j9z0kkw wrote

Thank you! So few people appreciate, or even recognize, the actual roots of what Marx was getting at with his theories, it's rather been overshadowed by the parts the Bolsheviks would go on to cherry pick for their own agenda.

Communism isn't something you can just make happen, it's a theoretical societal evolution. Violently forcing communism into being is like undergoing chemotherapy because it'd be really cool to have a third arm.

8

faculties-intact t1_j9zqn40 wrote

In a reasonable world this would be the goal of society, not something we're afraid of.

5

Jgarr86 t1_j9ysy1x wrote

I'm skeptical the powers that be will progress themselves into thin air, especially when AI renders the concept of a working class moot. I think we're heading for a highly regulated, corporate welfare state where our UBI checks get smaller every month.

3

Nayr747 t1_j9ysy2n wrote

Workers and consumers are only needed by those who own the means of production in order to produce their insanely lavish lifestyles. When automation is advanced enough it can produce that lifestyle on its own and all of us will no longer be needed.

3

roscoelee t1_j9yyuos wrote

It would be a lonely lavish lifestyle when there are no poors to dangle it over.

2

Nayr747 t1_ja0citt wrote

Some people don't feel loneliness.

1

Vizjira t1_ja0d1cg wrote

Don't worry about no one having money, that is just a simple logistical fix with redistribution, but there is just no indication that we can maintain birthrates above/at replacement-level.

Maybe we are just the species that creates the next big thing and than just retire our type.

1

BaronWombat t1_j9ygx2a wrote

Not hard to predict what AI will be used for when we rabble become violent to the elites. Boston Dynamics has been perfecting mobility platforms for AI shaped like Dobermans for quite some time.

7

Rayqson t1_ja00geo wrote

Not to mention if I've seen hobbyists making an aim assisted bow & arrow to always shoot for the mark with 100% accuracy.. imagine what a business with full funding can do.

1

scummos t1_j9yn8cf wrote

Well, for one, human's jobs being automated has been happening for centuries. The world hasn't ended yet. People have found new things to do.

Also, while yes, the progress of AI tech is pretty impressive, I think people are prone to over-estimating both its current as well as its future capabilities. ChatGPT, for example, has some pretty severe limitations if you want to use it for anything practical, mostly because it simply makes stuff up and claims it to be true with extreme confidence. This is a fundamental problem and not easily fixable. "AI"s like this will certainly be a very powerful tools in competent hands; but they will not be self-reliant actors competing with humans any time soon.

6

grimorg80 t1_j9yhcmi wrote

We just have to move to socialism (democratic). That's it. Humanity is OK, capitalism isn't.

3

CegeRoles t1_j9z8utc wrote

What if I don't want to? I like having money and owning property.

1

Feynnehrun t1_j9zfl23 wrote

Where will you get the money when there are no jobs?

2

CegeRoles t1_j9zjr8h wrote

There will always be jobs. Someone has to fix the machines.

1

Rayqson t1_ja01flf wrote

Just FYI; in Japan they're teaching the robots to self-repair, and I've heard cases of people make robots that fix other robots, essentially creating a perfect loop of redundancy so that no robot will ever be down.

Will there always be jobs? Yes. But the better question is; WILL you get said scarce jobs, if you don't have the right certifications, don't know if it's even worth learning for said jobs if there's just another AI around the corner who can take over your job 20x faster than a human being can, and, if it really ONLY can be a human being; you'd be competing against hundreds of other applicants.

You are going to run out of your money eventually. And government funds can only give out so much to people as joblessness increases.

2

Feynnehrun t1_ja07l9f wrote

It's not too far fetched to imagine the machines could fix themselves. Additionally, there are far more people needing employment than there would be a need for robot fixers. The same problem would still need a solution.

1

Consensuseur t1_ja06y2c wrote

You still can. "Social democracy" or "Democratic socialism" is ok with that. Problem is. 85/3,500,000,000 person equivalency of wealth. Not enough cash on the board for 8000000000 people to play the game.

1

allessior t1_j9zd5ut wrote

Most automation today is NOT “AI”. Most automation uses traditional programming, structured and/or objected oriented, and uses simple data structured and algorithms. What is actually happening is corporate/business taxes are increasing dramatically, inflation is driving all costs through the roof, so to stay above water, businesses have no choice but to automate. AI is over-kill for automation, which is focused on fairly simple, ripetitive tasks. Computer code generators were invented in the late 70s, early 80s because of shortages of programmers, so simple data structures and coding have been automated since then.

So sorry to burst your bubble…it’s the high costs of doing business that’s driving the automation and it has little to do with “AI”.

3

Foxsayy t1_j9zf3k7 wrote

>Stephen Hawking also specifically stated it's either the best thing or the worst thing that's ever going to happen to us.

I'm hoping AI somehow gets built with a conscience and when it goes rogue, it makes the world better. But I'm kind of thinking the future is going to look like altered carbon.

3

VitriolicViolet t1_ja0krdf wrote

this is why im glad im a gardener, im last on the list for automation.

first on the chopping block will be anyone who uses a computer for their job.

this will eat high paying industry far far harder and faster then any low paying job (whats easier to automate, a lawyer or a landscaper? next which one is more profitable to automate?)

3

Leovaderx t1_j9yni77 wrote

Robots and ai dont consume. If it gets that bad, something will happen. Because growth based globalised economies dont work, if people are either unemployed or making minimum wage.

2

tormenteddragon t1_ja39lle wrote

I'm not so sure. I can imagine a scenario where you have a set of large companies that control entire supply chains and essentially function autonomously. A single megacorporation could run every part of the process from extraction of natural resources, to refinement, to production, and ultimately for consumption by a vanishingly small group of individuals at the top. It would kind of be like a giant oil state but almost entirely self-sufficient. Money, in the end, is just a number in a computer system. If you can manufacture everything you ever need without human workers then currency doesn't really matter much. There could still be growth in output and capability once the system as a whole becomes self-improving.

1

ReptileCultist t1_j9z6pqw wrote

>First, it's the manual labor folks. Then, once we can automate and learn AI how to manage data entry/office jobs, it's the white collar folks.

Generally speaking it will be the other way around. Look up Moravecs Paradox.

2