Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_isq6qf5 wrote

Reply to comment by AdditionalPizza in Will OpenAI's improved Codex put programmers on the chopping block? by AdditionalPizza

No I didn't mean expand demand for developers, I mean expand production per developer. This means instead of 50 people working on the same project we can have 25 people working on two projects, thus producing more instead of having 25 unemployed people. That's what I meant.

11

AdditionalPizza OP t1_isq71vn wrote

I see. I wonder to what degree that system will work. If that's the case, why wouldn't a company today hire 100 instead of 50 if it doubles the output?

3

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_isq89j2 wrote

See, that's exactly why I am not speaking per company, I am speaking per country. Most companies won't have the need to develop more projects just because they can. Countries that are leading tech development can absorb these people into other companies and new startups for a while. But there is a limit to expansion so that's why even leading countries will eventually not be able to expand that much.

This is just slack resources for any end anywhere. Just like in The Theory of the Growth of The Firm (Penrose). Slack resources is a necessary condition to expand but not sufficient. Countries that lead tech usually mention a need for more skilled workers, and that is reflected by market logic on the high wages and social status of tech workers (reflected in other countries because skilled workers can leave for other countries but mostly because multinationals from tech-heavy countries set the expected wages also when they arrive in other countries). Taking this to literally mean there is room for expansion constrained by availability of workers seems to not be a bad guess.

So yes, not at the company level but at the country level in some countries there is room for expansion. And yes this will result in lower wages as room for expansion diminishes.

3

AdditionalPizza OP t1_isqa9am wrote

I suppose that just leaves the burning question we can't answer, which is how long?

I just don't understand how the swathes of lower skilled programming positions won't be obliterated. My argument (if you want to call it that I guess) is not that higher skilled workers will feel the full effect of this, but the lower skilled ones simply won't be able to be reused elsewhere when their job only takes basic prompts. They certainly won't be moving to other countries for work and demand decent pay.

Programmers of all levels are considered skilled works, until an AI reduces the skill needed to basic text prompting. Is it worth it to start a 4 year university course today with the hopes of getting into web development? Today that's considered a skilled position, 4 years from now it might be as trivial as a call center position.

4

AsthmaBeyondBorders t1_isqe0sx wrote

I really can't answer anything regarding the speed of transformation atm, I just thought about your question for a minute or two. But speaking in general form for when we get there, as we approach trivialization of intellectual tasks (and I say trivialization to be on the same page as you, not to be confused with full automation) there are common points of view about the future:

  1. That's a non-issue: the argument of most people who hold a bachelor of Economics degree (and never studied economics past undergrad level).

The argument suggests that every technological revolution which makes older jobs disappear tend to also make new jobs never before considered to pop into existence. Not every tech leap does this but some tech leaps are so profound that they make up for a lot more new jobs than they took away.

In this argument developers need not fear, maybe they won't be doing the same things they are doing today but they will have financial stability pursuing other jobs. As you can see, the first flaw of this argument jumps in front of you when it disregards people who are caught in the transition period, and only cares about people who get an education and a job after the transition is done.

  1. Universal Basic Income: self explanatory, this will tell you you don't have to worry about being unemployable, you will get something from the government until you figure something else out.

This connects with the last problem with the first argument and both are the same argument in the heads of some people. In the heads of others, maybe really a good amount of people won't be able to transition and we may end up having to support a good chunck of people just on UBI alone for the long term.

As you can see UBI also doesn't answer your question about getting a degree today, but it would make it less frightening to be wrong.

  1. The Keynesian argument: Automation will inevitably outpace the rate of new job creation in general areas of the economy. The solution: everyone works less time and still get livable wages, so that more people can work.

In this argument your developers would be working half time so that more people can be employed. (Not going into details but your average company shareholder and C-suite would probably not like this for more reasons than just smaller profit margins).

  1. Steady-state economics: similar to the argument above but we couple that with stopping continuous production expansion (in the aggregate economy). As you work less hours, more people can work. Everyone works less but nobody is allowed to be filthy-rich (where is the limit? Good question). If there is capital concentration then expansion would be needed again.

  2. Degrowth: similar to the above but we kill specific industries (think private jets, yachts, fast food, fast fashion, probably a lot of tech too).

Why kill "superficial" industries? To avoid hyper Inflation in the prices of fundamental products and services, such as foods sold at the supermarket, durable clothing (non-luxury), housing construction, etc, etc. Because reducing the amount of worked hours but not reducing wages (or reducing less than 1:1 ratio) may inflate all prices, so we kill superficial industries in order to allocate resources and people in more essential work, controlling Inflation via supply (see the last nobel prize in economics iirc).

In this scenario your average developer who works for tech giant cartels will not have that kind of work ever again. More modest wages in smaller companies and less working hours. But also constrained by some limit in wealth accumulation.

I was about to mention the socialist arguments but I don't feel like getting into the shit show that may follow in the comments. But market socialism may be an answer (Steady-State Economics except all companies are cooperatives [except for monopolies, which are owned by the government]). Why cooperatives? Because there is a conflict of interest in having people work less hours when companies are private: managers and shareholders have all the incentive in the world to raise the amount of working hours if they are allowed to.

  1. Business as usual: The actual path we are heading. This is the path where we believe argument one is right and if it isn't we just allow huge portions of the population to fall into unemployment until revolts begin and we enter a fascist state. But to be clear, not only do we believe argument one is right, we also believe that the transition stage for people who are right now getting an education and/or working in jobs soon to be trivialized will be smooth asf. New jobs will pop up and most professionals will be able to transition smoothly without a care in the world.
5

AdditionalPizza OP t1_isqhgfo wrote

Appreciate the comment, it's well thought out.

The first point is often brought up in regards to the singularity, though I personally think it's the least likely outcome. Comparing the upcoming revolution when transformative AI starts knocking out employment sector after sector to the industrial revolution? Just doesn't compute in my mind. There's a big difference between machines being operated, and machines operating themselves. Not only operating themselves, but doing it better than humans in every measurable way.

But the real point that matters here is the last point. As it seems we are just sitting and waiting for the first disruption to bring things to a screeching halt. I know text to image gave us a taste of what that can be, but graphic designs (no offence to them) are not essential to today's economy. They are a subset within a non-essential sector (creative arts, more or less).

Programmers however, may be the first realistic sector to see upheaval from AI. I imagine though that it's probably also the most important to be first because it might be the largest domino to move the transition from number 7 to "the one that isn't numbered" in your list.

3

dasnihil t1_issqe6q wrote

to double their output of pumping out more projects. I'm a programmer and if AI automates most of my routine things, I'll just be capable of handling more things now. and that's always good for the company.

1

AdditionalPizza OP t1_issvfvh wrote

Yes but from the company's financial angle, if they can get the same output as today, for half the cost, that's just as much of an option as twice the output at the same cost.

Obviously it isn't that simple of course. But the reasoning can be applied to any ratio. The company might want to keep production levels the same and invest the money elsewhere.

3

dasnihil t1_istdaln wrote

i don't know of any non-greedy company that would like to keep the same output they have today. but good point of investing the money elsewhere. anyway, who cares man. i don't even care enough about singularity, it's one of the human constructs like many other. it would be nice to live with a universal income/housing provided though. that's the only thing i care about till i die. after that a zillion more ppl will come to earth, humanity might engineer sentience and move on from our biological body, nuclear fusion will slingshot conscious beings into space, what a tourism industry that would be. no harm from radiation, no need for oxygen.. anyway, that's what i see humanity getting into in maybe 200 years from now.

the only benefit i see that people living today "might" get is a basic income to support bare minimum living, that too in a decade if not two.

2