It bothers me a little bit as a programmer, but the rational part of my mind is aware that there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less. Improvements in productivity just result in people realizing there's a whole new world of stuff they can now build that wasn't feasible before, and the market will eat that up.
The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job.
there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less.
In the past, new automation technologies often open up new possibilities in production capabilities in turn creating new jobs - specifically jobs that have not been automated yet.
AI though promises to be the universal automation, i.e. it can do any job. Thus even if new jobs show up, they will be taken over by AI too.
Then what?
The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job.
Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job.
AI though promises to be the universal automation, i.e. it can do any job.
An AI can't do any job that requires a body, so clearly that isn't true.
If you mean mental jobs, this could be true in the future, but right now, it's hard to say. You can imagine scenarios where an AI does 95% of a job but a human is still required for the last 5% (without which the first 95% is useless).
These tools are recent, but not THAT recent. GPT3 is nearly 4 years old, Copilot is 2 years old, ChatGPT is a year old, GPT4 is 8 months old. No large-scale employment changes resulting from AI are visible so far.
an AI does 95% of a job but a human is still required for the last 5%
This is the kind of scenario I was talking about in my initial comment.
The naive assumption about this scenario is that it would result in 95% of jobs disappearing, but based on history it's more likely that we just do 2000% more stuff with the same amount of human effort.
And if AI really replaces 100% of human labor, are we really going to retain an economic system that only works when humans are doing labor?
Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job.
My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly.
But at that point in time, I think me giving one massage would perhaps be enough for me to retire for life, as long as I can abstain from buying luxury goods or services, i.e. those provided manually by other people (instead of AIs, whose labor would be practically free).
My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly.
But why you? There are billions of other people who are out of work they could hire for the “authentic human experience”.
AI labor is effectively free at that point, didn't you get the memo? :)
It’s not. Machines need power to run. Even if it was super cheap, there is no reason for their owners to share its output with anyone unless they have something to give in return. You know “trade”.
Did you forget about all the endless solar panels and wind turbines that the AI robots progressively built over the years, for an increasingly cheaper price? Energy is abundant now.
They also built a bunch of AI robot factories, so now we have effectively limitless AI robot labor. Everyone has AI robot assistants/friends now.
Even if it was super cheap, there is no reason for their owners to share its output with anyone unless they have something to give in return. You know “trade”.
But they have something to give in return. These owners want authentic human experiences, which can only be provided by other people, not AI robots.
Authentic human experiences (or hand-built goods) are thus now much scarcer, since most people don't need to work anymore. They're sort of luxury goods/services. In this world, imagine how much you'd be willing to pay to have an exclusive, authentic house maid or hairdresser for one day, rather than just another AI robot, no matter how good it is.
Or imagine dining at a restaurant where every waiter and every cook are authentic humans, wow! An unforgettable (and prohibitively expensive) experience.
Of course, not everyone could afford that, unless they themselves are willing to provide such a service. Most people would eat at home (with food farmed, prepared/cooked and delivered by the AI robots and drones, of course), or just go to regular AI robot restaurants if they're feeling especially fancy.
I think you might be overvaluing “authentic human experiences”. It’s a luxury, not a necessity.
Rich people are notorious for seeking luxuries.
There will also be an over supply of people willing to offer it because they have nothing else to offer in trade for basic necessities.
I don't know, perhaps you are right. I do hope you are wrong, though... :)
Also, I'm hoping if such an extreme situation would present itself, governments would be forced to step in and somehow ensure people would always have their basic needs met by, say, a strategic national AI army dedicated to provide those basic needs.
I'm hoping if such an extreme situation would present itself, governments would be forced to step in and somehow ensure people would always have their basic needs met by, say, a strategic national AI army dedicated to provide those basic needs
Ask horses how they're doing these days... just because we've always found a use for humans because of their unique cognitive abilities doesn't mean we always will find a use.
I think it's critical to be thinking about how to make sure wealth isn't simply funneled to a few capitalists who own everything simply by virtue of them being first, because it seems that's the future we're heading for if we aren't careful.
I think you, and I, and everyone on HN will be fine (more or less...) but I am worried about a wide swath of people who will get "left behind."
"The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840. What does the overall growth of horses and mules during the nineteenth century suggest about the relationship between animal power and the introduction of new mechanical technologies, including the steam engine?"
Comments
It bothers me a little bit as a programmer, but the rational part of my mind is aware that there's literally never been a major technological advancement in human history that didn't ultimately result in more people being employed, not less. Improvements in productivity just result in people realizing there's a whole new world of stuff they can now build that wasn't feasible before, and the market will eat that up.
The shape of my career might change, but I doubt I'll be unable to find a job.
In the past, new automation technologies often open up new possibilities in production capabilities in turn creating new jobs - specifically jobs that have not been automated yet.
AI though promises to be the universal automation, i.e. it can do any job. Thus even if new jobs show up, they will be taken over by AI too.
Then what?
Question you should ask is why would anyone hire you when they can get AI to do the same job.
An AI can't do any job that requires a body, so clearly that isn't true.
If you mean mental jobs, this could be true in the future, but right now, it's hard to say. You can imagine scenarios where an AI does 95% of a job but a human is still required for the last 5% (without which the first 95% is useless).
These tools are recent, but not THAT recent. GPT3 is nearly 4 years old, Copilot is 2 years old, ChatGPT is a year old, GPT4 is 8 months old. No large-scale employment changes resulting from AI are visible so far.
This is the kind of scenario I was talking about in my initial comment. The naive assumption about this scenario is that it would result in 95% of jobs disappearing, but based on history it's more likely that we just do 2000% more stuff with the same amount of human effort.
And if AI really replaces 100% of human labor, are we really going to retain an economic system that only works when humans are doing labor?
No reason they wouldn’t be provide physical bodies eventually.
My guess is that some people will always be stubborn and prefer me over an AI giving them massages every now and then, even if I won't do them as perfectly.
But at that point in time, I think me giving one massage would perhaps be enough for me to retire for life, as long as I can abstain from buying luxury goods or services, i.e. those provided manually by other people (instead of AIs, whose labor would be practically free).
But why you? There are billions of other people who are out of work they could hire for the “authentic human experience”.
Because other people don't need to give massages, so you can't pay them to do it.
They already gave one massage, so now they can afford AI-made stuff for the rest of their lives, including AI massages for themselves.
AI labor is effectively free at that point, didn't you get the memo? :)
It’s not. Machines need power to run. Even if it was super cheap, there is no reason for their owners to share its output with anyone unless they have something to give in return. You know “trade”.
Did you forget about all the endless solar panels and wind turbines that the AI robots progressively built over the years, for an increasingly cheaper price? Energy is abundant now.
They also built a bunch of AI robot factories, so now we have effectively limitless AI robot labor. Everyone has AI robot assistants/friends now.
But they have something to give in return. These owners want authentic human experiences, which can only be provided by other people, not AI robots.
Authentic human experiences (or hand-built goods) are thus now much scarcer, since most people don't need to work anymore. They're sort of luxury goods/services. In this world, imagine how much you'd be willing to pay to have an exclusive, authentic house maid or hairdresser for one day, rather than just another AI robot, no matter how good it is.
Or imagine dining at a restaurant where every waiter and every cook are authentic humans, wow! An unforgettable (and prohibitively expensive) experience.
Of course, not everyone could afford that, unless they themselves are willing to provide such a service. Most people would eat at home (with food farmed, prepared/cooked and delivered by the AI robots and drones, of course), or just go to regular AI robot restaurants if they're feeling especially fancy.
I think you might be overvaluing “authentic human experiences”. It’s a luxury, not a necessity.
There will also be an over supply of people willing to offer it because they have nothing else to offer in trade for basic necessities.
Rich people are notorious for seeking luxuries.
I don't know, perhaps you are right. I do hope you are wrong, though... :)
Also, I'm hoping if such an extreme situation would present itself, governments would be forced to step in and somehow ensure people would always have their basic needs met by, say, a strategic national AI army dedicated to provide those basic needs.
Speculating is fun, isn't it? lol
That would depend on who is your government.
Ask horses how they're doing these days... just because we've always found a use for humans because of their unique cognitive abilities doesn't mean we always will find a use.
I think it's critical to be thinking about how to make sure wealth isn't simply funneled to a few capitalists who own everything simply by virtue of them being first, because it seems that's the future we're heading for if we aren't careful.
I think you, and I, and everyone on HN will be fine (more or less...) but I am worried about a wide swath of people who will get "left behind."
It would be pointless. Do you even know that 99% of horses can't speak English?
Anyway, my own experience tells me they're mostly just horsing around.
A lot more leisure and a lot less work than a few centuries ago...
Good times!
"The [horse] population peaked in 1910 at 27.5 million, more than 600% higher than in 1840. What does the overall growth of horses and mules during the nineteenth century suggest about the relationship between animal power and the introduction of new mechanical technologies, including the steam engine?"
https://energyhistory.yale.edu/horse-and-mule-population-sta...
Clearly unsustainable, so I'm glad that problem solved itself. Phew! Can you imagine what it'd be like if they continued reproducing like a plague?
Anyway, the real question is: were they happier in 1910 when they were our slaves or are they happier now that they have more leisure?
How do you even measure happiness in a horse?
How do you measure happiness in humans?
Is happiness even real?
What is the meaning of life?
What does "42" mean?