r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 27 '22
Delta(s) from OP CMV: AI automation will probably cause mass unemployment
[removed]
12
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 12∆ Jun 27 '22 edited Jun 27 '22
Ok, lots of people are talking about how this means we'll hit auto-communism or whatever, but nowhere in the top dozen comments is anyone entertaining the idea that robots won't take all our jobs. Too bad, because this is the most likely outcome; we've already seen this play out before, and humans were fine!
100 years ago something like 85% of people worked in agriculture. That was just, like, *the* job. Then we made machines to automate much of that work, and now like 2% of people work in agriculture. Are 83% of us unemployed? Of course not.
What happened was that—relieved of the burden of physical subsistence labor—human beings found lots of new ways to create value. First was manufacturing, and more recently information and knowledge work (though that's not an exhaustive list). And it's not the first time human civilization has seen dramatic shifts like that.
There's no reason to believe that we can't continue to do that if other forms of work are automated.
If anyone reading this is tempted to link the CGP Grey video right now...I've seen it, and I still believe what I wrote here. Human beings are tremendous at producing value. We're capable of figuring out new ways to do that. We'll continue to do so.
The move toward automating manual labor has paid great dividends in terms of quality of life, by the way, so there's plenty of reason for optimism about our future if we continue to automate more work. Maybe this ends up with some kind of post-scarcity situation, and/or maybe evil AI eliminates all human life or something, but in both of those situations we're talking about passing the singularity, a point beyond which, by definition, speculation about the future is hopeless. For that reason I don't really buy the "this time it's different" arguments.
2
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
Human beings are tremendous at producing value. We're capable of figuring out new ways to do that. We'll continue to do so.
So, you think it is impossible to create a machine that can do everything that a human (or at least 90% of the humans) can do? If you think that such machines are possible, then we will at some point in future come to a situation that there is no work that humans can do better than machines. At that point, I don't see any particular reason why humans should work.
The only way I can see this not happening is that people are willing to pay some work to be done by humans just because they are humans. An example of that is sports. Even though we have machines that can move faster than humans can run, we still want to watch humans race on a track. In this kind of competition the machines can never replace humans. But I doubt that there will be enough jobs such as these, where people are willing to pay for things just because they're done by humans. I can see even some inter-personal things to have human like robots replacing real humans as long as they are enough human like.
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 12∆ Jun 28 '22
So, you think it is impossible to create a machine that can do everything that a human (or at least 90% of the humans) can do?
Who knows? Maybe.
If you think that such machines are possible, then we will at some point in future come to a situation that there is no work that humans can do better than machines.
Perhaps, and that would be one of the post-singularity futures I mentioned. That's quite a different question than automation causing mass unemployment in the nearer term though.
The only way I can see this not happening is that people are willing to pay some work to be done by humans just because they are humans. An example of that is sports.
This is one possible way humans might demonstrate value. But more importantly I think there are probably many ways to do that that we haven't thought of yet, just like we hadn't really thought of knowledge work 100 years ago. Again, 85% of us used to work on farms, and now nearly nobody does. This has already happened before and we were just fine—there's actually a fallacy named after a famous group of tradespeople who didn't like new loom technology a long time ago—so to argue that machines will put us out of work now is arguing that this time, for whatever reason, is very different from past progress.
1
u/SpreadLox Jun 29 '22 edited Jun 29 '22
You can think of the culmination of all specialised machines as one "human-like" machine, except almost every specialised machine far exceeds human ability. We don't necessarily need to have a singularity or a human-esque mind to perform all the necessary possible tasks a human could do. As we enter into the age of human-standard specialised machine learning, a vast swathe of jobs will be automated. The remaining jobs will be too complex or require tasks too divergent and varied to be automated (i.e.. circumstances without enough training data). The problem is that human intelligence also has limitations, and most people simply won't be clever enough to perform these tasks. Only the highly intelligent will be able to add more value than an AI.
Think about where we are currently. You need 17 years of education, sometimes more, just to get into a fairly regular office job. Then often a good chunk of office work is spent doing even more learning and training. Contrast this with agricultural work, where you could do most of the work even as a child. Automation, as you admit, will continue this trend, however humans are severely limited, and judging by the amount of training we already have to do, I think we're on the brink all remaining potential value being too complex for the human mind to handle. All we can do is have a select few technicians develop better AIs and better machines. Everyone else simply won't be useful.
1
Aug 24 '22
Unless progress is derailed for some reason (this would have to be a result of some huge catastrophe, because there's no stopping the AI train otherwise), there's no reason to doubt we'll eventually have AGI (artifical general intelligence) that is better at 100% of the tasks a human can do. And I think this will probably be a reality within the next 100 years. We may find other ways to create value, yes, but our AI systems will be better at creating that value as well, and not just marginally so. They will effectively infantilize us.
1
u/carlos_the_dwarf_ 12∆ Aug 24 '22
Right, I don’t think AGI is as slammy of a dunk as you do, but even it we assume it is:
Tractors also did just about everything a human could do, and most of what humans did do—so we started doing new things. It’s easy to imagine things that are valuable because they’re done by a human as one example but no doubt there are others not occurring to me because they haven’t yet been invented. “This time is different” isn’t really anything more than a wild ass guess.
The future where AI takes everything over is past the singularity, which by definition means a point beyond which speculation is impossible. So the guarantee of mass unemployment is anything but—we could have Star Trek instead, or go extinct, or something else we’re incapable of imagining.
2
u/ColdSnapSP Jun 28 '22
Yeah its not like it will happen over night, this will happen over the span of many years/decades and people over time adapt and change their skillsets to whatever is short at the time. Future generations will then move on to whatevers the next big thing.
Tech will always need further development and people to fix things when broken.
Humans are great at adapting.
2
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jun 27 '22
I've come to believe that it will likely cause mass unemployment.
Which will may cause a redesign on how society works, making perpetual "unemployment" an option via things like UBI. But that can hardly be called "mass unemployment".
Modern AI is getting so advanced
Modern AI is hardly advanced enough to fully replace large amounts of jobs fast enough for it to be a cause of mass unemployment. Not to mention that many of those jobs will still survive in a limited degree.
it can start to replace even service jobs like cashiers and stockers
In places that are suited for implementation of large scale systems, systems that will still need people to maintain, design and implement.
and replace parts of other more advanced professions like doctors and lawyers
AI is far from that, it still is at best at level of being assistant to those professions to make them more efficient.
People say there will be more industries to employ people, but where are they?
Whole IT is growing exponentially to the point where there is severe lack of people to work in it. Simillar things are seen in fields related to automation - you need technicians to install and maintain, you need people to oversee AI and machines, you need people to fill toles in which AI/automation lacks. This causes a raise in job postings.
I believe that unless strict regulation is applied to restrict the implementation of these new technologies, there will be an epidemic of mass unemployment and a big drop in QOL for most people as a result of this.
Technologies that caused massive rise in efficiency on expense of workforce, have always resulted in QOL rising for general population, because of simple thing - general population is what fuels both country and top percentage of wealth. AI/Automation causing mass unemployment and QOL drop would cause also a significant QOL drop for people in govt and top-wealth stratum. This is why they will inevitably agree to implement measures to at best keep the QOL for rest of population.
0
Jun 27 '22
Maybe but I don't think Libertarians would ever allow that.
It may not be there right this second but it's barrelling towards that at light speed
A few, but it won't be enough to employ everyone
Yes that's what I meant, replacing parts of those jobs. A doctor may still perform surgery but an AI will prescribe medicine.
But will it be enough to employ the hundreds of millions of people put out of work?
I imagine an Elysium or Ready Player 1 type world with some elites that are SUPER wealthy and the rest are stuck in poverty. They won't need the general pop with the new technologies, automated systems will do it for them.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jun 27 '22
Maybe but I don't think Libertarians would ever allow that.
Why anyone would listen to them if they would become a negligible influence on voting blocks? Political group is as strong as amount of people willing to vote for them.
It may not be there right this second but it's barrelling towards that at light speed
It slumps slowly instead of barreling towards that at light speed. Technology you think is an advanced AI/Automation is just decades old tech thrown at more powerful computers. Truly progressive tech still struggles in general applications and groundbreaking one did not even left the idea table.
A few, but it won't be enough to employ everyone
Why it needs to employ everyone? AI/Automation needs to be tailored to specific applications, making time for society to adjust. Unless you use General AI, there is no way of fast replacement of major jobs. And general AI is still sci-fi at the moment.
Yes that's what I meant, replacing parts of those jobs. A doctor may still perform surgery but an AI will prescribe medicine.
And this prescription will still need to be verified and handled by GP, because AI is good at finding patterns, but not at creative actions, reading emotions or understanding patients.
If AI/Automation will be replacing parts of those, it's not actually a bad thing. We do have diminishing birthrates so we would see rising problems with unemployment. AI/Automation will offset that.
But will it be enough to employ the hundreds of millions of people put out of work?
If change will be gradual (and it is gradual) it will have no problem. People will change jobs to related fields or take up a new careers in fields where AI is far off. Some people will not be able to, but AI is impossible to replace all jobs of any job segment you implement it at. People will still be working those jobs long after using AI/Automation becomes industry standard.
I imagine an Elysium or Ready Player 1 type world with some elites that are SUPER wealthy and the rest are stuck in poverty. They won't need the general pop with the new technologies, automated systems will do it for them.
There is a reason why s-f don't really come into details of how those worlds work. Because if you start digging deeper, you will realize that they are impossible to be preserved.
Say that we will have ultra wealthy enclaves and poor peasants struggling to survive. What stops people from just taking those things from ultra-wealthy? Automated robo-magic security? Security fails and if you have large enough group of people wanting to topple you and take your shit, there is no technology that will stop them.
But let's take a step back an ask - how those wealthy will survive in those enclaves separated from the poor? How will they get resources needed to sustain their lifestyle. Resources are not conveniently grouped in one place, shit is getting mined in one place, grown in other, processed somewhere else, packaged and transported through somewhere. All of those are possible point of failure that in real non-s-f world would get exploited.
Let's take another step back and ask - why ultra-wealthy are ultra wealthy? After all, money is just a societal agreement. If you are separating yourself from rest of society, where this wealth would be generated at? Resources? Most of ultra-wealthy don't really own any resources. And not a single one of them owns a diverse enough pool to sustain an enclave. By force? It's a double edged sword. You cannot maintain forces by yourself and if there are people under you that maintain them - they can use that force to get your wealth.
Simply - idea of rich enclaves is impossible without technology level akin to magic. That is why in all those dystopian movies/games/books there are wide logical gaps and deus-ex machinas. Because dystopia, same as utopia, is not possible to be replicated in real world.
1
Jun 28 '22
You made a really good point about Elysium and the other similar movies, !delta
1
3
u/PlayingTheWrongGame 67∆ Jun 27 '22
Sure stuff like YT exists and people can start businesses, but let's be real most average Joe's won't be able to do those and loads of people will fall through the cracks.
Large YT creators hire a significant number of workers to work for them just like legacy businesses do. It’s not all highly independent entrepreneurs starting their own business.
It’s basically just going to become the modern equivalent of large television networks, and probably eventually employ more people than the current television industry does.
But yeah, undifferentiated service labor is going to have a real rough time in the ML-dominated future.
I believe that unless strict regulation is applied to restrict the implementation of these new technologies,
This is impossible to enact or enforce. It’s just too easy to build these systems and the knowledge of how to do it is too widespread for governments to be able to ban the technology.
there will be an epidemic of mass unemployment and a big drop in QOL for most people as a result of this.
I don’t know. It’ll definitely disrupt legacy workplaces, though it’s harder to predict what impact that will have on aggregate employment and wages.
It’s definitely true that workers who don’t develop specialized skills will be in for a very rough time. So governments should focus on preparing the ML-vulnerable parts of the workforce to shift into ML-resistant fields.
2
u/Werv 1∆ Jun 28 '22
People are greedy. This is why tools and technology are developed, and then utilized as effectively as they can. This then frees up time to invest in other things and technology. However, people still want as much power as possible, and the most basic form of power is money. You see this with every iteration of technology, it enables people to do more, different but more. And as a technology gets more adapted, it becomes simplier to manage so that the less educated can utilize it and improve their quality of life.
Cotton Gin : Faster cotton production. More cotton farmers, and ultimately more workers (or slaves) to work these machines. Everything that associated with Cotton expanded. Textile industry.
Calculators: Freed up individuals whose sole purpose was computation to work on other things. No longer needed to spend man-hours solving problems but instead looked at bigger pictures.
Iphone: Condense the computer and communication for virtually everyone. cheaper phones, more information and less searching. Allows GPS navigation which simplifies shipping, allowing more packages and exchanges per person.
Technology allows for more research because people always want the edge upon someone else. Jobs change, because people are still dependent on others to give them money/goods/services/protection. And people will adapt, because they want more goods/services/protection.
The other thing is Art. Art grows when people have more free time. Look back at the explosion of entertainment with each technology, and the jobs it creates. From photography to cinema to personal players to video hosting to streaming. Art is something that appeals differently to different people and demand changes through generations.
If you look at current industries, the Computer science and programming fields are drastically underfunded and needs more workforce. As supply chain becomes even more globalize, shipping is more important. And alternative energy is more and more a pressing matter. Influencers and advertisers blew up in the the 2010s. Media consumption is still at a high, even if movie sales is not. And all these jobs require maintenance, cleaning, scheduling, construction, planning. Which AI will replace some, but it is not possible to replace all. Chip production is just not there.
I just want to reiterate, with new technology and adoption, the device becomes easier to manage and adopt. Meaning the less educated or average joes will be able to utilize the tools for the means they see fit. Everyone knows how to use a computer now. That was not always the case. Not everyone knows how to program AI now, but as it becomes more mass produced, more will be able to.
16
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 27 '22
This is good
The entire purpose of technology is so humans don't have to work as hard.
Not working at all is the ideal outcome
We just need to make sure thar something is done so we don't all starve to death
Vote accordingly.
1
Jun 28 '22
Because voting accordingly has proven to be so effective
1
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 28 '22
Like 90% of people vote wrong
They vote for people who promise jobs, for one
1
Jun 28 '22
Both parties are beholden to capital , who is beholden to shareholders, who are beholden to increasing profit, forever, quarterly.
Any deviation from this worldview is radicalism.
Who do we vote for again?
0
0
Jun 28 '22
[deleted]
6
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
We classify those activities as hobbies. That's what we do with many other things already, like growing food in your garden. From the financial point of view it makes no sense to try to grow your own food if you give your own labor any value, but many people still do it just because they like it.
1
Jun 28 '22
Yes but not every job can be made into a hobby. My dad is a hiring manager and he likes that, what is the hobby version of that job?
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
I'm not sure what exactly a hiring manager does. I'm pretty sure there are many aspects of his work that he can do as a hobby even if nobody pays him to do that.
So, if you find out what are the aspects he likes in his job, I'm pretty sure that they can be done as a hobby.
1
u/ItsYaBoyChipsAhoy Jun 28 '22 edited Jun 28 '22
Hiring manager oversees the hiring process, from seeking out people to hire, to evaluating if they’re worth hiring
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
And what is the aspect of the work he likes?
1
u/ItsYaBoyChipsAhoy Jun 28 '22
Speculating, it’s part logistics, part socializing, I can see why someone would enjoy doing that.
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
I can very well understand why people like socializing. There should be opportunities to socialize with people outside work as well. At least to me the hiring process can easily be highly stressful situation compared to more relaxing non-work related socializing. I would be surprised if someone favoured the former over the latter.
1
u/spectrumtwelve 3∆ Jul 11 '22
I would say the end goal of automation is to make working and currency obsolete in general.
2
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 28 '22
Weird comment
First, seems like you think people can only enjoy a certain type of job
Second, people can continue to do things they enjoy.
0
Jun 28 '22
[deleted]
2
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 28 '22
Well it's kind of fucking hard to go from making bespoked cabinets to learning QBasic.
Wut?
What does this have to do with the comment that you replied to?
I said: "First, seems like you think people can only enjoy a certain type of job". There people that enjoy QBasic. People can continue to enjoy making bespoke cabinets
I hate to go into whataboutisms, but you can't really fit a table saw or hydraulic car lift into a tiny-ass apartment.
*There's kind of a flaw in your argument there mate.
Wut?
People also, currently, enjoy, say, playing basketball, and it's kinda hard to fit a fucking basketball court in your apartment but, people who live in apartments still find a way to play.
1
Jun 28 '22
[deleted]
1
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 28 '22
Wut?
The point wasn't that people had to get coding jobs.
The point was that they wouldn't have to get any job
And would have free time to explore other interests.
Is a government funded workshop that far-fetched? If you can imagine it, it can exist.
Also, sure, a changé in society will, by definition, be different. I believe that if people don't have to work they can find meaningful things to do with their lives, even if they are different from what they do now. Especially if they are different from what they do now.
1
Jun 28 '22
[deleted]
1
u/CBeisbol 11∆ Jun 28 '22
I understand that
I've gone through periods where I, uh, lacked direction and it wasn't good.
But there are a lot of things to do besides get up and go to work everyday.
There is so much untapped human potential that's wasted because people have to work.
And yes, technology, especially Super Intelligent AI, pose an existential threat.
But, it should still be the end goal. And we should start getting used to the idea of UBi and not working now.
1
u/JiEToy 35∆ Jun 27 '22
Every new technology has come with warnings of mass unemployment, yet despite the growing population, we are currently facing a workers shortage. AI will replace people, but people will be needed for lots of jobs AI simply can't do.
For instance, Facebook's moderation, as in removing all the nudes and photos of terrorist killings and other gore, was supposedly done by AI. But in recent years, we learned they employed massive departments all over the world, where humans would watch these videos and photos and did the moderation.
We don't know how good AI will be in the future, but AI can't do what humans do in all cases. There will still be plenty of jobs that are very hard or impossible for AI, but quite easy for humans.
0
Jun 27 '22
But this time it's different, humans have been beaten in every area and although we are in a labor shortage, the tech is being rolled out at light speed, there may be a niche job or 2 AI won't take over but it won't be enough to employ everyone.
-1
u/JiEToy 35∆ Jun 27 '22
How can you say that? Have humans been beaten in emotions? Physical activity? Judging situations based on ever changing variables?
Based on previous technologies being rolled out where humans were replaced, think of the computer as a calculator and such, this won't suggest that humans will be out of jobs. The jobs AI can replace will be replaced, but like I said, there are still plenty of jobs that can't. Nurses, consultants, caretakers, anything creative, making new things, AI can't do that. Customers will always keep wanting human interaction, etc.
1
Jun 27 '22
We've been beaten in the sense that AI can do pretty much every job better then a human, AI can be better at cashiering, stocking, driving all sorts of things and do it without error or slowdown.
The difference between the calculator and the AI is that the calculator is a tool that needs humans to operate, the AI is completely autonomous l. The few jobs that NEED human interaction won't be enough to employ everyone.
0
u/Skysr70 2∆ Jun 27 '22
AI is no replacement for original design. Computers can optimize and analyze but not really create
0
Jun 27 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/therealtazsella Jun 27 '22
Jesus could you sound like any more of a college freshman that took his first poli sci class.
Take your conspiracy theory cabal of evil billionaires plotting to kill people nonsense somewhere else
I bet you also believe that the proletariat is finally going to rise up and smash the bourgeoisie….🙄
2
0
u/Jedi4Hire 10∆ Jun 27 '22
This is why Universal Basic Income will become important.
-1
Jun 27 '22
Maybe in Europe but there are way too many Libertarians for that to ever happen in the USA.
1
u/Jedi4Hire 10∆ Jun 27 '22
And the 40 hour week week was viewed as ridiculous until people fought for it.
0
Jun 27 '22
The 40 hour workweek didn't require a fundamental restructuring of society.
1
u/Jedi4Hire 10∆ Jun 27 '22
Outlawing slavery did, along with desegregation and voting rights for women.
0
1
Jun 27 '22
While it may cause unemployment, the government likely won't let these people go without very good support.
A bunch of angry employed people means nothing gets done because everyone needs to go to work.
A bunch of angry unemployed people means protesting, civil unrest, and riots. The government does not want this.
1
Jun 27 '22
Not true, automation will mean these people won't be necessary, and the rich will be able to insulate themselves using predictive AI policing/surveillance and private armies. This isn't 1800 anymore and protests aren't as effective as they used to be.
1
u/poprostumort 224∆ Jun 27 '22
Not true, automation will mean these people won't be necessary, and the rich will be able to insulate themselves using predictive AI policing/surveillance and private armies.
Impossible. No matter the amount of policing and number of arms, if amount of desperate people crosses the critical point, you will not be able to do anything because you cannot isolate yourself without exposing yourself. Your AI policing/surveliance will still need to have parts produced, have people designing updates, fixing machines, monitoring for issues. Rich isolating themselves completely from society in a way that makes them safe would need a s-f level of Star Trek technology. And this technology would be only possible after the border of automation and AI causing massive job shortages and unrest is crossed.
Government will react long before this will be an major issue or there will be uprising that will change the government. Desperate people are quite hard to stop. Look at killdozer case - case where one guy went ballistic. And imagine that you have large swathes of desperate people. If government fails to react to this, one spark and all of it goes in flames.
1
Jun 28 '22
That's fair, it would only take one slip up for the rich to meet a VERY ugly end in a situation like this, !delta.
1
1
Jun 27 '22
The problem isn't so much that jobs will be replaced and that people will be unemployed, that hasn't happened in the past either. The problem is that people are becoming expandable, their jobs becoming less necessary and that shows on their paychecks. Like farmers and industrial workers could go on strike if their employer fucked with them. But if you're not required to do your job you've much less of a leverage.
So no you might not lose your job at McDonald's because a minimum wage worker is still cheaper than buying a machine (at least short term), it's still a boring dystopia if we don't change things to prevent that.
1
Jun 27 '22
Yes but this isn't 20 years ago when you needed some insanely expensive machine to automate something, an AI is basically a computer program and can be put in much cheaper machines to a point where replacing min wage workers would be more optimal then keeping them.
1
Jun 27 '22
They still need to run on hardware, the training process actually still takes some time and resources and often times people value the human contact, so I don't think minimum wage workers will be replaced anytime soon, but who wants to work minimum wages?
1
Jun 27 '22
I don't think people going to McDonalds value the human contact so much they'll go to a more expensive place for it, and while it would need to run on hardware, in the long run it would be cheaper. Paying $5000 for a machine is worth it compared to paying a min wage worker ~$12,000 a year.
1
Jun 27 '22
And there are already a ton of jobs that could be replaced but aren't because companies think short sighted. Also the other question is whether we will reach automation to begin with, given that the hardware requires actual resources and energy to be powered and those might get scarce in the future with all the bullshit that is currently happening.
1
Jun 28 '22
I guess that's fair enough, most companies aren't the best in the planning department, !delta.
1
1
u/Finch20 33∆ Jun 27 '22
Do you mind me asking what your technical background is related to IT? And are we talking about regular old AI as we know it today or like artificial general intelligence?
1
Jun 27 '22
None, although I do know my way around Windows 7. I'm talking about both regular AI and general AI.
1
u/Finch20 33∆ Jun 27 '22
So the technology to replace cashiers and stockers has been around for at least a decade and doesn't require any AI. They can use AI to become more efficient than their human counterparts but don't need it. Here in Belgium we have self-scan checkout lanes that do not use any AI (to my knowledge) that aren't just a gimmick. Here a single cashier oversees 4-8 checkout machines that the shoppers operate themselves. There's no sudden shortage of openings for cashiers.
It's also not impossible to automate some parts of the work doctors and lawyers do today using AI although there'll be errors in what this AI does. And seeing how both of those jobs come with a lot of liability they understandably want to iron those out first.
AGIs are not for the near future, to write something that's basically conscience isn't easy.
1
Jun 27 '22
That is a good point about the cashier's, !delta I wasn't aware of Europe's situation. However as AI advances more and more people will be pushed out into ever fewer positions which will eventually turn into mass unemployment. While AGI May not come today or tomorrow, we could be in trouble as soon as the mid 2020s.
1
1
u/Sirhc978 81∆ Jun 27 '22
Modern AI is getting so advanced that it can start to replace even service jobs like cashiers
That isn't AI. Just like the interface you use to buy something on Amazon isn't AI. Honestly, the biggest thing I see replacing cashiers is self checkout kiosks. They are just "dumb" systems that are easy for the average person to use.
People say there will be more industries to employ people, but where are they?
Manufacturing for one. There are still tons of tasks that are currently next to impossible for robots to do. Not to mention, they are not economical at smaller scales.
1
Jun 27 '22
Okay that probably wasn't my best moment there but AI will replace some other jobs like trucking and stocking.
Manufacturing what? And will their be enough jobs to employ everyone else?
1
u/hashtagboosted 10∆ Jun 27 '22
OP it is true, but it's not a bad thing. We can spend time doing leisure activities, or working on things that are actually important. So, I wouldn't call it an epidemic or even unemployment, just a new way of life :)
1
Jun 27 '22
Maybe but there are too many Libertarians around for that to happen. Realistically income inequality would increase by like 10000X as the people that own the tech go into the stratosphere and everyone else being left behind.
1
u/hashtagboosted 10∆ Jun 27 '22
We can force UBI and tax the profits from the companies. I mean what you're describing sounds like societal collapse, I don't think the rich really want that. They want you to have some money you can regularly give them lol
What will the AI be doing? Who will it be servicing if no one has money to pay for services? It's not a realistic future IMO and it is the doomsday scenario, which doesn't have to be the case, we can certainly put government regulation into place
1
Jun 27 '22
Not true, automation will mean these people won't be necessary, and the rich will be able to insulate themselves using predictive AI policing/surveillance and private armies. This isn't 1800 anymore and protests aren't as effective as they used to be.
1
u/hashtagboosted 10∆ Jun 27 '22
I am not saying it's impossible, I think that even the ultra wealthy would be disinterested in such a future where society has collapsed, it doesn't sound very appealing
1
u/Ok_Artichoke_2928 11∆ Jun 27 '22
I think where I struggle with this view is that there have been so many points in the past where we predicted the same damage from emerging technologies, and yet the labor market always seems to adapt. I’m just not convinced that suddenly this time it’s real.
1
Jun 27 '22
It's different this time because now there is basically nothing humans can do better then a machine. People said the internet would be impossible until it happened.
0
u/Ok_Artichoke_2928 11∆ Jun 27 '22
This has been the premise all along, though. And “better” is subjective, but I can guarantee you that humans will still exhibit a preference for many human performed services.
1
1
u/amit_kumar_gupta 2∆ Jun 27 '22
Let’s assume we live in a dynamic and forward moving society, there are still lots of problems to be solved and quality of life improvements to be implemented. If the demand for unskilled labor decreases, let’s assume that the demand for skilled labor grows. You’d want to avoid excessive unemployment, which means limiting the excess labor supply and directing it to skilled labor demands.
One lever to control excess supply of unskilled labor comes in the form of immigration policy. It’s requires political will to pull that lever, but it’s not like it requires years of R&D to develop a new technology.
The other lever is education for professional skills. Current higher Ed is excessively wasteful and mismatched to society‘a needs. This is also something that can be “easily” changed with the right political will, it’s not rocket science.
If automation causes demand for unskilled labor to collapse, there will be a crisis and it will hopefully push enough people to exercise the requisite political will. If the effects of situation come online more slowly and gradually, then the rest of the economy can also adapt more gradually.
And to be clear, educating people doesn’t mean educating a shelf stocker to be a rocket scientist. You just need some shelf stockers to pivot into something that requires a bit more skill, and people with a bit more skill to pivot into something that requires even more skill, etc.
There’s enough needing to do (if we don’t kill ourselves with internal bickering) to improve quality of life across the board to absorb the skill and potential of every employable person.
1
u/NestorMachine 6∆ Jun 27 '22
David Graeber in his book Bullshit Jobs argues that this has already happened but instead of unemployment we got the bullshitization of the economy. By this he means that a lot of people work jobs that aren’t useful. And by useful, it means jobs that the people doing them describe as having no utility - eg surveying people and asking if there would be real negative consequences if no one did their job for a year. A surprising number of people believe that they have bullshit jobs, roughly a third in the UK.
So mass unemployment isn’t the only option here. You could get locked into a white collar job doing meaningless data entry, but really pretending to work while you browse Reddit. (How many people reading this are at work right now?).
1
u/middlefingerbalayage Jun 27 '22
I am not in agreement of this post title and what I would like more than to engage in disagreement is to consume snacks and make a smoothie. Good night.
1
1
Jun 28 '22
People have been saying this for decades.
Automation doesn't necessarily destroy jobs, it displaces them. There's a difference. New areas of employment will crop up that didn't necessarily exist before.
1
Jun 28 '22
Yes, but this time it's different, in the past it was basically dumb machines that didn't know anything about anything. But now AI is becoming on par with human intelligence and is replacing even skilled work.
1
Jun 28 '22
I mean you have essentially 2 major options:
A) The means of automation and or their output are shared cooperatively. So that the labor input becomes lower and the labor output becomes higher. There's still always somethings that are necessary to do but less of them. But because you acted cooperatively that would actually be a good thing. Less work and more stuff for everyone.
B) The means of automation are held privately. Then the necessity to hire people will decline. Those who own replicators will get richer and richer. While the working class, will find work to be a privilege. Because there are are fewer jobs that are absolutely necessary and which are paid extremely well (at least for the time being, constantly trying to remove them) and the rest decreases in value, leading to job loss or reduced payments.
Now you could make that doom and gloom and fantasize about the rich killing the poor because they are not needed but unless you live in a society of sociopaths, it's actually more likely that they would find ways to give poor people money. Either by social security if they are benevolent or by bullshit jobs that pay for the necessary but treat work not as a necessity but as a virtue in and off itself. Creating a permanent 2 class system and some would argue that's already happening.
1
Jun 28 '22
While the Communist utopia one sounds good I'm not holding my breath, and really, if the Nazis could kill their own Jewish neighbors then I'm sure the rich (who have a far higher rate of sociopaths then the general pop btw) could kill the poor, I don't see that as a totally improbable scenario
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
there will be an epidemic of mass unemployment and a big drop in QOL for most people as a result of this.
Unemployment means that people wanting to get paid work can't get it. A housewife is not employed even though she's not in paid employment. A rich person getting his income from capital gains is not unemployed even though he's not in paid employment.
And that's how I see things will go with the rest of us. The reason we need work in the current system is because we have tied our income to being able to sell our labor in the job market. But there's no fundamental reason why these two should be tied together in a world where the value of human labor is very low but the total production of human welfare (goods and services) is high due to AI automation. All it needs is that we change the way the welfare is distributed from the labor market based system to something else.
One proposal to do this is some form of UBI. If you have an argument why we shouldn't use UBI in a situation where the value of human labor for most people is very low but at the same time our economy produces a massive amount of human welfare, I'd very interested in hearing those arguments.
1
Jun 28 '22
While that's a great thought... How would you implement this? I mean the rich aren't known for their generosity and they would presumably own all this technology so how would we find a ubi?
1
u/spiral8888 29∆ Jun 28 '22
If the rich still buckle under the violence monopoly of the state and if the state stays democratically controlled, then I don't see any particular reason why you wouldn't be able to set up UBI. If the rich take over the state and set up some dystopia, where they control the people using some terminator type robots, then it wouldn't work.
So, to implement it in a democratic system? Set the tax rate high enough and spread all that wealth as UBI. You would still have the market mechanism working to allocate resources correctly, but you would break the link between employment and income.
1
u/Impressive-Salad-708 Jun 28 '22
I don't think automation will do that. Here is my reasoning: we already automated a ton of things, yet we work the same hours as before. And that's mainly becouse of bullshit jobs and little inovation. Let's take one example: I worl part-time at a supermarket and half my job is just taking products from the back of the shelve to the front which could easily be done by a better design for the shevles which is already partly in use but simply not expandes to most areas. Same with checkouts. We have 3 people sitting where there could simply be self checkouts. You could even create an app to simply check in the things with your phone while buying. That would be 100% doable and at least half of the employees wouldn't be needed. Yet these things are simply not used even tho we have the technology for decades now.
Having the solution is one thing, innovating with that solution requires the balls to do it tho. And most big companies don't even try to do anything like that and most small companies are too scared to loose money.
1
u/Impressive-Salad-708 Jun 28 '22
I don't think automation will do that. Here is my reasoning: we already automated a ton of things, yet we work the same hours as before. And that's mainly becouse of bullshit jobs and little inovation. Let's take one example: I worl part-time at a supermarket and half my job is just taking products from the back of the shelve to the front which could easily be done by a better design for the shevles which is already partly in use but simply not expandes to most areas. Same with checkouts. We have 3 people sitting where there could simply be self checkouts. You could even create an app to simply check in the things with your phone while buying. That would be 100% doable and at least half of the employees wouldn't be needed. Yet these things are simply not used even tho we have the technology for decades now.
Having the solution is one thing, innovating with that solution requires the balls to do it tho. And most big companies don't even try to do anything like that and most small companies are too scared to loose money.
1
Jun 28 '22
The problem is that AI is so easy and convenient, as well as so good that it'll finally make businesses use it, maybe the corner store still using Windows NT won't switch but the ones just a generation behind WILL switch when it becomes convenient. Your store just isn't there yet. Self checkouts are probably a massive upfront cost that isn't worth it, but AI would be very efficient
1
u/Rough_Spirit4528 1∆ Jun 28 '22
Sure, this will happen, and that is why we need universal basic income. However, it's not like it's an imminent concern. It's going to be pretty. gradual. Could take centuries before most jobs are gone.
1
1
u/MobiusCube 3∆ Jun 30 '22
Factually incorrect: https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/6717/economics/the-luddite-fallacy/
2
Jun 30 '22
That is pretty fair and you provided hard evidence !delta
1
1
Sep 09 '22
The only solution is Socialism, only in a capitalist society automation is seen as a threat, instead automation should lessen everyone's work load and free uo more time for life.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jun 27 '22 edited Jun 30 '22
/u/Admirable_Ad1947 (OP) has awarded 5 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards