Live data from Hacker News

Should economists be more concerned about AI?

bankunderground.co.uk

11–20 of 150 posts

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#11

> BOE Chief Economist Andrew Haldane estimating in 2015 that 15 million British jobs and 80 million in the U.S. could be lost to automation I don't understand. He's predicting how many jobs will be lost in the past? Besides that, there's not much concrete in this article. Where are the specific examples of robots that are successfully disrupting industries? General purpose robotics isn't here yet. Maybe it'll happen…

The estimate was made in 2015, not about 2015.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#12

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

Automation used to be about simply replacing physical labour with more automated systems.

The problem with your Deans teaching is that it's not not just physical labour but intellectual capacity.

And so unless you have some other level of complexity that make humans special it is in fact going to be more or less impossible to think of a thing an AI wont be able to do better than humans.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#13
post #4

There have been trials of basic income though, so people are thinking about it. Additionally the term 'robot' is very handwavey and could mean anything intelligence wise, so difficult to say what jobs will get replaced and when.

Somebody on this very site quipped you can define a robot as "A machine that doesn't work yet," because if it worked you'd name it after what it does (like a dishwasher or a vacuum cleaner).

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#14

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

[deleted]

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#15

A small thought. When AI gets good-ish then would it work sort of like this: You go to a supermarket and ask it where the beans are, it tells you. It reminds you to pick up toothpaste. You go to the checkout, but to the AI enabled one because the AI is nice and chatty and asks how your day was. You pop into mcdonalds and the AI greets you, asks you what you'd like to eat (I imagine it will be on a screen as you walk…

I am pretty sure we will see a move to nationalize basic production. If you think about it it actually make sense as there is no more competitive advantage to be had if the entire ecosystem is automated.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#16

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

The difference is that previous automation was a force multiplier. Today's automation is a mind multiplier.

This is unprecedented territory. It really is different this time. I hate all of the "singularity" hokum, but it's getting really hard to predict what's going to happen.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#17

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

Robots don't destroy jobs, but that rapid change can lead to high unemployment when the labor market can't effectively retrain or relocate.

America is in a particularly bad place. High consumer debt, poor adult education access, low taxes on the wealthy, global market for low-skill labor, naively blaming job loss on immigrants/"globalization"...

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#18

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

Most individuals care less about jobs in aggregate and just care about their own particular job. They especially don't care about the number of jobs at the global level. There are many people whose job will be replaced by robots and whatever expertise they've learned over the years will become useless. They will need to transition to an entirely new career and start over. If they are over the age of 40 they have to also fight ageism and the fact that their future work output potential is more limited to an employer's eyes.

This whole idea that we don't have to worry because automation creates new jobs seems totally ignorant of this reality (and the political consequences).

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#19

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

The difference is that previous automation was a force multiplier. Today's automation is a mind multiplier. This is unprecedented territory. It really is different this time. I hate all of the "singularity" hokum, but it's getting really hard to predict what's going to happen.

The computer itself has been a mind multiplier since the beginning. So I don't think it's fair to say that this is something completely new.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#20

Something interesting that I learned recently from a former Dean of the Industrial Labor Relations School at Cornell: Worry over automation destroying jobs is almost as old as automation itself. Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. Now, that of course, doesn't mean that this is some immutable law of the universe that automation will never destroy jobs. But it does mean…

Most individuals care less about jobs in aggregate and just care about their own particular job. They especially don't care about the number of jobs at the global level. There are many people whose job will be replaced by robots and whatever expertise they've learned over the years will become useless. They will need to transition to an entirely new career and start over. If they are over the age of 40 they have to a…

Agreed, the jobs are moving to new places and skillsets, but many US voting demographics aren't.
Post reply on HN