Yes they are because they treat tech as an externality. This has a double negative effect because that also means that politicians arent being presented with the right scenarios as they are guided by the very economist models that doesent factor tech in. It boggles my mind that the arguments i hear from economist is basically the same tired horse cariages argument. Thats litterally all they have.
The question isn't "What happened to horse carriages", they're now cars. Obviously. But where did all the horses go?
Should economists be more concerned about AI?
51–60 of 150 posts
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#52A 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…
When the article mentions AI (Or any other article/discussion), I don't think it means robots that walk around and greet/interact with you like in iRobot, I would say it means self-serve checkouts, like the ones already in Tescos or McDonalds[1]; or Automated cars/trucks that don't have a need for human interaction[2].
I think that is where the confusion lies with AI, it might not necessarily mean a physical entity.
[1]https://i0.wp.com/www.styledemocracy.com/wp-content/uploads/...
[2]https://www.axios.com/heres-where-jobs-will-be-lost-when-rob...
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#53Something 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…
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are looking at this the wrong way. No job require all human skills. Most jobs requires only subsets of human skills.
I didn't suggest otherwise; however, the comment I replied to said: > 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 But we necessarily can't reach the point where AI can do all human jobs without having completely general human-level (or beyond-human-level) AI. Until then, AI can only replace a subset of human jobs, and I've seen many convincing argu…
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#55As a technologist, and a follower of automation related news for the past 4+ years, I have basically given up on the economists, save for a handful like Robin Hanson. They will probably realize their folly when it's too late. Even their claims that "automation based disruption didn't happen in the past" is simply false. They back their claims by pointing to current unemployment (or the pre-2007-crisis rate of 4-5%),…
The mis-calibration is that unemployment looks at how hard it is to fill job openings - basically, it's the ratio of job-seekers to filled positions. When it's higher, there's more candidates trying to interview for the average position. When it's lower, there's fewer. This is a very distinct thing from what percentage of folks are productive members of society; the 40 year old mill worker that cannot retrain to a non-obsolete role ends up being "disabled" and not an unemployed job-seeker.
The politicization is why we talk about official unemployment numbers as they are measured rather than more rough measures of labor participation. The unemployment rate is used as a measure for the effectiveness of various economic policies and political entities, so those policy-makers and political entities have decided to talk about the ones that make them look good. Goodhart's Law in action, basically.
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#56Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#57Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bill Gates said that no nation on earth is rich enough to afford basic income. It's a long way off.
Bill Gates just want doesn't want to pay more in taxes. That's what UBI requires: more taxes. Considerable tax increases, but there it is. Tax the economic beneficiaries of the economy and divest to everyone to bring the top and bottom closer to GDP per capita.
The rich do not have enough money to pay for everyone else to be on the dole.
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#58A Model of Technological Unemployment http://www.danielsusskind.com/research
Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#59Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?
#60Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Researchers have yet to find solid evidence that automation has ever destroyed jobs. This is completely untrue. Ball State University found that job loss in the 2000s due to automation dwarfed the loss caused by free trade[1]. There is tons of other research that corroborates that[2]. [1] http://projects.cberdata.org/reports/MfgReality.pdf [2] https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/upshot/the-long-term-jobs...
It's easy to see and I've said this here before. As a business owner doing manufacturing (for example) replacing manual labor with automation costs less. That's less in terms of TCO, so that includes setup, operation, energy, and maintenance. The idea that the low-skilled assembly jobs are just replaced by high-skilled jobs is untrue. Those high-skilled jobs pay more - perhaps 2-5x more, and if the TCO is actually le…