Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Should economists be more concerned about AI?

bankunderground.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 150 posts

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#81

Post by JoshTriplett »

FullMtlAlcoholc wrote: post #68
JoshTriplett wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't know how you can come to this conclusion. Machines are even encroaching upon artistic and creative endeavors, territory once taught to be the province of humans. From drawing to composing music to acting (Grand Moff Tarkin, please stand up), they are advancing. Machines unequivocally surpass my abilities in said fields.

> From drawing to composing music to acting (Grand Moff Tarkin, please stand up),

How many people and how many hours do you think it took to bring that character to life? As compared to the time of a human actor?

(Not claiming in general that it takes as many people to run a machine as it did to do the job manually, but it almost certainly did in that case.)

We're not anywhere near the point where arbitrary creative endeavors can be replaced by AI, rather than supplemented or enhanced by AI.

More generally, I wouldn't describe it as AI "encroaching" on human endeavors; I'd describe it as AI freeing up humans to work on other endeavors. There's an endless supply of interesting challenges, and until AI can both dream up and complete those challenges autonomously the way a human can, that will remain the domain of humans.

I've seen many cases of the analogy to buggy whips, but for AI, I think the appropriate analogy is to the printing press, or the Internet. The printing press put scribes out of business, but I think it's safe to say it wildly transformed society in beneficial ways. The Internet made many businesses obsolete (some of which have already gone away, while others haven't quite realized it yet), but it's a massive net increase in jobs. People have invented whole classes of new jobs that didn't exist a few decades ago.

I don't think AI will be any different (at least not before it becomes fully general and human-equivalent).

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#82

Post by ewjordan »

wwarner wrote: post #69
jdoliner wrote: post #10

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…

I happen to agree with this. Have a listen to the last twimlai.com podcast about "deep genomics". From an ML point of view, they're still finding their way, but from an economic point of view two things seem clear. 1) ML + genetics are going to have a massive economic impact. 2) Not a single job will be lost as a result of advancement, as the sector doesn't yet exist. Whenever I hear someone say there won't be any jo…

And every person that tells you that there won't be any jobs after AI passes a threshold has already considered your railroad question, and decided that for various reasons the AI shift is different.

There's a big difference between crossing a threshold where machines do one or two specific things better than we do and crossing one where they do everything better. There's certainly an argument about whether or not that's likely or imminent, but it's impossible to deny that strong, singularity-style AI, if discovered, would be a lot more of a disruption to our usefulness than railroads were.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#83

Post by edblarney »

michaelchisari wrote: post #79
edblarney wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ball State University found that job loss in the 2000s due to automation" On the aggregate jobs are not being destroyed. Obviously - many are put out of work because of automation, but it seems that jobs are created somewhere else. The historical unemployment rate attests to this. It's a paradox that cannot be ignored, because it likely helps us understand the nature of employment.

Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced? If we lose 10,000 jobs at $25 an hour, and replace them with 12,000 jobs at $9 an hour, is that trend sustainable? Other factors need to be taken into consideration. Did the original jobs provide health care, childcare and other benefits, while the new jobs do not? Did the original jobs provide ample overtime opportunities, while the…

"Are the jobs that are created, in aggregate, as good as the jobs that are replaced?"

Are you living at a higher material standard than people at the dawn of the industrial revolution?

Are you living at a higher material standard than the people in the 1980's?

If 'yes' - then wages (as defined by their purchasing power) have increased.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#84

Post by jjoonathan »

edblarney wrote: post #70
sskates wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely agreed. I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. We (and I use that loosely) have to care because the people who get displaced all care about their jobs. In fact, because this displacement is accelerating, we have to care even more than we would in the past.

"was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10" You mean for the last 200 years. Mass automation has been going on since the dawn of the industrial revolution. As long as there is value to be created, and the surpluses are distributed enough so that consumers 'want something and can pay for it' - there will be jobs. Obviously, it's more painful for those put out of work than 'the elite' ... but employment levels h…

The long history of scarcity amid plenty does deserve examination. Critical examination.

How messed up is it that people not only have to beg for the privilege of work, but that they are seen as selfish, thankless, and incompetent for doing so?

Once humanity gets this sorted out -- and it will, eventually -- the present state of affairs will be looked at with the same contempt that people in today's world have for feudalism. It will deserve every bit of it.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#85

Post by speedboat »

massysett wrote: post #57
speedboat wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Gates is worth $76 billion. US population is over 300 million. So if we liberated Gates of every penny he has, there would be a one-time payment of less than $253 to every American. The rich do not have enough money to pay for everyone else to be on the dole.

Would Bill Gates personally fund a UBI? No. The claim wasn't is Bill Gates rich enough to personally fund an American UBI. He would still see his taxes rise considerably and would fall within the tax net to fund a UBI. Those taxes would reach far down the income and wealth ladder, but as long as your UBI is below GDP per capita, it's feasible and a nation could fund it, if it so chose.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#86

Post by wwarner »

ewjordan wrote: post #82
wwarner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I happen to agree with this. Have a listen to the last twimlai.com podcast about "deep genomics". From an ML point of view, they're still finding their way, but from an economic point of view two things seem clear. 1) ML + genetics are going to have a massive economic impact. 2) Not a single job will be lost as a result of advancement, as the sector doesn't yet exist. Whenever I hear someone say there won't be any jo…

And every person that tells you that there won't be any jobs after AI passes a threshold has already considered your railroad question, and decided that for various reasons the AI shift is different. There's a big difference between crossing a threshold where machines do one or two specific things better than we do and crossing one where they do everything better. There's certainly an argument about whether or not th…

And genomics?

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#87

Post by jdoliner »

sskates wrote: post #53
fullshark wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely agreed. I think the GP's viewpoint was widely shared by "The Elite" for the past 10 years and is what created the backlash that got Trump elected. We (and I use that loosely) have to care because the people who get displaced all care about their jobs. In fact, because this displacement is accelerating, we have to care even more than we would in the past.

I think you might be projecting your own beliefs onto Trump's election here. If what you're saying is true then we would expect income to be a good predictor of voting for Trump right? It wasn't [0]. Trump's election was backlash, but not to loss of jobs. It was a backlash against much more than that?

Did you feel that loss of jobs to technology was a problem before Trump? If so it seems very convenient to believe that the election of a candidate that I'm assuming you hate, was due to a situation which you already hated. I'd encourage you to look a little more deeply at what caused people to vote for Trump.

[0] http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/education-not-income-pre...

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#88

Post by Sudharsankp »

Am a big fan of my CEO, in one of his intranet blogs he said something similar to this "AI will make a huge unemployment is a very big claim and an overstatement.. 20 years ago before the computer era people were worried about computers will lead to unemployment and especially all the bank jobs (prestigious jobs back then) but then it is the opposite now, technology always helps you never know in which form" i strongly feel he s right.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#89

Post by dragonwriter »

speedboat wrote: post #85
massysett wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gates is worth $76 billion. US population is over 300 million. So if we liberated Gates of every penny he has, there would be a one-time payment of less than $253 to every American. The rich do not have enough money to pay for everyone else to be on the dole.

Would Bill Gates personally fund a UBI? No. The claim wasn't is Bill Gates rich enough to personally fund an American UBI. He would still see his taxes rise considerably and would fall within the tax net to fund a UBI. Those taxes would reach far down the income and wealth ladder, but as long as your UBI is below GDP per capita, it's feasible and a nation could fund it, if it so chose.

While I support a universal income gradually reaching up to (and eventually perhaps well above) the level at which it could fairly be called a UBI, it is not at all the case that any UBI level up to the pre-UBI GDP per capita is affordable.

A universal income will affect behavior, and through that real GDP; at some levels, it may actually improve GDP by reducing job market friction and better allowing people to retrain, retool, and optimize their contribution and their own returns; OTOH, there's certainly a level at which it draws people out of the labor force in large enough quantities to overwhelm any advantage from reducing friction, crashing real, post-UBI GDP.

Re: Should economists be more concerned about AI?

#90

Post by infinite8s »

mrfusion wrote: post #24

I was thinking about automation and job loss recently. I tried to make a simple model to understand what happens. Can you guys critique this thought experiment? It makes it seem like it won't be a problem. There are three people on an island. One catches fish. One bakes bread and the other one owns the land and takes a portion of the of the fish and bread. Let's say one day the land owner recieves a machine that make…

Who enforces his ownership of the land? The other two have superior numbers.
Post reply on HN