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

Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

technologyreview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 80 posts

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#61

Post by pg_bot »

jacquesm wrote: post #58
pg_bot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making the same mistake as the author. People are endlessly creative and will find productive uses for their labor. I'm not ignoring the fact that people won't face disruption in the labor market, however it is very naive to assume that all of the work that will ever need to be done can be done by AI. People will not be pensioned off at 23 they will just be doing jobs that were not possible before, just like…

You really should study the history of the industrial revolution a bit more. It's not that as a species we did not manage to accommodate it, it's just that untold millions of individuals were made obsolete and they did not adapt. The naivety is in assuming that there are simple limits to what AGI will and will not be able to do. It's not an evolutionary change, it is a revolutionary change where the world as you see…

"manage to accommodate" is vastly underselling the societal effects of industrializing. Of course there are winners and losers as there is with any sort of disruption. However, the positives vastly outweigh the negatives. Longer lifespans, higher quality of living, increased wages, more productive and interesting work. We should expect more of the same with advancements in AI, to think otherwise is foolish IMHO.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#62

Post by dvtv75 »

austenallred wrote: post #6
headsoup wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People will find a way to stay busy Yes let's just dismiss all the concerns because 'things always work out in the end.' I suppose there's always room for more managers...

My job didn’t exist 20 years ago. Did yours?

Mine did. It has existed for about 90 years, maybe even longer. Without going into specifics, I can imagine that it could be automated as is right now, as it's not particularly complicated, and the whole role could be designed around so that it's not required anyway.

(I believe I'll be out-of-work within a few months because of implications from the latter statement.)

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#63

Post by philwelch »

pmoriarty wrote: post #59
philwelch wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I said “artisans”, not “artists”. Not art, but things that people already buy, and already pay a premium for small-scale band production, like furniture and jewelry and ice cream. A poorer home in the future might have a cheap AI-made TV, cheap AI-made cookware, a fridge full of groceries delivered either by drone or self-driving car, cheap mass-produced IKEA furniture assembled by a robot, all of these things “cheap…

Much of what I said above applies equally to artisans as it does to artists. People might be paying a premium for hand-made trinkets now, but if there's a glut of supply from all the new artisans, those prices will plummet unless a huge amount of new demand for these artisonal goods materializes. Sure, these newly unemployed people might themselves occasionally be able to splurge on some hand made trinket, but it's v…

Sure, lots of worst case scenarios are possible, and if you’re worried about it, you should stockpile some canned food in your basement because there’s no guarantee against a dystopian future.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#64

Post by randyrand »

bastawhiz wrote: post #56
randomdata wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is referring to the how people cannot lower their wage (below the minimum) when automation starts competing against them. The truck driver may make three times minimum wage right now, but the truck driver will be prevented, by law, from offering to drive a truck for 1/3 minimum wage when driverless trucks cost 1/2 minimum wage to operate. Humans may want to sharpen their pencils and outcompete automation o…

And my point is that what the minimum wage is doesn't matter anyway. You can't lower your minimum wage by law, but you also can't live on that, either. What does it matter if your salary is competitive with that of a machine if you can't afford food, shelter, or any other of life's necessities? Minimum wage is, by all accounts, a success. It prevents employers from creating jobs that prevent a person from ever being…

Simple solution to people dying of hunger, food shelters.

There are better alternatives to minimum wage that don't have the same problems with AI.

one example:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

People think wanting to get rid of minimum wage is to be against helping poor people; it's actually the exact opposite. Being against minimum wage is to be against the problems it brings - not being against the poor.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#65

Post by randyrand »

tigershark wrote: post #52
randomdata wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is referring to the how people cannot lower their wage (below the minimum) when automation starts competing against them. The truck driver may make three times minimum wage right now, but the truck driver will be prevented, by law, from offering to drive a truck for 1/3 minimum wage when driverless trucks cost 1/2 minimum wage to operate. Humans may want to sharpen their pencils and outcompete automation o…

Do you really think that people can survive earning 1/3 of the minimum wage? They will be much better off just becoming beggars.

Solution: Negative income tax and/or welfare.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#66

Post by sova »

randyrand wrote: post #64
bastawhiz wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And my point is that what the minimum wage is doesn't matter anyway. You can't lower your minimum wage by law, but you also can't live on that, either. What does it matter if your salary is competitive with that of a machine if you can't afford food, shelter, or any other of life's necessities? Minimum wage is, by all accounts, a success. It prevents employers from creating jobs that prevent a person from ever being…

Simple solution to people dying of hunger, food shelters. There are better alternatives to minimum wage that don't have the same problems with AI. one example: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax People think wanting to get rid of minimum wage is to be against helping poor people; it's actually the exact opposite. Being against minimum wage is to be against the problems it brings - not being against t…

Too bad in the United States there is pretty much no chance for a NIT, so minimum wage is the closest we can get.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#67

Post by randyrand »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #14
randyrand wrote: post #9

same should be said of minimum wage. Minimum wage is probably the worst form of income redistribution we use. not allowing people to have salaries competitively priced vs machines will cause most of the swift pain AI will bring. please, replace minimum wage with more welfare or better yet negative income tax. Of course, some jobs will die regardless. But minimum wage greatly exacerbates this.

A lot of people said that about the minimum wage in the UK before it was introduced, it turned out to be far from the truth.

I dont know the specific claims you are referring to, but the effects of price floors are well known and theoretically easy to understand.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_floor

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#68

Post by randyrand »

tigershark wrote: post #53
randomdata wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're looking at this from the point of view of the environment where automation has always created far more work than what was replaced. In fact, up to this point, automation has created so much work that we even reached a point where the male half of the population could not handle doing it all and we had to start integrating women, who historically were not involved, into the workplace. Minimum wage is workin…

No, it makes much more financial sense to not work and earn 0 while getting income with begging or criminal actions than work 10h/day for 1/3 of minimum wage that is for sure not enough to survive.

Begging only works if the number of beggars is few.

When streets have 300 beggars on it, good luck making any money. I live a few blocks from skid row.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#69

Post by randomdata »

tigershark wrote: post #52
randomdata wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The parent is referring to the how people cannot lower their wage (below the minimum) when automation starts competing against them. The truck driver may make three times minimum wage right now, but the truck driver will be prevented, by law, from offering to drive a truck for 1/3 minimum wage when driverless trucks cost 1/2 minimum wage to operate. Humans may want to sharpen their pencils and outcompete automation o…

Do you really think that people can survive earning 1/3 of the minimum wage? They will be much better off just becoming beggars.

Given the context of this thread, and not an alternative situation that I am sure you can dream up, yes: Mathematically, 1/3 of minimum wage is greater than the only alternative: No wage at all. Considering the scope presented, I am unconvinced that begging will be viable. It's already a struggle today, and would only become more difficult in the the situation presented.

I'm not convinced this hypothetical situation presented is realistic to start with, but that is well beyond the topic at hand. The constraints are what they are.

Re: Tech companies should stop pretending AI won’t destroy jobs

#70

Post by randomdata »

tigershark wrote: post #53
randomdata wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're looking at this from the point of view of the environment where automation has always created far more work than what was replaced. In fact, up to this point, automation has created so much work that we even reached a point where the male half of the population could not handle doing it all and we had to start integrating women, who historically were not involved, into the workplace. Minimum wage is workin…

No, it makes much more financial sense to not work and earn 0 while getting income with begging or criminal actions than work 10h/day for 1/3 of minimum wage that is for sure not enough to survive.

In my country, according to income data provided by the national data collection agency, ~14% of the adult population make less than $10,000 per year. Minimum wage where I am is $14/hr (with some variation across the entire country). Someone working full-time at minimum wage will earn just shy of $30,000 here. Very conveniently, the yearly earnings of that 14% of the population works out to your chosen 1/3 of minimum wage figure almost exactly.

I haven't heard any reports of 14% of adults dying off each year due to not making enough money, and that would be a pretty big news story, so it seems that they have somehow managed to survive. And while the data indicates that some have chosen $0 (~4%), and maybe a life of begging and crime (the data is not sufficient to see that correlation), it seems some dollar value greater than zero is still the preferred option for most even when their earning potential is limited.

Post reply on HN