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

AI are taking jobs

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 169 posts

Re: AI are taking jobs

#151

Post by CWuestefeld »

DuncanIdaho wrote: post #143
mseebach wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Putting food on the table is a metaphor that goes beyond food. Here are some statistics on Americans counted as poor: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understandi... We have moved beyond subsistence farming and free food - "food on the table" means a lot more, including many scarce goods.

Indeed, we should make a point of not wiping anybody's fanny. What I had in mind is a type of existence where one has bare minimum provided (shelter, food, clothing, access to information), but that also as a feature provides a social stigma. This institution should be viewed by society as a temporary stop or a final refuge a safety net if you will. You want tobacco? Go and work for it. You want booze? Go and work fo…

You want tobacco? Go and work for it. You want booze? Go and work for it. You want PS3? Go and work for it.

Isn't this how food stamps are currently supposed to work? They only cover staples, and users aren't allowed to pay for tobacco, etc. The thing is, in the real world, food stamp recipients frequently barter their vouchers for these luxury items.

When considering such measures, we need to stop imagining what an optimal government might be able to do. Instead, look at the history of such efforts, and the incentive structures (consider Public Choice economics) to understand what is likely to transpire.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#152

Post by david927 »

mseebach wrote: post #129
david927 wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is one of the most important ideas being explored right now and could not only save families but also become a giant incubator for new research. (It may also require moving to a new form of government, such as a Direct Democracy, to implement.) It's an idea whose time has come.

The proportion of Danish citizens on some kind of transfer income: 60% (includes student stipends all the way to pensions) The value of new research undertaken by people on transfer income: very small, if any at all. The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

The reason the idea requiring direct democracy is that it involves two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

Make that one wolf and 99 pissed-off sheep.

The thing is, it's not up to us to decide if it's a good idea: it's up to the people who would benefit -- which is the vast majority.

You can have concentrated wealth or you can have democratic principles, but you can't long maintain both.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#153

Post by politician »

mseebach wrote: post #112
politician wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hear, hear. This is the reason that we need a wage for displaced workers. People who will probably never work again, due to lack of education or ambition. It's socialism, yes, but are we going to be responsible for allowing millions of people to become beggars while we enjoy the fruits of our labors? I started my career right out of uni by developing software which eliminated hundreds of low skill jobs. Hundreds... r…

> This is the reason that we need a wage for displaced workers. People who will probably never work again, due to lack of education or ambition. Are you sure it's a good idea to systematically reward a lack of ambition? > It's my belief that as a result of our efforts, our drive to untangle complexity, that there will likely be 50% unemployment in the US by the end of the next decade. Let's design for that. You propo…

Don't get me wrong -- I'm familiar with the idea that minimum wage laws and student loan programs increase the cost of goods and tuition as the various institutions realize that there is more money available and adjust their prices accordingly.

No, I am not advocating a cash wage, what is needed is a wage that enables the holder to claim a fixed list of goods (e.g. food stamps allow the holder to buy food, not XBOX games). Likewise, I'm sure that the statistics show that giving money to the homeless to buy food is unlikely to produce positive outcomes, but giving them food or shelter directly is a more responsible option.

I believe that a broad application of this same idea -- to provide a wage for displaced workers in the form of rights to claim an enumerated set of goods rather than indirectly via a cash stipend preserves the incentive structures present in the other areas of our economy while taking care of those left behind yet not undermining ourselves in the process.

A final thought -- consider that an educated, well-fed population with a low infant mortality rate has fewer children. Therefore, a morally acceptable form of population control is available to us: feed and educate the populace. If we can do that, then we should be able to sustain 50% unemployment.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#154

Post by CWuestefeld »

marquis wrote: post #147
mseebach wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was quoting the GP: People who will probably never work again, due to lack of education or ambition. There exist plenty of large areas dominated by people who are, let's call it "empowered to provide meaningful services to the community". Yet, these areas are more often examples of urban decay than they are of thriving communities.

Really? Have you ever been involved with a school or pre-school for example? All my friends who are parents give hours a week to their children's upbringing in a communal manner, as just one example. I wonder if we aren't being brainwashed by a media that chooses to label us as a lazy species who are only good for watching television - because in the wider world as I've seen it this isn't the case at all.

Our instincts for fairness and obligations in the social contract evolved when we were organized into tribes. Thus, when we see members of our own tribe (i.e., those whose children are educated with our own) we instinctively feel drawn to contribute to their well-being.

The same thing doesn't work for people outside our tribe. Evolutionarily speaking, these were rivals for our food or mates or whatever. So we don't feel the same compulsion to help outsiders.

Here's a counter-example for you: I know several people (and I'm guessing that most of us do) that have exaggerated disability claims, so they're now "retired" and living off social security, when their disability isn't great enough to, e.g., run the machinery to dig a new septic tank.

How many people do not try to minimize their tax burden? Isn't that another example demonstrating that people don't naturally contribute to the well-being of those outside their tribes?

Re: AI are taking jobs

#155

Post by hackinthebochs »

127 wrote: post #38
kandu wrote: post #5

Imagine a world where all goods and services required for a decent life will be provided by AI and robots. Still, there will plenty of jobs for humans - those related to the humanity of humans. Life could become dedicated to enjoying art in various forms, and this art will be conceived mostly by humans. If people will have no work to do, they could hire entertainers. They could do jobs as a hobby - e.g., manually pro…

Sounds like a society of couch potatoes and drug addicts to me. From my perspective you have a much too optimistic view on the human race. If people are not forced to exceed, they will not. Suffering, that does not cripple, defines us. It makes us stronger, more agile, more determined. I would go so far as to say that when we have dreams and goals and we strive to achieve them, by making work towards step by step, ea…

>If it were not for women, I'd just sit home playing World of Warcraft, drinking energy drinks and masturbating, to put it bluntly.

This is where I think your argument falls apart. It's not because of some drive created through scarcity that encourages you to get up and be productive, its to gain social status (as communicated through wealth) to attract women.

This drive will be ever present in a society where basic needs are free. The only difference is that one will have to be more creative and intelligent to stand out and attract a mate. As society evolves, one's criteria for a mate evolves with it. But that drive to acquire status is ever present.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#156

Post by Selvik »

zanny wrote: post #43
kandu wrote: post #5

Imagine a world where all goods and services required for a decent life will be provided by AI and robots. Still, there will plenty of jobs for humans - those related to the humanity of humans. Life could become dedicated to enjoying art in various forms, and this art will be conceived mostly by humans. If people will have no work to do, they could hire entertainers. They could do jobs as a hobby - e.g., manually pro…

The downfall of this is where our current economic system projects us : Developers make AI and machines capable of replacing farming, mining, power generation, resource refinement completely, except for technicians and mechanics. It isn't far off from the same machines entering the human service workforce, replacing the cashier and drive through clerk. They replace cars and planes (already have auto pilot, google car…

You could feed the us population with income from capital gains and corporate taxes alone. Also, in western countries large percentages of workers are employed by the government, their organizations are competing in a political (as opposed to an economic) market. They are pretty good at it, I would not bet against them.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#157

Post by skerrit_bwoy »

forensic wrote: post #73
mediaman wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I respect the particulars of your situation but it is not standard. I own a manufacturing company with >100 employees, a mix of manufacturing and office/service jobs, and I don't expect answers from home from anyone except a couple top execs and the sales team, who are all based out of their home anyway and have company provided smartphones. According to benchmarking data our company is not lavish, pays competitive w…

Your company is not standard. Manufacturing? Are you sure you're not in China? Most jobs available right now are customer facing service jobs. They give a typical employee 32 hours per week to avoid being legally required to treat them as a full time employee, and they change the shifts on a week to week basis. Good employees are rewarded with more hours or better shifts, while bad employees are punished by reducing…

Most people on HN are 1-3 sigmas on the right side of the IQ bell curve. They have a hard time understanding what life is like on the other side (although rampant off-shoring and H1B wage gouging might, one day, engender some horizon broadening).

Read this: http://www.isteve.com/How_to_Help_the_Left_Half_of_the_Bell_...

Re: AI are taking jobs

#158

Post by mikeash »

true_religion wrote: post #86
wycats wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a better explanation. Wages have not even remotely kept pace with productivity, so most people do not see the benefits of increased overall productivity . http://rationalrevolution.net/images/EPI_Productivity_vs_Com...

I'm curious.... if productivity increases rapidly in all sectors then how are wages supposed to increase as well? The theory is that employees should be paid more for producing more value per head. However if everyone produces more then wages can't go up without a corresponding increase in prices. The alternative is reduced prices, new improved goods and services, and a steady wage giving the misleading sentiment of…

Why do prices have to go up with productivity? To take a toy example, let's say that the entire economy consists of nothing but producing TVs, and that enough TVs are produced for each person to have one TV per year.

Now some massive productivity increase comes along and doubles output with the same workers. Now you're producing enough TVs for each person to have two TVs per year. Either the price of TVs will drop by 50%, or salaries will double. (Or half of the workforce will be fired....) Approximately. If everyone produces more then everyone has to be able to buy more, otherwise there's no reason to have the additional production in the first place.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#159

Post by forensic »

skerrit_bwoy wrote: post #157
forensic wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your company is not standard. Manufacturing? Are you sure you're not in China? Most jobs available right now are customer facing service jobs. They give a typical employee 32 hours per week to avoid being legally required to treat them as a full time employee, and they change the shifts on a week to week basis. Good employees are rewarded with more hours or better shifts, while bad employees are punished by reducing…

Most people on HN are 1-3 sigmas on the right side of the IQ bell curve. They have a hard time understanding what life is like on the other side (although rampant off-shoring and H1B wage gouging might, one day, engender some horizon broadening). Read this: http://www.isteve.com/How_to_Help_the_Left_Half_of_the_Bell_...

There are major issues with the genetic view of IQ. Proper training/environment increases IQ scores tremendously. In any case, that was a good read.

Re: AI are taking jobs

#160

Post by 127 »

hackinthebochs wrote: post #155
127 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like a society of couch potatoes and drug addicts to me. From my perspective you have a much too optimistic view on the human race. If people are not forced to exceed, they will not. Suffering, that does not cripple, defines us. It makes us stronger, more agile, more determined. I would go so far as to say that when we have dreams and goals and we strive to achieve them, by making work towards step by step, ea…

>If it were not for women, I'd just sit home playing World of Warcraft, drinking energy drinks and masturbating, to put it bluntly. This is where I think your argument falls apart. It's not because of some drive created through scarcity that encourages you to get up and be productive, its to gain social status (as communicated through wealth) to attract women. This drive will be ever present in a society where basic…

>It's not because of some drive created through scarcity that encourages you to get up and be productive, its to gain social status (as communicated through wealth) to attract women.

Isn't this exactly the same thing? The love of women is the scarce resource that drives me to exceed. I don't understand your point here.

>This drive will be ever present in a society where basic needs are free.

It already is. It's called sexual selection. Males protrude themselves and women choose. This is exactly my point.

>The only difference is that one will have to be more creative and intelligent to stand out and attract a mate.

You (and the OP) are making some huge assumptions here. Like that creativity and intelligence has any merit without social skill and boldness. Another assumption is that through creativity and intelligence one gains power instead of just through the skill of manipulating other people. Just look at the current situation. Are the ones with the most money and power currently adept at making great technology and art themselves, or is it instead the most daring and the most merciless? The ones who can exploit other peoples skill to the fullest.

Post reply on HN