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

AI Won't Cause Unemployment

pmarca.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 362 posts

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#131

Post by wardedVibe »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
_448 wrote: post #101

This claim that AI won't cause unemployment baffles me. I understand the argument being made that new types of jobs will be created, but what the people making that argument miss is the massive level of up-skilling/re-skilling that is required of the population whose jobs are replaced. This has not worked out well. Just look at the communities in some poorer parts of the UK, who were relying on coal, mining and steam…

The reason technology doesn't net destroy jobs is that things that destroy jobs lower costs, which leaves people with more money in their pockets, which creates jobs. What net destroys jobs is things that unproductively increase costs. Resources that are wasted can't be used for productive labor that improves quality of life.

Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. This is the whole "teach truckers to write code" thing from back when people thought the next wave of automation would be self-driving, rather than art.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#132

Post by joe_the_user »

The idea that technology is "illegal" in child care is kind of absurd. Has anyone developed an effective automation method for child care that's being held back?

Just as much, "technology" is certainly not illegal with text books. Text book manufacturers use ever more sophisticated technologies to bolster their abusive monopolies.

And lots of tech goes into reducing health care costs. It's simply failed so far and the various monopolies continue their march.

Sure he says "The lines in red are the sectors where technological innovation is not permitted to push down prices" but that's kind of begging the question - assuming that the use of technology is by itself what allows or doesn't decreases in price.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#133

Post by antihipocrat »

visarga wrote: post #87
00F_ wrote: post #83

the idea that this man is a billionaire is mind-blowing. this article is absolutely vapid. picking it apart is more for sport than anything else. We had two such anti-technology jobs moral panics in the last 20 years — “outsourcing” enabled by the Internet in the 2000’s, and “robots” in the 2010’s. The result was the best national and global economy in human history in pre-COVID 2019, with the most jobs at the highes…

> if AGI were to be created, it cannot be denied that science and technology would almost instantly surge forward by trillions of man years. we would be transported instantly into an environment where fundamental economic and technological factors are no longer valid I see this claim over and over, and I just don't believe it. Scientific discovery contains three phases: 1. proposing a hypothesis 2. designing an exper…

The idea is that an AGI would theoretically be able to design a new version of itself that is more capable in every dimension. This could continue recursively.

We don't consider it impossible that a human could come up with a grand unified theory of everything tomorrow. A recursively intelligent AGI may be able to do the same very quickly.

If an AGI was able to deduce such a theory would we would be busy constructing things to test it? Or go straight to manufacturing the (incredible) things that the AGI designs to take advantage of this knowledge? The reality is that we wouldn't want to be caught taking our time when the competition could be rushing ahead.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#134

Post by wardedVibe »

thrashh wrote: post #117
_448 wrote: post #101

This claim that AI won't cause unemployment baffles me. I understand the argument being made that new types of jobs will be created, but what the people making that argument miss is the massive level of up-skilling/re-skilling that is required of the population whose jobs are replaced. This has not worked out well. Just look at the communities in some poorer parts of the UK, who were relying on coal, mining and steam…

It’s very surprising when people talk about AI but not talk about the Industrial Revolution. The power loom hugely changed the world. You don’t have to write a substack about your opinions — just read a history book. Second, Marc quotes outsourcing but that’s not at all a relevant example. Outsourcing was not a technology. His other example is of robots but robots have not been revolutionary like the power loom or ev…

Everyone should read about the Luddites. Turns out this debate has happened before, except with more smashing.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#135

Post by ChatGTP »

asah wrote: post #51

Sorry, but there's so many things wrong with this... - nobody cares about "unemployment" - they care about investing decades of their lives and losing their jobs and not being able to replace them quickly at the same level of income and quality of life, including a million photographers, models, makeup artists, etc. who are looking at diffusion model results and wondering who'd pay for their work next year, let alone…

Just a side note, I honestly think models, photography people and markup artists will still exist. People will still make clothes, whether that's AI assisted or not, and people are going to want to take real photos of the clothes, with models wearing them.

No not in all cases, but as long as there are people there will be some demand for this.

Same goes for fashion shows, they will still exist too.

People will continue to like celebrities, follow their lives and hope they can be like them or meet them.

Maybe what people are forgetting is that people do actually like doing things with other people, whether that's taking photos of them, looking at photos of them, or watching them walk down a cat walk.

There is a reason why we haven't already completely replaced models (for photography) with wax dolls, mannequins etc. Sure they'd be cheaper, but there other drawbacks too.

Even using some of the latest AI technology, it's still not really easy to get what you want in the same way working with a good model is, then there is also sometimes the creativity that a model can inject into a photo shoot, which yes yes yes, can be automated, but I'm not sure why we'd bother when you can actually just enjoy working with another person.

Like it or not, sex sells, sex with algorithms, doesn't sell...happy to take the down votes for that statement but there is something in it.

Ever wonder why young people listen to a lot of (IMO) crap music? It's because many young people are attracted to the musicians and that attracts other young people which attracts more young people. It's also why AI won't replace bands. It's not just about the quality of music, it's about being part of a tribe and sharing that experience with other like minded people.

While I know AI will replace some areas of our lives, I think people do forget that it's not always about the quality and quantity of something. Making perfect music, a song no one has ever heard before every time, is going to be less attractive to many people than a band your girlfriend really likes and you both like going to see live together.

Handmade goods are another example of this, whether or not it matters, people definitely enjoy using handmade tools, knives, skis, surfboards etc. People will actually go out of their way and pay more money to support people doing these things.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#136

Post by thatguy0900 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #128
_448 wrote: post #101

This claim that AI won't cause unemployment baffles me. I understand the argument being made that new types of jobs will be created, but what the people making that argument miss is the massive level of up-skilling/re-skilling that is required of the population whose jobs are replaced. This has not worked out well. Just look at the communities in some poorer parts of the UK, who were relying on coal, mining and steam…

The reason technology doesn't net destroy jobs is that things that destroy jobs lower costs, which leaves people with more money in their pockets, which creates jobs. What net destroys jobs is things that unproductively increase costs. Resources that are wasted can't be used for productive labor that improves quality of life.

It seems to me all the money is just getting more and more concentrated. If Amazon succeeds in completely automating it's warehouses, who will see the bulk of that saved money, the customers or bezos?

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#137

Post by alephnerd »

cabalamat wrote: post #129

> Communist-inspired Universal Basic Income Which communist country has or had UBI? Because I am not aware of any, nor do I regard it as communist. So what do I mean by communism? All economies are run by a mixture of markets and commands. Communism is any economy that is largely command-based (all real economies are a mixture of the two, of course). UBI is where someone is given a regular amount of money and can spe…

Ironically, Libertarian-Republican Alaska has been practicing UBI since the 70s after reaping in the Oil Boom - https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/podcast/knowledge-at-wha...

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#139

Post by t0bia_s »

> We are heading into a world where a flat screen TV that covers your entire wall costs $100, and a four year college degree costs $1 million.

Because TV is excellent tool for plush propaganda, education make it header to believe it. Great deal both for lobbying and states.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#140

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

stult wrote: post #55

What an incredibly, idiotically reductionist interpretation of cherry-picked data this is. First of all, he selected a fairly random, non-representative set of goods and services. I can immediately think of a glaringly obvious counter-example that his dataset excludes: energy. It's one of the most highly regulated industries in the US and yet energy inflation has been barely positive over the last 20 years ( https://…

> First of all, he selected a fairly random, non-representative set of goods and services.

He's not seeking the truth.

He's trying to sell a vision to investors that he got in on early (because he thought he could sell it to them for a massive low-tax profit).

Reading his blog is like reading the blog of some QVC seller.

Post reply on HN