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

161–170 of 362 posts

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#161

Post by cm2187 »

_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…

If those communities were moving to London they would be doing fine. The unemployment rate in the UK is really low. It doesn't mean that a job will show up at your doorstep without having to do anything.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#162

Post by dsign »

I think Mr. Andreessen is up to something here: we can use regulation to...well, the word is not "control", but more like "intervene" in the impact of AI. Which I think we should, I for example would hate for killer drones to be less regulated than life-saving drugs.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#163

Post by Tanjreeve »

cm2187 wrote: post #161
_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…

If those communities were moving to London they would be doing fine. The unemployment rate in the UK is really low. It doesn't mean that a job will show up at your doorstep without having to do anything.

Thats what many did and they're not doing fine though. One of the reasons London became so unlivable was so many people have to move there especially early in careers just to get a job. Which has a bonus effect of draining the original communities and speeding up the feedback loop.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#164

Post by im3w1l »

AverageDude wrote: post #43

Disagree. AI will cause mass unemployment because it’s way more efficient than a human, doesn’t get sick (relatively less than humans) and costs less. Simple economics. I’ll give you one example. The checkout counters in supermarkets, if the supermarkets would have hired young people on those positions not only we might have less young people going towards drugs and hooliganism but it would have also made them better…

> People without jobs buy less.

I believe we can solve it by having robots buying the goods. They should be able to process it into trash just as well as a human could /s

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#165

Post by ckolkey »

cm2187 wrote: post #161
_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…

If those communities were moving to London they would be doing fine. The unemployment rate in the UK is really low. It doesn't mean that a job will show up at your doorstep without having to do anything.

You make it sound like there are no other factors. People like where they are. They like their communities. They may dislike cities, and they may not have the means to move to them even if they did like them. You dont seem to understand the absolutely rapid pace of change over the last 200 years.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#166

Post by sklivvz1971 »

The main argument presented in the blog is flawed. The assertion that "regulated" industries perform worse than "unregulated" because of regulation is not backed by any evidence provided. The graphs only demonstrate that labor-intensive sectors experience a proportional increase in cost with an increase in average labor cost, which is not particularly surprising.

Regarding the question of whether AI will cause unemployment, it is poorly framed. It is better to break it down into three distinct questions. First, will AI displace some current jobs? Second, will AI create new jobs? And third, will the balance of jobs be negatively affected?

When posed in this manner, it is reasonable to assume a "yes" response to the first two questions and an "unknown" response to the third.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#167

Post by ChatGTP »

camillomiller wrote: post #116
BurningFrog wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have replaced human labor with machines that are way more efficient than a human for 250 years now. Mass unemployment has always been feared as a result, and it has always not happened. I strongly expect trends to continue.

You’re applying what I would call the fallacy of scale. Your take is correct as long as these singularity happen at relative scales. We don’t know at all what happens when massive scale becomes a factor. Computers and the internet allowed virtualization and we now base our economies largely on virtualization and abstraction. That also means almost infinite replicability. In turn, infinite replicability allows levels…

I love this topic, maybe too much...

Don't you think that a lot of what you're talking about depends on how people react to this technology and it's use? To ask another way, if everyone around you is in complete suffering and misery from "AI", we're all broke, hungry and miserable, maybe people will just not want to use AI and prefer to buy and trade services with other humans so that we maintain a nice quality of life?

There is an assumption Silicon Valley is making here which is whether we like it or not, we're all going to have to give up everything, our money, careers, professions, lives and just use AI(tm) because they've made it and while economists will tell me I'm wrong, because "economies of scale etc", I'm certainly not going to trade everything, and everyone I know so I can get images cheaper than I can today from Getty Images.

Maybe will just build his own robocops who will come and make sure I do what I'm told, or maybe even just wipe me out completely for growing my own food and trading goods and services with others who are out of work, I don't know. But I just can't see humans, who still actually do have brains btw, to just roll over and let our lives descend into chaos over Clippy.

Edit: I want to say that even to this day, I actually buy things from people who grow things locally etc just to support them rather than go to the grocer, I do this because I know it's doing some good for my community, I'll just be doing more of this in the future if people aren't working.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#168

Post by Tanjreeve »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143
wardedVibe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. Yes it does, because those are the people whose labor will be available. They'll take whatever jobs they're qualified for, which may lower wages in those occupations until the lower price increases demand or reduces supply by driving anyone currently in those occupations who is qualified for…

Outside of undergraduate economics 101 textbooks Labour is not perfectly fungible.

- People have aptitudes, especially for creative work

- Changing trades requires training/education which in itself requires capital

- for most people their brains are less adaptable at older ages. Which worsens the other two effects.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#169

Post by wolongong942 »

BWStearns wrote: post #20
idopmstuff wrote: post #8

I can't help but think Andreesen's gone off the deep end a bit, especially after he started gushing over Adam Neumann's second run at a real estate company (“We think it is natural that for his first venture since WeWork, Adam returns to the theme of connecting people through transforming their physical spaces and building communities where people spend the most time: their homes.”). > AI is simply already illegal ac…

Something snapped in him when crypto shit the bed. His new obsession with AI is him working some stuff out.

Probably realizes the Crypto ting is tainted, he needs a new steaming pile of shit to scam people with. AI is perfect like crypto, because you can use techyspeak to confuse people.

Re: AI Won't Cause Unemployment

#170

Post by jonathankoren »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #143
wardedVibe wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Just because there are new jobs doesn't mean the people whose jobs were automated out of existence will be able to take them. Yes it does, because those are the people whose labor will be available. They'll take whatever jobs they're qualified for, which may lower wages in those occupations until the lower price increases demand or reduces supply by driving anyone currently in those occupations who is qualified for…

> You get more production with less labor, so you on average need to do less labor to meet your cost of living.

Citation Needed.

This isn’t how it works out in practice though. If the predictions of the 1950s were to come true, we’d all be working 10 hours a week and bringing in the same wages.

They weren’t wrong though. Efficiency did go up. It’s just that these efficiencies were never passed on to workers. Instead you’re now 3x productive, but for less money. That’s a pay cut.

The same thing happens if/when AI automates us all. We won’t become unemployed, because people like pmarca are scared to death of people with the time and energy to be mad about the raw deal they’ve been given. So instead, we’ll all get paid less, while working longer in more bullshit jobs.

Post reply on HN