111–120 of 141 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Like in Detroit, and Germany's Ruhrgebiet? Two examples out of plenty others, where people had to move out as means of survival.
Detroit's decline wasn't really caused by tech. More that unions jacked the wages and other costs for car production there so the production moved elsewhere.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just basic economics Yes, if you look up any video of an economist talking about AI, they'll bring up the industrial revolution and point out how people thought it would bring the end of employment and instead created more and better jobs. The generally accepted viewpoint is AI will make things more efficient, and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.
> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work In a post-labor-scarcity world, there is no longer any "other, more important work." Which means there's no basis for paying labor currency, which means there's no way for labor to buy things, which means we need a new method to ensure people can get things.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strictly speaking, you can't be sure the sun will rise tomorrow, and you should be even less sure about this. But the sensible thing is to expect strong trends to continue.
the sun "rising" tomorrow is backed by scientific knowledge about the solar system - more jobs by AI - so far - not more than wishful thinking, like many other AI promises (such as saving is from climate change).
The full interview this comes from is off the rails. Gawdat says we'll have AGI by 2026 at the absolute latest, and that we will have artificial super intelligence in the immediate future. He guarantees that after destroying jobs, within 15 years we will be in a "utopia" controlled by AI. It's an absurd level of confidence for an extremely bold prediction. In his last interview from this series in 2023, Gawdat said t…
> Gawdat says we'll have AGI by 2026 at the absolute latest ...has he looked at a calendar lately? I just did, and it turns out that 2026 is less than five months away. I'm not even going to touch the "alive in every possible way" bullshit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work In a post-labor-scarcity world, there is no longer any "other, more important work." Which means there's no basis for paying labor currency, which means there's no way for labor to buy things, which means we need a new method to ensure people can get things.
Seeing as there's no precedent for a post-scarcity world, and no reason to think such a thing is possible or desirable, I'm not sure how to discuss the topic in a serious fashion. As long as people want to keep improving society, it will require resources, which will produce scarcity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's just basic economics Is it ? > when something makes the economy more efficient How does "ai" make "the economy" more efficient exactly ? > people get new, better jobs Which law dictate that these jobs are better ? I don't see people getting better jobs personally, I see a shit load of people pushed into more and more precarious jobs, with less and less workers rights and job security, with stagnating wages des…
> It's just basic economics Yes, if you look up any video of an economist talking about AI, they'll bring up the industrial revolution and point out how people thought it would bring the end of employment and instead created more and better jobs. The generally accepted viewpoint is AI will make things more efficient, and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.
99% of economists couldn't see any of the big downturns up to 1hr before shit hit the fan. Yet they all retrospectively can upload 12 hours long video on youtube to explain you how the dot com or 2008 crisis were so obvious you'd have to be blind to not have seen them coming...
> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.
"freed" is a weird word to employ, given the century+ long race to automation shouldn't we all have been freed by now ? Why do so many people work min wage or other type of precarious jobs ? Why will I retire later than my parents and grand parents ?
And what do you mean by "more important" ? Most jobs are bullshit and workers know it, they don't want important jobs, they want stables jobs that pay enough to live life, and "ai" is going to do anything but improve that
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs.
> It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. Those are primarily intellectual/service jobs. > I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs. I never said it didn't create zero jobs. Reread my comment. I said it created more intellectual/service jobs. It's the first line of my comment.
> Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform
Which seemed to be what you're arguing against at the same time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gawdat says we'll have AGI by 2026 at the absolute latest ...has he looked at a calendar lately? I just did, and it turns out that 2026 is less than five months away. I'm not even going to touch the "alive in every possible way" bullshit.
Did he specify the calendar? It's now a year of 1447 according to one.
Can someone, more informed than me, about the job landscape, name these jobs people keep claiming AI is creating? Thank you in advance.