51–60 of 141 posts
Think about what happened when we got advances in agriculture. We have gone from something like 90% of people employed growing food to something in the single digits (I'm too lazy at the moment to get exact figures, but this is close enough for my point). Did all those advances in agriculture create jobs? I would say yes and no. For the specific industry the advances happened in? No, definitely not. There are way few…
Can someone, more informed than me, about the job landscape, name these jobs people keep claiming AI is creating? Thank you in advance.
It's easier to start the next widget company because building widgets with the technology is cheaper.
It's easier to consume other things because goods are cheaper to make with the tech.
A third option is that the tech enables something all together new, eg television, that starts a new industry.
As far as direct job creation, the third way is the most obvious but probably not the case at the moment. So I guess we're stuck waiting for goods and services made with AI to get cheaper.
I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform. And since this AI (whatever that means, nobody really knows) isn't a human-like AGI, it will most certainly not replace humans, but it will automate processes and speed things up. If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could au…
Much of what was automated is physical labor which allowed workers to move into "service/intellectual" jobs. 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. If AI is what all these "AI evangelicals" claim, then most intellectual jobs would be gone. And it won't cr…
Similarly, software is a crucial input to pretty much everything in modern society. More / better software would create tons of new jobs.
I'm not so sure that more worse software will create those jobs though, and that seems to be the direction we're moving with AI.
I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform. And since this AI (whatever that means, nobody really knows) isn't a human-like AGI, it will most certainly not replace humans, but it will automate processes and speed things up. If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could au…
>If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? Because cost cutting increases share-holder value. See Jack Welch at GE. Over time he destroyed the company but also raised the share price tremendously.
The simpler way to view this is that AI creates value. We can argue how much and what kind, but our economy is reliant on ever-increasing value and is pretty good at utilizing it.
Microsoft didn't get smaller when computers got better, their market got much bigger.
I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform. And since this AI (whatever that means, nobody really knows) isn't a human-like AGI, it will most certainly not replace humans, but it will automate processes and speed things up. If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could au…
Maybe, just maybe, we could slow things down, profit from the time saved instead of trying to squeeze more out of every fucking thing we put our hands on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's just basic economics; when something makes the economy more efficient, it doesn't destroy jobs forever, people get new, better jobs in a more efficient economy. Perhaps AI will finally raise the bar so high lower-IQ individuals won't be able to find any meaningful employment, but this has never happened in before and I doubt it'll happen again. I don't think I've seen a respected economist go on a news broadcast…
Yeah, lower IQ people can use AI too...it might even close the gap to the high IQ people depending on their talents, what they learn, what they apply it to, and so on.
Think about what happened when we got advances in agriculture. We have gone from something like 90% of people employed growing food to something in the single digits (I'm too lazy at the moment to get exact figures, but this is close enough for my point). Did all those advances in agriculture create jobs? I would say yes and no. For the specific industry the advances happened in? No, definitely not. There are way few…
Even in small rural areas the demand for locally produced sustainable and consciously produced agricultural products is largely unmet.
I see. And when everybody's fired, what will people be doing then?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Much of what was automated is physical labor which allowed workers to move into "service/intellectual" jobs. 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. If AI is what all these "AI evangelicals" claim, then most intellectual jobs would be gone. And it won't cr…
> 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.
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.