71–77 of 77 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Money is not the only problem. Unemployment leads to loneliness, demotivation, social stigma. This is not only caused by social pressure to have a job. Even rich people work. We need some form of Minimal Activity. The letter will have no effect. Similarly, you can sing a letter to stop drugs.
In a world where unemployment was more pervasive and expected it likely wouldn't be that way.
"In the short term, this could mean research into the economic effects of AI to stop smart systems putting millions of people out of work." This seems unfortunate and somewhat challenging to do. Our current economic model encourages improving efficiency of systems. This seems like a good thing. Its really too bad that people "need" jobs. Jobs should be creating value or they shouldn't exist. Artificially "creating" j…
We are now entering a new age where our current form of capitalism will not work. You see, when there was enough demand on the workforce (as in, there was as much or more work to do than there were workers), things worked reasonably well. Now we are entering an era where there is much less demand for workers, yet we are not yet productive enough to just sit back, relax, and let machines handle 99.9%+ of the work. Thi…
For instance a radiologist who has a very long education behind them and make $300K is in bigger risk of being replaced by image recognition software than a house cleaner.
With regards to art music is being made in large parts by machines and we are now at the point where humans can't hear the difference between a piece of music made by humans and machines.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perhaps you missed the word "non-proportional" (=disproportionate)
I don't think I did. What's a proportionate distribution? Proportionate to what and for whom? The whole "market" or "system" of innovation is driven by "disproportionate" distribution. If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better?
Let me give an example. In academics, as pointed out here before, smart young people have to survive for a long time on relatively low pay, and without a real prospect of making a lot of money in the long term. In other words, they do this work because they like to do it, and/or for idealistic reasons.
If we can (somehow) change the system such that smart and idealistic people get in charge instead of greedy people, that could be a step forward.
Again, I'm just giving an example, to show you my line of thinking. I don't claim that this is the correct approach.
"In the short term, this could mean research into the economic effects of AI to stop smart systems putting millions of people out of work." This seems unfortunate and somewhat challenging to do. Our current economic model encourages improving efficiency of systems. This seems like a good thing. Its really too bad that people "need" jobs. Jobs should be creating value or they shouldn't exist. Artificially "creating" j…
I agree that there's a benefit to making processes more efficient by replacing human labor with AI where possible, but I interpreted this to refer to systems that have wide economic effects, like robosigning foreclosures or selling company stocks.
The job decimation will be huge: truck drivers, delivery drivers, taxis, bus drivers, automotive insurance industry, traffic enforcement, collision repair shops, emergency services, car sales, car manufacturing (less accidents more vehicle sharing).
I'm sure it will create a few new job types, but a couple of orders of magnitude less jobs than the destruction. Hopefully the world considers this a good thing.
Honestly it seems that most people are too ignorant to see economic pain this will cause until it has happened. Unfortunately, I'm sure unions and industry groups see this train coming and will put up road blocks (pun intended) to delaying an inevitable roll out of the technology.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think I did. What's a proportionate distribution? Proportionate to what and for whom? The whole "market" or "system" of innovation is driven by "disproportionate" distribution. If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better?
> If people don't have the potential to get rich creating a New Thing or Efficient Method, what's to encourage them to even consider Something Better Let me give an example. In academics, as pointed out here before, smart young people have to survive for a long time on relatively low pay, and without a real prospect of making a lot of money in the long term. In other words, they do this work because they like to do i…
My peers and I, while in college, did this work because one day it would pay off. If we'd been told that our pay would always be meager, and still continued to do the work, perhaps one could attribute it to idealism or simply liking the work. Most likely, however, we'd have relegated the work we liked to hobby status while we pursued something that would pay better.