Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
1–10 of 10 posts
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#2Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#3A friend told me something curious about AI.
The recent increase on talks of AI being sentient or having feelings is an excuse to not make a case against AI companies. At first I rejected the claim as being non sense, but it made sense...
There will be no way of proving AGI is a thing or not with a machine capable of generating any text. But also it will make it seems it is unpredictable and uncontrollable and they will sell this as a pain of growth and they had not ways to know that this "conscious-like" machine would be able to do this.
This humanisation campaign lead by Huang and others is the perfect excuse for technology laymen law man who will take for granted that a ML "neuron" is exactly a biological neuron, and that machines take decisions and actions based on will and not pure statistical computing.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#4lol clankers are definitely coming for the economists
when the cashiers & janitors were replaced with robots, nobody complained about poor ppl displaced, they complained about well-fed ppl inconvenienced.
It won’t be any different moving forward yet ppl will still manage to act surprised.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#5One of the most robust findings in labor economics is that in the long run capital and labor are complements, not substitutes. What this means is that over time, as capital productivity has increased, demand for both capital and labor has increased, rather than demand for labor falling while demand for capital increased. I'm skeptical that AI will be different than all of the previous inventions of the industrial era in this regard.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#6One of the most robust findings in labor economics is that in the long run capital and labor are complements, not substitutes. What this means is that over time, as capital productivity has increased, demand for both capital and labor has increased, rather than demand for labor falling while demand for capital increased. I'm skeptical that AI will be different than all of the previous inventions of the industrial era…
Every horse said the same thing when cars were invented.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#7One of the most robust findings in labor economics is that in the long run capital and labor are complements, not substitutes. What this means is that over time, as capital productivity has increased, demand for both capital and labor has increased, rather than demand for labor falling while demand for capital increased. I'm skeptical that AI will be different than all of the previous inventions of the industrial era…
Every horse said the same thing when cars were invented.
I reckon humans are a _tad_ bit more flexible than horses.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#8One of the most robust findings in labor economics is that in the long run capital and labor are complements, not substitutes. What this means is that over time, as capital productivity has increased, demand for both capital and labor has increased, rather than demand for labor falling while demand for capital increased. I'm skeptical that AI will be different than all of the previous inventions of the industrial era…
I don't believe demand for labour has increased. We used to force children as young as 6 to enter the labour force, and people used to work 6.5 days per week. Demand for labour has been in free fall since the 1970, evidenced by stagnant wages in most of the developed world. Furthermore capital is accumulating at the top as the capital owners use their position to extract it from the people below them. AI will only accelerate this. We are in for some interesting times for sure.
Re: Economists Once Dismissed the A.I. Job Threat, but Not Anymore
#9Earlier quoted context omitted.
Every horse said the same thing when cars were invented.
I reckon humans are a _tad_ bit more flexible than horses.
Not near as much as you'd like to believe. It takes years for us to grow up, get an education and become useful. Changing what we do can be quite difficult, especially with the time and monetary costs of doing so. Plus inroads by technology can wipe jobs quickly even if they'll eventually be replaced.
When you have a bunch of people scared that they'll starve tomorrow society will fall apart (even more than it has). The rise to authoritarianism will lead to rather bad outcomes in the medium term.