People were worried about losing their jobs back when computers first became widespread too, but actual statistical evidence suggests that the amount of jobs available actually rose.
People did lose their jobs, and the new jobs available went to a new set of differently skilled people, that doesn't help those who lost their jobs. Technological change brings with it social upheaval that must be dealt with; AI brings potentially mass unemployment because any "new" jobs will be handled the by the AI, not the displaced people.
That would be a threat solely if AI were very expensive and only realizable by a very small group of people. Computers have caused significant damage to our society because of mostly cultural reasons that are going to work themselves out over the next decades. Once people realize that the exact computing technology which made their jobs redundant is equally effective at competing against their prior employers, and that they have the stupendous advantage of having near nil overhead while their ex-employer is a monolith unwilling to adapt properly, that harm will be ameliorated, IMO.
With AI, though, I think we have good reason to believe that the change would be much more sudden, and much more widespread. You can freeze wages and scalp every bit of productivity increase for yourself and shareholders as a corporate owner and get away with it for 30+ years (as has been done). But if even, say, 15% of the total workforce were laid off in the first year... things would change rapidly. It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly. Nothing motivates like fear of starvation. Computers were only able to result in the problems we're facing today because it was a slow constriction of suffocation, cost of living gradually chipping away at the frozen median wage, rather than a brick to the back of the head as the introduction of generalized AI would be.
Honestly, another 99% protest is more likely then a massive showing of competition in hypothetical markets. The average person isnt that technologically inclined. on top of that, technology costs money. Rasberry pis wont be cheap forever and even then, the expectation a person is going to understand the tests they want to run, have masive use case data and the time to surpervise will probably be a fraction of those interested in it.
Im all for decentralization of manufacturing and development in software. But realistically, money isnt going anywhere and far scarier things may occur than an AI takeover
> It would be quickly realized that the displaced employees could easily simply get an AI for themselves, and price the ex-employer out of business rapidly.
I think you're missing the point. It doesn't matter who winds up running the AI, the AI is still doing all the work many people used to do, all of those people are still out of work, even if some of them displaced the old boss running lower overhead, most will still be unemployed due to the collapse of the demand for human labor. Increased productivity in the AI age means human jobs lost with no replacements coming.
>> Once people realize that the exact computing technology which made their jobs redundant is equally effective at competing against their prior employers, and that they have the stupendous advantage of having near nil overhead while their ex-employer is a monolith unwilling to adapt properly, that harm will be ameliorated, IMO.
This hasn't worked anywhere nearly that well in the past, why should it work
any better in the future?
The reason it can't is that we can't both all use new technologies _and_ expect that we can make a comfortable living out of it. The reason is good old supply and demand. If everyone can use a technology, then the ability to use it is not something you can sell very highly.
Take writing for example. Back in the time of the pharaohs, priests were the only ones who knew writing and reading and they had immense power as a result. Today, knowing how to read and write is more of a prerequisite to be able to find work, not a skill you can sell in and of itself.
Also, it happens that of all the people I know who work with computers, I can't think of anyone, off the top of my head, who switched from a different kind of job. I'm sure there are some, but they'll be few and far between. For most people, losing their job to a computer means just that: that they lose their job. To a computer.
And think of all the McJobs that keep unemployment low in most western economies: flipping burgers, stacking shelves, cold-calling, part-time stuff. _That_ is the kind of job most people do in the information age.
Aye, a monolith with the capital to buy them out of the market, if they look even remotely threatening, just to be sure. Then that same boss can take the tech they bought for a tiny cost (to them), encase it in patents and copyrights and leave it to rot where nobody can get big ideas about using it to give power to the people and all that.
Snark about 'actual statistical evidence' notwithstanding, people losing their jobs is entirely compatible with an increase in the number of available jobs because, unsurprisingly, not all jobs are fungible.
It doesn't even have to be identical, it just has to be acceptably humanoid. For example I imagine that in 5 stars restaurants human waiters will still be the norm for some time, but enterprises like McDonalds or Starbucks would probably not blink an eye in replacing people with machines if possible, as there is no human element in a McDrive. Would go hand in hand with the edible substances they sell as food.
They could easily do that right now, the technology exists. It just wouldn't be cost-effective. They can get humans to work for so little that the government will pick up part of taking care of them in the form of food stamps. Partner that with the inability to survive a business climate which would penalize the short-term expenditure necessary to retrofit locations (even staggered and done slowly) with an immediate response that would result in insolvency in very short order, and they'll keep humans around for awhile longer.
What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them. From their initial conception they could have been almost totally unmanned. No idea why they weren't. Maybe it would have actually had significant negative social response? I know that in my state, an automobile manufacturer was going to open a plant, but once the politicians found out that the plant was going to be heavily automated and provide 300 rather than 4000 jobs, all tax breaks were rescinded so they went elsewhere.
> What mystifies me is why Netflix DVD processing centers have human beings in them.
Watch an episode of "How It's Made" or similar, and note the places where an assembly line includes a human step. Those steps often involve fine adaptable manipulation (e.g. of inconsistently placed items), pattern recognition, or similar.
In general, a machine usually could handle that manufacturing step just as well if not better, but doing so would incur the development costs and construction of a highly specialized machine, plus maintenance. The hourly cost of a human employee may well work out cheaper, either in the short term or potentially even in the long run.
And that leaves aside other potential value of employing humans in those roles, including goodwill/PR/perception. An apparent cost savings from automation will quickly evaporate if the company finds itself on the evening news. That holds doubly true if replacing an existing human role with automation.
Rather than be afraid of losing their jobs, they should have been afraid of something much worse - keeping their jobs, creating 10x as much value per year for their employer as before, but seeing their pensions disappear (with no gigantic raise to compensate), their working hours expand, raises shrink to less than the rate at which cost of living increases, and society turning their back on them and calling them entitled brats for even wanting better pay. Oh, and effectively being on-call 24/7 too.
Every economist and their dog agrees that Finland should lower cost of employing so we could get out of seven year long downturn. But unions have choke hold of this country. My opinion is that unions are OK, but you have to regulate against monopolistic developments. Just like with private companies. Currently there is single union guy who can shut down all Finnish exports for a week.
You could say much the same thing about horses before the invention of the internal combustion engine. Technology (as plows did for horses) creates more wealth for the worker until it doesn't.
The potential consequences here are rather more dire than slight shifts in the relative size of employment sectors. A hard takeoff of superintelligent AI could be an extinction-level event, or even the extinction-level eventuality that solves the Drake Equation and makes the universe devoid of life.
I certainly can't say that the pessimists are correct, but I also can't say with certainty that they're incorrect. I do think it's silly to imagine that the only configuration for intelligence requires human-grade empathy, or that all sorts of differently-intelligent systems well below the complexity of the human brain, couldn't be lethal.
There's no reaction mechanism to explain how technology magically creates jobs. Jobs ARE created by energy use via fairly obvious mechanism of processes using energy.
