Interview with gwern

Someone probably said the exact same thing when the first cars appeared.

Where is the data showing that more jobs get destroyed than created by technological disruption?

There is no data, just hyperbole from those same "visionaries" who keep claiming their stochastic parrots will replace everyone's jobs and we therefore need UBI

Didn’t say that. If you posit that the future of the corporation is having a visionary CEO with a few minion middle managers and a swath of AI employees, then tell me, what do you do with the thousands of lost and no longer existing salaried jobs? Or are you saying that the future is a multitude of corporations of one? We can play with this travesties of intellectual discourse as long as you like, but we’re really one step removed from some stoners’ basement banter

> Someone probably said the exact same thing when the first cars appeared.

Without saying anything regarding the arguments for or against AI, I will address this one sentence. This quote is an example of an appeal to hypocrisy in history fallacy, a form of the tu quoque fallacy. Just because someone criticizes X and you compare it to something else (Y) from another time does not mean that the criticism of X is false. There is survivorship bias as well because we now have cars, but in reality, you could've said this same criticism against some other thing that failed, but you don't, because, well, it failed and thus we don't remember it anymore.

The core flaw in this reasoning is that just because people were wrong about one technology in the past doesn't mean current critics are wrong about a different technology now. Each technology needs to be evaluated on its own merits and risks. It's actually a form of dismissing criticism without engaging with its substance. Valid concerns about X should be evaluated based on current evidence and reasoning, not on how people historically reacted to Y or any other technology.

Car and motor vehicles in general get you to work and help you do your work. They don't do the work. I guess that's the difference in thinking.

I'm not sure that it's acrually correct: I don't think we'll actually see "AI" actually replace work in general as a concept. Unless it can quite literally do everything and anything, there will always be something that people can do to auction their time and/or health to acquire some token of social value. It might taken generations to settle out who is the farrier who had their industry annihilated and who is the programmer who had it created. But as long as there's scarcity and ambition in the world, there'll be something there, whether it's "good work" or demeaning toil under the bootheel of a fabulously wealthy cadre of AI mill owners. And there will be scarcity as long as there's a speed of light.

Even if I'm wrong and there isn't, that's why it's called the singularity. There's no way to "see" across such an event in order to make predictions. We could equally all be in permanent infinite bliss, be tortured playthings of a mad God, extinct, or transmuted into virtually immortal energy beings or anything in between.

You might as well ask the dinosaurs whether they thought the ultimate result of the meteor would be pumpkin spice latte or an ASML machine for all the sense it makes.

Anyone claiming to be worrying over what happens after a hypothetical singularity is either engaging in intellectual self-gratification, posing or selling something somehow.

Compilers also do the work. As do tractors. That doesn't mean there's no work left to do.

In this case, there isn't much substance to engage with . The original argument made in passing in an interview covering a range of subjects is essentially [answering your question which presupposes that AI takes over all jobs] I think it'll be bottom up because [in my opinion] being a visionary CEO is the hardest thing to automate

The fact that similar, often more detailed assertions of the imminent disappearance of work has been a consistent trope since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (as acknowledged in literally the next question in the interview, complete with an interestingly wrong example) and we've actually ended up with more jobs seems far more like a relevant counterargument than ad hominem tu quoque...

Again, my comment is not about AI, it is about the faulty construction of the argument in the sentence I quoted. X and Y could be anything, that is not my point.

My point is also not really about AI, my point is that pointing out that the same arguments that X implies Y could (and have been) applied to virtually every V, W, Z (where X and V/W/Z are both in the same category, in this case the category of "disruptive inventions") and yet Y didn't happen as predicted isn't ad hominem tu quoque fallacy or anything to do with hypocrisy, it's an observation that arguments about the category resulting in Y have tended to be consistently wrong so we probably should treat claims about Y happening because of something else in the category with scepticism...

They don't do the work, they help you do the work. The work isn't compiling or ploughing, it's writing software and farming, respectively. Both of which are actually just means to the ends of providing some service that someone will pay "human life tokens" for.

AI maximalists are talking about breaking that pattern and having AI literally do the job and provide the service, cutting out the need for workers entirely. Services being provided entirely autonomously and calories being generated without human input in the two analogies.

I'm not convinced by that at all: if services can be fully automated, who are you going to sell ERP or accounting software to, say? What are people going to use as barter for those calories if their time and bodies are worthless?

But I can see why that is a saleable concept to those who consider the idea of needing to pay workers to be a cruel injustice. Though even if it works at all, which, as I said, I dont believe, the actual follow-on consequences of such a shift are impossible to make any sensible inferences about.

> where X and V/W/Z are both in the same category, in this case the category of "disruptive inventions"

This is my point, it is not known whether those are all in the same category. The survivorship bias part is that we only know if something were disruptive after the fact, because, well, they disrupted. Therefore, you cannot even compare them like that, never mind the fact that all disruptive technologies are not the same, so you shouldn't be comparing between them anyway.