Interview with gwern

I really don’t understand why we give credit to this pile of wishful thinking about the AI corporation with just one visionary at the top.

First: actual visionary CEOs are a niche of a niche. Second: that is not how most companies work. The existence of the workforce is as important as what the company produces Third: who will buy or rent those services or products in a society where the most common economy driver (salaried work) is suddenly wiped out?

I am really bothered by these systematic thinkers whose main assumption is that the system can just be changed and morphed willy nilly as if you could completely disregard all of the societal implications.

We are surrounded by “thinkers” who are actually just glorified siloed-thinking engineers high on their own supply.

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?

> 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.

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...