←back to thread

388 points pseudolus | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.43485099[source]
At least for the moment, AI still needs knowledge workers to spec and prompt and check. AI makes knowledge workers more productive, but it doesn't eliminate the need for them.

And if knowledge workers are more productive, then knowledge work is cheaper. Cheaper knowledge work increases demand for knowledge work. So the number of workers required might actually increase. It also might not, but first order analysis that assumes decreased knowledge workers is not sufficient.

C.f. garment makers. Partial automation of clothes making made clothes cheaper, so now people have closets full of hundreds of garments rather than the 2 sets our great-grandparents likely had. There are now more people making garments now than there was 100 years ago.

replies(6): >>43485195 #>>43485628 #>>43487017 #>>43490017 #>>43490241 #>>43492628 #
jillesvangurp ◴[] No.43492628[source]
There are several dynamics here.

1) AIs enable knowledge workers to be more efficient. They don't replace them. But they'll get more done. So, you might need fewer of them.

2) This frees people up to do different, more valuable things. There's a scarcity of people on the job market. We have record employment, not unemployment. In short, freeing people up to do valuable things that need doing is a good thing.

3) A lot of the economy is the service economy. It's not about producing goods, or providing essential things like food, health care, etc. Instead it is about providing services to people at some value. The reason the economy has transitioned to that is the industrial revolution. A few hundred years ago, most of the economy was about scraping together enough food for people so they wouldn't starve. That's a solved problem. Farmers use machines instead of dozens of employees. Some of those machines are autonomous.

4) Economies are about value chains and upcycling low value resources to high value services and goods. AIs make certain things cheaper which just frees up spending on more valuable things. What's valuable is determined by people and what they value.

5) If you fire all the people and replace them with AIs (the dystopian view of AI) and they no longer make money. So their spending behavior changes. The economy changes and adapts. Spending just shifts to things we value. Like maybe a human touch.

6) You could argue that much of the economy is already bullshit jobs. Who needs managers, marketing experts, social media influencers, and all the other fluffy jobs that we invent? Somebody values that. That's why that stuff exists.

replies(1): >>43493890 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.43493890[source]
2) and 5) assume people let go or fired have ways to make money afterwards. That's the high question mark no one is really considering right now. People can't spend money they don't have.

I think people talk excitedly about this post-labor society without considering how we upkeep it while all the value labor is managed by billionaires and worked on by an exceedingly small labor force maintaining the real labor force of AI. Current directions don't support topic ideals like UBI.

replies(2): >>43495656 #>>43502743 #
2. cma ◴[] No.43495656[source]
Progressive taxes
3. jillesvangurp ◴[] No.43502743[source]
I don't subscribe to this narrow view of economics. The AI fallacy is that whatever they do cheaply just stops being valuable. We pay a little for it, but we spend most of what we have on other things. What that is shifts over time. Pre-industrial revolution it was food and agriculture. Then it shifted to manufacturing. Today it's people doing stuff for other people (aka. services). Over time, we work less and less and we earn more and more.

You mention UBI. You could actually argue that we already have some notion of that. It's just a terribly inefficient, poorly administered, and very costly, and not very good version of it. People don't starve, they mostly have access to health care (the US being an exception to this relative to most countries, including most developing nations). And shelter too (people freezing to death because they can't hide from the elements is pretty rare). Many people live on what they get for free. It's called charity, social security, unemployment, pension, childhood, etc. But one way or another, somebody provides for them. And being dependent on just the free stuff is something that would horrify most normal people. But it's there for pretty much everyone.

Feudalism is cyclic. It comes and goes. We had a lot of it early last century. And then we got communism, socialism, unions, etc. And a surge in economic wealth for the middle class after things were rebalanced. The post WW II economic boom in the US was powered by Roosevelt's new deal. I don't think there's much respect or loyalty to the current batch of trillionaires. They can exist only because people allow them to. Future governments could find themselves empowered and tasked to do something about the economic wealth distribution. Such things have happened before. Often after some kind of revolution.