←back to thread

388 points pseudolus | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.206s | 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 #
gopalv ◴[] No.43485628[source]
> Cheaper knowledge work increases demand for knowledge work.

This is Jevon's paradox.

> So the number of workers required might actually increase.

The increased demand for work turning into new jobs for existing workers, that is where the question is more complex.

This has gone the other way too in matters of muscle - people who wouldn't have been employed before can now be hired to do an existing task.

When you go from pulling shopping carts to an electrical machine that pulls carts for you, now you can hire a 60 year old to pull carts in the parking lot where previously that job would be filled by teens.

This is all a toss-up right now.

In an ideal world, I will be paying less for the same amount of knowledge work in the future, but as a worker I might get paid more for the same hours I spend at work.

My hours are limited, but my output is less limited than before.

replies(2): >>43488236 #>>43501742 #