AI = Unemployment?

[notaterran]

By "AI" I'm also including robotics as well when applicable. I know the positive aspect of this; AI can help with labor shortages (robot harvesting tomatoes) but do you think that there will be areas where AI disrupts the labor force (e.g. programming or accounting)? I know that AI can generate visual content, but will it actually replace professional artists? Or are we going to see some jobs disappear for others to be created? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about employment in the future?

[felter]

When I was younger, it was all the robots are going to take away all of our jobs, that was like 30 - 40 years ago, nothing has changed and people are still working, it's just now it's the AI that's going to take away all of our jobs.

[fiksal]

It's not AI that will take jobs, it's the capital that will maximize profits by cutting costs.

If we ever switch to automation in everything we do, we should really think about who we want this to benefit - people collectively, or select few.

Overall, I am optimistic. In this world, one have to be ready to learn new trades

[Observe]

If AI can do the job cheaper and/or better than humans can, then those human jobs will be replaced. There have been other 'breakthrough' inventions in the past that have displaced workers. The printing press is an example. Automobiles are another. However, what makes the current developments in AI, such as generative AI (ChatGPT, Bard and others) groundbreaking, is that they can touch multiple industries, such as legal, medical, arts, entertainment, science, engineering and many others. The question you raise is, will there be enough new jobs that AI can't do, to make up for the jobs lost to AI?

My guess is that more jobs will be lost than created, unless there are regulations put in place to prevent the release or use of AI that threatens disruption of human society. Already we are seeing a rush to market between the AI giants as they compete for dominance in this rapidly evolving field. I fear any attempt at regulation will be buried in the same bureaucracy, lobbying, favoritism and food-dragging as we see with almost all such agencies.

It is not difficult to foresee the imminence of General artificial intelligence that can operate and evolve independent of human programming and potentially come up with 'solutions' to 'problems' that may not be of our creation, best interest or perception of reality. At some point, AI could be the dog wagging the unemployed, useless human tail.

[Axeface]

Absolutely. Firstly, Robotics DID 'take err jerbs'. A lot of them, but it was only capable of replacing humans doing menial repetitive tasks (where it makes economic sense, sweatshops still exist, but AI solutions will be free). AI is a whole other ball game... it will touch basically EVERY sector.... Its going to be the biggest single issue for society going forward. I hope that we handle this well by perhaps shifting a lot of education and employment towards social care - its one of the only areas that might be able to withstand this because the fact that you are human is the point for most positions in this field. Not that positions in the field wont disappear due to automation and AI, some will, but its an area with huge potential for development and expansion. In the end I can see social care in all its forms making up a pretty large percentage of jobs. More people working to make other peoples lives better - might be a bit optimistic really, I hope it happens, but the alternative is too painful to think about as a guy with 1 (soon to be 2) kids. Its not all doom and gloom though, the push towards 'renewable' energy has the potential to end war (why fight if we dont need other peoples resources?) and other huge advancements including AI have the potential to bring about abundance. I just wonder how well we will be able to 'weather the storm' of rapid change.

As for one specific question in the OP. Can it 'replace professional artists'. Well, yes. The point is that 1 person will be able to do the work of many. What will matter in the end is a persons artistic eye (which is what art is really, not technical ability). Currently many artists do 'grunt work', these jobs with disappear or be taken by better artists. People like concept artists are both at the most risk but also those with the most power - the artists with the ideas (the really good ones) will be able to run entire projects with a skeleton crew (or even alone).

[Observe]

In the end I can see social care in all its forms making up a pretty large percentage of jobs. More people working to make other peoples lives better - might be a bit optimistic really, I hope it happens, but the alternative is too painful to think about as a guy with 1 (soon to be 2) kids.

Which suggests the importance of anticipating the 'end game'. Perhaps we should already be thinking about and working on how to bring about the optimal human place in a world run by robotics. Let's assume that the inevitable will happen (irrational to do otherwise) and take steps to ensure that it turns out how we want it to be. In order to do that, we have to determine what it is that gives humans a sense of value in a world where 'chopping wood and carrying water' is no longer a necessity - as it has been throughout human history and remains so for all other life forms.

[mr.WHO]

I know that AI can generate visual content, but will it actually replace professional artists? Or are we going to see some jobs disappear for others to be created? Are you optimistic or pessimistic about employment in the future?

Looking at various concept art sites - last few months there was a flood of AI art, but now it subsided.
The problem with AI is that it's "creativity" is limited by the data set and it makes AI to morph everything into just a few standards styles - so after a few months of AI flood you're able to see what data set AI is using.

However for REAL artists, the main problem will be visibility.
Before AI, good artist to crap artist ratio would be like 1:1'000, but now with AI mass dumping thousands near identical pictures every day, the visibility is like 1: 100'000.
I absolutely hate when AI spammers post 300 near similar pictures, 3 times a day - it's a waste of energy, servers space and visibility space.

All of this will make extremely hard for new artist to appear and develop (why should you be artist, if AI can simpy outspam you and bury under it?) - without new artist, AI data set will not develop and the AI will become stale.

Still with first AI boom going away, I'm mildly optimistic - the tech is useful, but initial implementation seems flawed - like crypto and NFT.

[Alan Phipps]

The good news is that AI will keep the lawmakers, regulating bodies, and then business and ethics lawyers in business for decades to come.

[CBJ]

Pundits too, as was pointed out to Vroomfondel and Majikthise.

[chew-ie]

RE programmers being replaced by AI I like this quote:

To replace programmers with AI, clients will need to accurately describe what they want.

We’re safe.

@source: https://twitter.com/milan_milanovic/sta ... 9108926466

[CBJ]

There will of course also be new a new job of "AI wrangler".

[fiksal]

well, it's not impossible, but to have AI do what we do means to have them trained as much as we are,
in a sense, that's growing AI as you would a human, even on faster scale.

however, the AI we have now is not thinking like us on purpose.

so if it'll write code it'll still be different from what human does.

the question is then comes down to purpose. Is that what we wanted to accomplish?


I will circle back to the question of employment though. Maybe I wasn't understood.

We can talk about employment, and income, but let's not forget resources, food and all you need for life. One means the other usually, but not always.


Take two factories.

In one factory, employees are employed, and factory ran by directors, owned by owners and some investors. The group that holds the capital. The factory is transitioning to 99.99% automation. 99.99% workers are let go, factory remains as productive with costs 99% down. The capital at the top grows.

In the second factory, all employees are equal owners. The company is transitioning the same way. Those workers have 99% less of work to do. However since the factory product is still relevant and costs are down the owners all enjoy a nice benefit of this automation. The capital is distributed.


Remember, money is fake and it all depends on how we want to consume our resources and spend our time

[jlehtone]

When do the protestor AI's start to throw tomato soup on works of AI? (Oh, not a "job"?)

[JSDD]

... well, unemployment in that context isnt necessarily something bad:
machines produce stuff, we consume it ... its a "win-win" situation for both machine and human
--> the machine "receives" its salary by an electric wire (it should be "grateful" that we dont pull the plug) and ..
--> the humans own the machines as well as what it produces ... kind of an master-slave relationship ^^

the trick here is to distribute everything fair enough and ... to not let machines develop their own machines (thinking about sky-net ^^)
machines just have to be "reminded" of the position nature has chosen for them ...

[chew-ie]

When do the protestor AI's start to throw tomato soup on works of AI? (Oh, not a "job"?)

They might - if they can agree on the recipe of said tomato soup that is.

[CBJ]

Well, that didn't take long. BT to cut 55,000 jobs with up to a fifth replaced by AI.

[notaterran]

The headcount reduction from the current workforce of 130,000 includes staff and contractors.

"Whenever you get new technologies you can get big changes," said chief executive Philip Jansen.

He said "generative AI" tools such as ChatGPT - which can write essays, scripts, poems, and solve computer coding in a human-like way - "gives us confidence we can go even further".

Let's say that's roughly half of the current BT employees, and you're saying that you want to cut even more? Now that gives a new dimension to the term "job insecurity".

[...]the artists with the ideas (the really good ones) will be able to run entire projects with a skeleton crew (or even alone).

How about running an entire company with a skeleton crew? Isn't this a sign of things to come?

[notaterran]

In one factory, employees are employed, and factory ran by directors, owned by owners and some investors. The group that holds the capital. The factory is transitioning to 99.99% automation. 99.99% workers are let go, factory remains as productive with costs 99% down. The capital at the top grows.

It seems that's the direction corporations are going.

[fiksal]

It seems that's the direction corporations are going.

well in that case, good luck everyone!

[Axeface]

Well, that didn't take long. BT to cut 55,000 jobs with up to a fifth replaced by AI.

I honestly just got something akin to an existential feeling of dread reading that headline. Like I said in other posts I'm really very concerned about this.
Reading the article of course the call center people are the first to go - but they say 'by the end of the decade', this number is just the start and by 'the end of the decade' it will be many many more than that... Each time the AI is shown to be able to do yet another task, there go another 100k jobs.
I'm just waiting for tesla to reveal the abilities of their robot, thats going to be fun, suddenly all the safe jobs are no longer safe (things like construction).

How about running an entire company with a skeleton crew? Isn't this a sign of things to come?

Well yes, thats what I'm saying. Houston we have a serious problem.

... well, unemployment in that context isnt necessarily something bad:
machines produce stuff, we consume it ... its a "win-win" situation for both machine and human

Of course, the problem is that our society, everything about it, is based on trade. We cant just suddenly become a socialist paradise. It would be lovely and I expect that in the end that is whats going to happen (for those that are left), but will we make it there?


One interesting thing I have been talking about lately is the fermi paradox. One solution that is touted is that all civilizations that develop intelligence end up 'destroying themselves'. People take this to mean some huge nuclear war or something - but what if its just that each time technology gets so good that we are no longer needed we end up just fading away? Think about it. We raise our children to do well at school because our work has value to both ourselves (because we need money) and to society (because we need progress), once that need is fulfilled the need to procreate will naturally fall, because new generations dont have the value they once had - birth rates are already plummeting across the globe due to the eradication of poverty, better living conditions and better education. AI presents a future where many people might not even need other people for intimacy or love... whats left?