Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
AI would not put people out of work, it would create other types of jobs.
This.
Research has shown that technology often gets integrated into current processes, augmenting them, instead of completely replacing them.
Case in point, did the advent of the computer eliminate all office jobs? It actually created more.
Did automation replace all assembly workers?
Even if these jobs do get replaced, you simply get new jobs from the creation of new technology. Automated street lights may have replaced "Candle street lighters", but those people can work as city maintenance workers now.
Until they create a fully intelligent 100% robot human replicant, then all of this talk about AI replacing humans is more sci-fi than science.
AI would not put people out of work, it would create other types of jobs.
It will (can) do both.
The question is about the ratios of out vs in...
for every MILLION jobs lost ...how many HUNDRED will come to be. 2? 3? 5?
And most critically... how many of these will be at the no/low skill end of the spectrum?
The question is about the ratios of out vs in...
for every MILLION jobs lost ...how many HUNDRED will come to be. 2? 3? 5?
And most critically... how many of these will be at the no/low skill end of the spectrum?
And that's really it (answering several of the latter posts).
The further rise of automation and the coming rise of AI will certainly create jobs... but vanishingly few in the areas in which they eliminate jobs, and not many more in the general tier of jobs replaced. While warehouse workers might be able to lateral to some equivalent field - but probably only a fraction of those displaced - no significant number of them are going to be retrained as supervisors or maintenance or developers.
Hand-waving about how cotton pickers eventually found other work (over generations) or weavers became seamstresses (over generations) and so forth is just that - smug hand-waving with the comfort of a long rear-view perspective. It's a whole 'nother thing when it's you, your children and your grandchildren who are going to be displaced on a population scale, with nothing but a shrinking pool of upper-tier jobs.
Will climate change create jobs? Probably, but not nearly as many as it displaces, other than in bottom-end labor as populations are relocated to survivable areas. And look for a huge amount of that to be done by automation and AI, down to autonomous trucking and even more automated/corporate food production. (If farming is to be greatly expanded into the north of North America, it's not going to be done by homesteaders and 500-acre farms. It's going to be done by megafarming corps that make today's look like hayseeds in overalls.)
Anyone who wants to say "five hundred years from now it won't be any different" is free to move on to another argument about Tesla or something, but anyone concerned about themselves in about 20 years and the descendants they will bounce on their knees needs to get a grip on how much change we're facing in the next fifty years... starting five years ago.
It's not so much about the number of jobs that will be eliminated (because, yes, a fair number will be replaced with currently unforeseen occupations), but about the type of jobs that will be eliminated. Basically, it will widen the already growing chasm between the haves and the have-nots and will increase the number of have-nots.
Yep. People only capable of unskilled and semi-skilled repetitive task jobs will continue to get slaughtered. Critical thought jobs will always be in high demand but that excludes easily the bottom half of the population and more probably the bottom 90%.
There will always be unskilled & semi-skilled jobs where it's too expensive to automate them but there will be an increasingly large fraction of the population competing for those jobs. This is the kind of environment where Marxist and Socialist kinds of ideas prosper. In a democracy, the unwashed masses will eventually vote themselves out of poverty. Maybe not for another 20 or 30 years but the trend doesn't look good
People only capable of unskilled and semi-skilled repetitive task jobs will continue to get slaughtered.
Like always.
Quote:
Critical thought jobs will always be in high demand but that excludes easily the bottom half of the population and more probably the bottom 90%.
I wouldn't sleep too easy on that, Einstein. AI is going to slaughter a good percentage of those cushy "sit at a desk and think" jobs below policy-making levels.
Quote:
This is the kind of environment where Marxist and Socialist kinds of ideas prosper.
Funny how that is. Also funny how you're almost there but manage to let dogma shortcut your 'critical thoughts' here:
Quote:
In a democracy, the unwashed masses will eventually vote themselves out of poverty.
Really. How's that? Give one historical example and one that applies to the future being sketched out in this thread. Are we going to 'vote down' climate change? Or AI? Or population?
...Hand-waving about how cotton pickers eventually found other work (over generations) or weavers became seamstresses (over generations) and so forth is just that - smug hand-waving with the comfort of a long rear-view perspective. ...
Anyone who wants to say "five hundred years from now it won't be any different" is free to move on to another argument about Tesla or something, but anyone concerned about themselves in about 20 years and the descendants they will bounce on their knees needs to get a grip on how much change we're facing in the next fifty years... starting five years ago.
Call me a fool, but I’ve seen considerably less change over the past 20 years, than over the prior 20. Not only am I unpersuaded that “this time is different”, but I worry about the exact opposite threat, from the one that occupies you: namely, that change is too slow, that real and substantial disruptions are actually too tame and too infrequent, and that centuries from now, historians will come to view the 20th century as the apex in rate-of-innovation and progress.
By way of one example, consider globalization. 20 years ago, it seemed like inexorable forward progression. We were going to become like Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets. Every budding intellectual quoted Francis Fukuyama… and budding pseudo-intellectuals quoted Thomas Friedman. Today, globalization looks to be running in reverse. Nations are retrenching behind biases thought to be extinct. The protagonist of the novel “Looking Backward” would have found the world of 2019 more familiar, in many ways, than the world of 1969.
Today’s challenges are severe. But why is it a greater offense to ignore and dismiss them, than to hold them as being devastating, unprecedented and unsolvable?
Today’s challenges are severe. But why is it a greater offense to ignore and dismiss them,
than to hold them as being devastating, unprecedented and unsolvable?
Hyperbole fits the bill.
Quote:
By way of one example, consider globalization. 20 years ago, it seemed like inexorable forward progression.
We were going to become like Star Trek’s United Federation of Planets. Every budding intellectual quoted Francis Fukuyama…
and budding pseudo-intellectuals quoted Thomas Friedman. Today, globalization looks to be running in reverse. Nations are retrenching behind biases thought to be extinct. The protagonist of the novel “Looking Backward”
would have found the world of 2019 more familiar, in many ways, than the world of 1969.
Call me a fool, but I’ve seen considerably less change over the past 20 years, than over the prior 20.
Not a fool, but you need to back up from that tree. Watch out for the forest.
Quote:
Today’s challenges are severe. But why is it a greater offense to ignore and dismiss them, than to hold them as being devastating, unprecedented and unsolvable?
Because they are devastating and unprecedented, and at least two are only solvable across multiple generations. They don't apply to someone else, especially not those guys over the hill we don't care about anyway, and there are no Invisible Hands that will fix them while we play with our iPhone XXI's. They are also forces that will create other powerful forces that are only dimly like things we've seen before.
Just as one facet of one problem, you realize that in 20-25 years the 1930s Dust Bowl will be a forgotten forerunner of the Interior US Desert?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
