With the exception of clothes, which are all handmade, humans in industrial situations do much dumber things than the craftspeople that were replaced by robots. Humans are used for having hands, rather than practicing a craft.

The issue here is *whose interests does the AI serve?” If it’s to serve the interests of now-automatable economic forces, humans are seen as expensive and inefficient.

Here’s a story about it. https://glyphpress.com/talk/2014/feral

The trouble is that the majority of companies are run by greedy parasites that have no value for their workforce. After seeing these parasites give themselves massive bonuses at the expense of laying off 50 odd staff in my company during the pandemic, I find it difficult being optimistic and aligning my thoughts with your opinion.

Then there's AI itself. No one knows what it will decide to do once it breaks free from its cage.

I think it's going to do to industries what self checkout did for grocery stores. Instead of having to hire 12 cashiers due to population growth, you hire 1 to oversee computers doing the rest, thereby putting 11 people from that population growth out of a job to save the cost of employing 11 people.

That is indeed a frustrating thing to happen. But people in power abusing their position for their own gain at the expense of others is probably as old as society itself

It does not invalidate anything I mention in my post

And yet unemployment rates have reached all-time lows in many countries where these systems are adopted

The difference between this and other historical technological advances is that this is meant to do everything humans can do better and cheaper than humans, not just some things.

[removed]

It can’t do everything humans can or always cheaper, that’s just not true. It’s not creative, it can’t act as a security guard and it’s very far away from being able to better decide many societal problems compared to currently functioning bodies of people

It can do some things better, cheaper or even some things humans couldn’t do in the first place. But that’s true for most innovative developments

AI developed in secret to prophesize the stock market military movements calculate scarcity will be a thing used by the wealthy and we won't even see it. That's going to be one more appalling issues which will be very difficult to control. I believe that's where the gap will be and in the long term that power will be held until the system fails. I believe the only course of action will eventually be many people without jobs in the government having decide on how to deal with it.

Yes it does. Automation doesn't make things easier, it just increases the expected productivity of the worker.

My guess: wide AI will save us, but only after narrow AI leaves us needing to be saved.

Narrow AI is the stuff from vintage CPU opponent to present day and ongoing, this is the stuff that weeds out your job application for lacking 10 years experience in a 5 year old technology and the unemployment hotline that says fuck off we're full, check out our website so the website can tell you to call our phone number.

Wide AI is artificial human and artificial superhuman. I think we're 'close' to wide AI by middle aged guy from the 20th century standards, but not close by excited anxious youth standards. There will be a lot of wide AI fakes because song&dance travel the world faster than boring study text.

Open source is coming. Don't lose hope

We're all still fixated on AI, when that ship sailed a year ago or more. There was no turning back when open source models like BERT were widely prevalent. There's certainly no turning back now.

So we should focus on the next target: robotics.

AI will be ubiquitous, but only some people/countries will be able to give it physical robotic bodies to act on its intellect.

That's the next dominoe, and we may yet have runway to get a handle on its implications, if we can just move on regarding AI.

Nobody knows.

The optimists that point out every form of automation to date has by far supported a larger human population with more opportunity could be wrong.

The pessimists that claim (weak)AI & Machine Learning is "different" in that it has a potential to do everything could be wrong.

Frankly, the computer tech and software from the 1980s onward and automation and more primitive robotics have long been technically capable of automating far more business & industrial activities than they actually have to date.

Human labor is adequate, and the bottlenecks are elsewhere.

The investment in hardware and tech vs. a savings or return in profits is just not sustainable, or "never the right time" financially.

The investment in automation was made, and efficiency gains allowed businesses to take on new things that needed human labor elsewhere.

Perhaps AI & ML will be leveraged to design automation and robotics that are cheaper, more efficient, and more out-of-box and "turn key". Requiring less retrofitting to existing workplaces and a more guaranteed ROI and pessimistic predictions of mass unemployment will be right.

Maybe the demographic decline in Europe, the US, and parts of Asia means AI & ML, and associated automation fundamentally saves our ass. Key technologies and sectors, critical infrastructure, etc. stuff we no longer can, or want to live without, may not have a neat 1:1 demand curve with a shrinking population.

Or with longer average lifespans, the demand won't shrink, just the supply of working-age people will.

A very rough example, I know next to nothing about municipal water systems... Say a modern city needs 25 municipal water engineers to function well. Not even the nuts & bolts work crews that dig up streets and fix things, or put new lines in. The people who plan it out, keep track of what's old, determine the needs and loads on the system of anything new. The soil types, seasonal freezing, etc.

Now say that a city needs roughly those 25 municipal water engineers, whether it's Chicago at 2.7 million people or Milwaukee 75 miles to the north with 570,000. Maybe despite the difference in scale is there, but the complexity and challenges are the same.

But because of Gen-X being smaller than Boomers, and Millennials being an even smaller pool than, Gen-X, then Zoomers and so on... there's only 12 graduates from college with the proper degree. And Milwaukee and Chicago are looking at 30 looming retirements between them.

Again, a crude example pulled from thin air. But I'm willing to bet there's multiple key fields like this out there.

Maybe the people who lean r/antiwork and are bemoaning a future of "high-tech serfdom" under tech-giants are right.

Or maybe they're not assholes, or even just out of cynical enlightened self-interest, they realize that they're doomed if big chunks of the public has no economic means to afford their goods & services, and come up with something.

Possibly open source AI & ML will prevent any true monopolies, or unhealthy concentration of power. Or perhaps it's going to make mass unemployment worse, because every business and sector can use it.

Perhaps an exponential acceleration of ML, AI, & automation injects so much efficiency and cost savings, prices of goods and services plummet. Trying to glean more profit margins with yet more automation only makes it worse. Government central banks print money like crazy, but it does no good.

The Great Depression was characterized by bouts of deflation. However, it was largely characterized by huge swaths of the population being unable to buy anything. And with the US Dollar at least, there hasn't been deflation of any kind since 1950.

However, there's never been true hyperdeflation in history. And especially not any deflation driven solely by economic production efficiency. Maybe something whacky happens, and the entire economy flips, and a system of paid consumption begins.

How that even would work, or function, or if it's even a possible concept, I have no clue.

Outlandish, but it's just as good of a prediction as anyone else who stamps their feet and insists their prediction is right.

The one thing I do think applies somewhat to predicting the future is that there's a certain leveling or mediocrity principle at work. Unless something really radical happens, global nuclear war, AI Apocalypse making humans extinct, at least in the broad strokes, a safe bet for a general prediction of "what the future is like" would be "pretty much like today, with bits of surprising tech stuffed in the corners."

Build a time machine, set it for 60 years in the past, kidnap some random American person from 1963, tell them you're taking them to 2023, without any clues as to what they'll see. How would they react when they got here?

Individual bits of tech might be mind blowing, a large flat-screen TV, your smartphone, the Internet, maybe when you explain the "light bulbs" in your disappointingly normal looking lamps are LED, WiFi, and a voice command to Alexa can turn them on/off, and it was only eight bucks ($0.86 in 1963 dollars)... and they'll be impressed if you gave them a list of medical conditions that might be a death sentence in 1963 that are now treatable.

The music, some of it might be disturbing, and they'll wonder why so many obese people are walking around. And perhaps they'll be shocked/surprised if they learn how much of the amazing computer tech, smartphones and Internet etc. is used for cat videos and hard-core pornography. Or that a huge amount of the consumer goods in your house are from China...

But it's a safe bet that the biggest surprise for them would be how banal and mundane 2023 was overall. No dystopian Blade Runner/Cyberpunk city, no UFO on stilts Jetson's condos. No flying cars. No robot cleaning your house, maybe a Roomba at best. Guns still use bullets. We got to the Moon in 1968, but haven't been back since...

That arguably wouldn't be the case if you repeated the experiment with someone from 1903 and dropped them off in 1963. The automobile, aircraft, passenger jet aircraft, electricity and indoor plumbing everywhere, nuclear weapons, space travel, antibiotics, radio & television...

In another 60 years? What will 2083 look like? Never say never, of course. Humanity is extinct, or all in tanks of goo like the Matrix, climbing back from the devastation of a nuclear WWIII, or something radically different we can't imagine, you can't rule those out. But if you had to bet on the broad strokes of what it'll look like on a "predict the future" craps table in Las Vegas...

The square for: "A lot of amazing tech in the corners, but surprisingly not that different from today." might be the best bet. Because fifty years of time travel, the regular way, one day at a time like everyone else, has somewhat impressed on me that: "Everything changes, and nothing changes." at the same time.

I guess the question then is whether we're in another 1963 or another 1903...

Does this "open source" fab wafers for me for free?

You will never see a worker owning an AI. AI will be offered as a service, not as a product. It will increase our productivity, but it will only further rob us of our political power, making us even more dependent on corporations.

I think AI has the potential to make innovation more accesible and inclusive. For example, in today's age an individual cannot compete in virtually any field with a large corp. But imagine in the near future a single developer with a very good idea could use AI tools to turn an idea into a product without the need for an army of developers or artists.

I think AI will allow us as humans to turn our ideas into reality much more effeciently than before, and in turn "flatten" the playing field to the extent were new and unique ideas will be more valuable than the execution of an army of workers.

I wrote a blog on this a little while back if you want to read more about my thoughts or more like musings on this subject.

https://symbioticinnovation.wordpress.com/2023/03/27/the-age-of-accelerated-innovation-how-human-machine-collaboration-is-revolutionizing-the-future/

I agree, mahines have never shown any ability in regards to creativity and intuition in the innovation process. That will be left to humans working in symbiosis with machines. As it has been since the begining of civiliation.

I think Issacson's book “The Innovators” is fantastic and anyone interested in these discussion should read it.

"One of the key themes of Isaacson’s book is the importance of creativity and intuition in the innovation process. While machines can provide computational power and analytical capabilities, they lack the ability to think creatively and come up with new ideas. Humans, on the other hand, bring a unique perspective and set of skills to the table that is critical for driving innovation forward. According to Isaacson, the most successful innovations arise from the intersection of different skill sets and perspectives, with humans providing the artistic and emotional perspective that drives innovation forward."

No one at Walmart lost their jobs because of self checkout. They were moved to other areas, mainly online grocery shopping.

What if the robots want paid?

The base knowledge to build androids has been around a long time, we just didn't have the software for them to do anything interesting.

Yeah, the stuff that Boston Dynamics does on their completely transparent, public channels was already pretty crazy years ago. I am sure it's MUCH further along behind the scenes too.

When we're particularly talking about worker replacement, the job market, and class power shifts, the two things that I am not so sure are 100% dialed in are:

1. Reliability, and associated risk, of on-the-job android behavior
2. Affordability of android hardware

I think these two factors are going to have to be VERY polished for investors and C-suite executives to adopt androids in any meaningful, pervasive way.

I know I would need a LOT of internal testing and risk assessments to be completed before I released just 1 semi(or fully)-autonomous android into my warehouse, among real people and expensive product stock - and that's just 1 android. Doing it in multiple locations or in fleets of 10s or 100s or 1000s would only compound my reluctance.

I didn't say they lost their jobs; just that they didn't have to employee new people to man registers.

Point? This is one sector of the job market and the point is to imagine what the unemployment rate would be at if the technology for self checkout didn't exist and each machine had to be manned. There'd be 11 more employed people per store using this technology (not that thats a ton, but it adds up).

I apologize. I misunderstood when you said people were out of a job.