Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SurroundSwimming3494 t1_j7vjn61 wrote

Reply to comment by boredapril in Generative AI comes to User Interface design! This is crazy. by RegularConstant

>UBI needs to be implemented in the next 2-3 years.

Respectfully, I think this is a bit of an overreaction.

The unemployment rate is at a historic low right now and as impressive as technological progress has been the last few years, I think you're seriously overestimating how fast that progress is made and how fast it is adopted by organizations.

And in regards to UI designers, someone on this thread pointed out how this is AI only automates the most basic aspects of the job.

Edit: I've noticed I'm getting downvoted. I'm just going to say one thing: if you wholeheartedly believe an universal basic income will be a necessity in just 2-3 YEARS, you're not thinking rationally. 2-3 years is nothing.

You guys just love upvoting comments that sound nice to you (even if they're crazy) and downvoting comments that don't sound nice to you (even if they make sense). That's my main gripe with this sub. Emotion supercedes logic here.

18

burnt_umber_ciera t1_j7vnvsl wrote

Your response to UBI is necessary in 2-3 years is to say look at the current employment rate? This doesn’t address at all that we are in the slope of the exponential curve now. Just look how fast GPT is being incorporated into MSFT. Even if you assume that process started with GPT-3 in 2020 we are basically 2-3 years out from that. These advances are only accelerating and being adopted at an ever increasing pace. I would be very surprised if large segments of the workforce were not displaced by AI by 2025.

This forum generates a lot of this discussion because it has attracted people who have thought a lot about this topic and see where it’s headed and how quickly.

9

SurroundSwimming3494 t1_j7vs4gv wrote

>I would be very surprised if large segments of the workforce were not displaced by AI by 2025.

If I had to hazard a guess, most AI researchers and economists would very much disagree with this take.

And I think you're underestimating the complexity of those jobs.

8

Lawjarp2 t1_j7ydz0s wrote

People confuse full replacement with unemployment. You don't need AGI if you don't replace everyone. There will be large unemployment by end of this decade. Large enough to make governments do something about it

3

FattThor t1_j7vycf3 wrote

You’re making a huge assumption that these technologies will result in unemployment with no actual evidence. It could just as easily turn out that instead of using current “manual” framework stacks to build apps, SWEs adapt to use an AI stack and just build more apps better and faster.

I’m all for UBI if it turns out it’s actually needed because we ended up creating cornucopia machines. But while unemployment is single digits its pretty silly to call for it.

2

burnt_umber_ciera t1_j7w0ki0 wrote

Sure, I’m extrapolating and using my knowledge of economics, business, AI, human psychology, etc. It’s a hypothesis based on the universe of facts that I believe relevant. It’s not an assumption out of thin air. It’s possible I’m wrong I will grant that.

However, I was taking issue with a post that seemed to think it was highly unlikely that UBI would be necessary in 2-3 years and the reasoning presented for that conclusion. I think it is certainly within a reasonable degree of probability that many jobs will in fact be displaced faster than others being created elsewhere and that could occur in 2-3 years.

2

LickyAsTrips t1_j7w1c58 wrote

> unemployment rate is at a historic low right now

A big percentage of that are shit jobs, without a living wage, with little to no benefits, and people trying to string together gig economy jobs to keep from starving.

I work in a sector historically known for for its slow to adapt approach and old school ways. They are scrambling to implement everything they can yesterday.

8

qa_anaaq t1_j7xfuq6 wrote

This is a reasonable response and the downvoting is cultish.

Things need to be thought through to logical ends. If say 20% of the labor force was knocked out of employment due to AI over a 2-3 year period, the loss in income tax and the spike in foreclosures would critically injure our economy. Nobody would buy things, so companies couldn't afford to hire for even menial roles.

Technological advances have only augmented and opened labor markets. Sure, the automobile industry killed the horse carriage industry, but did the ramifications of that show any threat to society in hindsight? Why is AI the magic pill that suddenly destroys this pattern?

Eh whatever.

1

Lawjarp2 t1_j7ye9sl wrote

Because there were always things that humans could do. With AGI it can adapt faster than we can. So every new job could also be done by AGI.

The society is based on necessity and if middle class is no longer necessary, which seems to be the case, why not go back to feudalism? It truly doesn't matter if everyone gets to live well and spawn future generations or only a few do. It will all be forgotten in the end.

3