6 ms·

1) AI is Software. Marc was just a little off on market timing, and the eating starts for real right now. 2) I worked for a large private equity company on con

by cbtacy 3y ago

1) AI is Software. Marc was just a little off on market timing, and the eating starts for real right now. 2) I worked for a large private equity company on contract for a bit. The team I worked on was doing analysis about what the likely impact of AI, robotics, and automation on true unemployment in the US was likely to be as of 2030. Largely due to the impact on food service, retail, agriculture, customer support, and entry level corporate jobs the conclusion was that we'll see true unemployment in the 40% range at that time.

not_a_shill 3y ago
How did you factor in legislation changes to hit that 40% number? There's about 0% chance we hit 40% without that happening. So it would make no sense to not account for it. Meaning that 40% is after changes?
sokoloff 3y ago
If there’s a way to ensure I get paid, I’m willing to wager a lot of money that US unemployment will be less than 40% in Dec 2030.
- pcthrowaway 3y ago
  This is a hard bet to take because we also don't know what other changes will take effect by then. Perhaps the government reclassifies full-time employment to mean 24 hours/week. Now everyone can stay employed full-time, but the same number of human hours of work are getting done. In any event, I don't think this will happen by 2030, but by 2040, absolutely.
- mywittyname 3y ago
  Unemployment in the 40% range is beyond total societal collapse. The unemployment rate in Ukraine is 11% and they are currently being invaded. Sudan's unemployment rate was still under 20% while they were in a civil war. So the OP is probably using "unemployment rate" incorrectly. But if they are in fact using the International Labor Organization's definition, then this is probably a self-correcting problem. Society will collapse and those working on the research an implementation of AI and robotics will find themselves on the streets begging for scraps (or getting hacked up by machete-welding gangs), instead of working on building robots to displace workers long before they achieve success. Don't underestimate what a strong leader can achieve with an army of starving people willing to do practically anything to feed their families.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > Don't underestimate what a strong leader can achieve with an army of starving people willing to do practically anything to feed their families. When I allow myself to think about what sort of world this technology will bring, this is generally how it ends.
whatever1 3y ago
Whoever makes an economical prediction more than 6 months into the future is BSing. I can build for you an analysis that forecasts <1% unemployment due to the huge growth of new companies that will need sales reps.
- arbitrary_name 3y ago
  There is a very limited segment of the population that are suited for being sales reps. Where do the rest go?
  - chrisco255 3y ago
    People to repair, direct, and organize the robots. I mean, it's kind of a laughable example. Because we don't have humanoid robots today that can do anything meaningful in society, at any kind of meaningful scale. Without that, we are a far cry from having humanoid robots that can literally do everything.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Who said anything about humanoid robots? A humanoid form is generally a terrible form for a robot outside of a small handful of use cases (mostly centering around tending directly to humans).
bee_rider 3y ago
Our economy would have to be truly ridiculous if having robots do 40% of the work was a bad thing. I mean, that means we have almost twice as many people available to do the stuff that couldn’t get automated! The most obvious solution would just be for everyone to work a little bit more than half as hard as they used to.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  And they'll get paid half as much.
  - bee_rider 3y ago
    If we get paid half as much, but there’s still the same amount of stuff being made, how’s that all supposed to work out? In any case, I bet lots of people would take less pay in exchange for almost twice as much time to spend with their friends and loved ones.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > I bet lots of people would take less pay in exchange for almost twice as much time to spend with their friends and loved ones. Only those who are paid well. For the majority of people in the US, this isn't true. Halving their income is an existential crisis.
      - adventured 3y ago
        It's true for the majority of people everywhere. If you chop incomes in half, for example, Europe's various aging welfare states would quickly implode due to lack of tax revenue. Every advanced welfare state is built on tax revenue continuing to pour in. Many of the affluent nations in Europe are already struggling with demographics v tax revenue v welfare state needs, a rapid drop in income and it'd all go down quickly.
chrisco255 3y ago
I'll take the way under on that bet. Despite "software eating the world" there are currently protests in France about raising the retirement age. And we don't have enough workers in many industries (unemployment is at 3.5% in US). We're also facing a demographic cliff as baby boomers retire, so any automation we can get is desirable, in my opinion. But as the article mentions, robotics are far, far from replacing service industry jobs.
jamilton 3y ago
What do you mean by true unemployment?

by cbtacy 3y ago

not_a_shill 3y ago

How did you factor in legislation changes to hit that 40% number? There's about 0% chance we hit 40% without that happening. So it would make no sense to not account for it. Meaning that 40% is after changes?

sokoloff 3y ago

If there’s a way to ensure I get paid, I’m willing to wager a lot of money that US unemployment will be less than 40% in Dec 2030.

pcthrowaway 3y ago
This is a hard bet to take because we also don't know what other changes will take effect by then. Perhaps the government reclassifies full-time employment to mean 24 hours/week. Now everyone can stay employed full-time, but the same number of human hours of work are getting done. In any event, I don't think this will happen by 2030, but by 2040, absolutely.
mywittyname 3y ago
Unemployment in the 40% range is beyond total societal collapse. The unemployment rate in Ukraine is 11% and they are currently being invaded. Sudan's unemployment rate was still under 20% while they were in a civil war. So the OP is probably using "unemployment rate" incorrectly. But if they are in fact using the International Labor Organization's definition, then this is probably a self-correcting problem. Society will collapse and those working on the research an implementation of AI and robotics will find themselves on the streets begging for scraps (or getting hacked up by machete-welding gangs), instead of working on building robots to displace workers long before they achieve success. Don't underestimate what a strong leader can achieve with an army of starving people willing to do practically anything to feed their families.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > Don't underestimate what a strong leader can achieve with an army of starving people willing to do practically anything to feed their families. When I allow myself to think about what sort of world this technology will bring, this is generally how it ends.

whatever1 3y ago

Whoever makes an economical prediction more than 6 months into the future is BSing. I can build for you an analysis that forecasts <1% unemployment due to the huge growth of new companies that will need sales reps.

arbitrary_name 3y ago
There is a very limited segment of the population that are suited for being sales reps. Where do the rest go?
- chrisco255 3y ago
  People to repair, direct, and organize the robots. I mean, it's kind of a laughable example. Because we don't have humanoid robots today that can do anything meaningful in society, at any kind of meaningful scale. Without that, we are a far cry from having humanoid robots that can literally do everything.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Who said anything about humanoid robots? A humanoid form is generally a terrible form for a robot outside of a small handful of use cases (mostly centering around tending directly to humans).

bee_rider 3y ago

Our economy would have to be truly ridiculous if having robots do 40% of the work was a bad thing. I mean, that means we have almost twice as many people available to do the stuff that couldn’t get automated! The most obvious solution would just be for everyone to work a little bit more than half as hard as they used to.

JohnFen 3y ago
And they'll get paid half as much.
- bee_rider 3y ago
  If we get paid half as much, but there’s still the same amount of stuff being made, how’s that all supposed to work out? In any case, I bet lots of people would take less pay in exchange for almost twice as much time to spend with their friends and loved ones.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > I bet lots of people would take less pay in exchange for almost twice as much time to spend with their friends and loved ones. Only those who are paid well. For the majority of people in the US, this isn't true. Halving their income is an existential crisis.
    - adventured 3y ago
      It's true for the majority of people everywhere. If you chop incomes in half, for example, Europe's various aging welfare states would quickly implode due to lack of tax revenue. Every advanced welfare state is built on tax revenue continuing to pour in. Many of the affluent nations in Europe are already struggling with demographics v tax revenue v welfare state needs, a rapid drop in income and it'd all go down quickly.

chrisco255 3y ago

I'll take the way under on that bet. Despite "software eating the world" there are currently protests in France about raising the retirement age. And we don't have enough workers in many industries (unemployment is at 3.5% in US). We're also facing a demographic cliff as baby boomers retire, so any automation we can get is desirable, in my opinion. But as the article mentions, robotics are far, far from replacing service industry jobs.

jamilton 3y ago

What do you mean by true unemployment?