5 ms·

I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transf

I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform. And since this AI (whatever that means, nobody really knows) isn't a human-like AGI, it will most certainly not replace humans, but it will automate processes and speed things up. If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue?

hearsathought 1y ago
Much of what was automated is physical labor which allowed workers to move into "service/intellectual" jobs. When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks. If AI is what all these "AI evangelicals" claim, then most intellectual jobs would be gone. And it won't create more service/intellectual jobs for humans because whatever new jobs are created would be tackled by AI. > If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? If AI could automate one person's job, why would you keep him? You can offer 9 services with one less person.
- robertlagrant 1y ago
  > When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs.
  - hearsathought 1y ago
    > It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. Those are primarily intellectual/service jobs. > I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs. I never said it didn't create zero jobs. Reread my comment. I said it created more intellectual/service jobs. It's the first line of my comment.
    - robertlagrant 1y ago
      True, but it's confusing. The comment you were replying to said this: > Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform Which seemed to be what you're arguing against at the same time.
- bryanlarsen 1y ago
  Moving dirt around is an input into many other things. Because moving dirt around is now cheap, we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor. That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs. Similarly, software is a crucial input to pretty much everything in modern society. More / better software would create tons of new jobs. I'm not so sure that more worse software will create those jobs though, and that seems to be the direction we're moving with AI.
  - hearsathought 1y ago
    > we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor. Sure, with far less human labor. That's my point. > That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs. Yes. That's my point. It created millions of service/intellectual jobs. Or are you saying the highway system created more jobs for those who own shovels? If people moved from physical to intellectual labor in the past century. What will people move into if intellectual work is mostly done by AI. Assuming that the AI the evangelicals promise comes to fruition.
xg15 1y ago
> Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? This is the "the climate has changed before" argument for economics. > why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? Because there might not be enough demand for those 9 services.
- stego-tech 1y ago
  Especially when companies lay off the workers that would normally consume license seats or purchase consumer goods with job wages. Funny how all these boosters bragging about automating the economy seem to conveniently forget how much of the economy, in some way, is based around headcount and consumption - both of which are going down due to AI with no replacement being pitched, almost as if that were the plan all along.
- bootsmann 1y ago
  > This is the "the climate has changed before" argument for economics It's really not, you cannot cause a recession by increasing productivity, money doesn't disappear.
  - xg15 1y ago
    That's at least more of an argument than "it never happened before so it cannot happen in the future". Money cannot disappear, but circulation can be confined to ever-smaller segments of the economy. Let's assume a world in which AI is good enough to do 90% if all white-collar jobs and companies have replaced positions with AI accordingly. Then the amount of money that entered the wider economy through salaries will now stay locked up in B2B transactions between AI companies, their corporate customers and their contractors. How will all the laid-off people get money? Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them? What will happen to the businesses that were relying on those employees as customers?
    - shivasaxena 1y ago
deepthunder 1y ago
>If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? Because cost cutting increases share-holder value. See Jack Welch at GE. Over time he destroyed the company but also raised the share price tremendously.
- lubujackson 1y ago
  And lo, new companies were created to fill the void. AI will cause quite a shakeup but short term stock manipulation eventually needs to be paid off (let's call it "management debt" like "tech debt"). The simpler way to view this is that AI creates value. We can argue how much and what kind, but our economy is reliant on ever-increasing value and is pretty good at utilizing it. Microsoft didn't get smaller when computers got better, their market got much bigger.
lm28469 1y ago
What you're saying is that no matter the level of automation we have to keep working as much, and we have to consume as much as the system asks us to consume, because now we need a sucker to pay for these 6 new extra "services" Maybe, just maybe, we could slow things down, profit from the time saved instead of trying to squeeze more out of every fucking thing we put our hands on.

hearsathought 1y ago

Much of what was automated is physical labor which allowed workers to move into "service/intellectual" jobs. When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks. If AI is what all these "AI evangelicals" claim, then most intellectual jobs would be gone. And it won't create more service/intellectual jobs for humans because whatever new jobs are created would be tackled by AI. > If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? If AI could automate one person's job, why would you keep him? You can offer 9 services with one less person.

robertlagrant 1y ago
> When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs.
- hearsathought 1y ago
  > It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. Those are primarily intellectual/service jobs. > I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs. I never said it didn't create zero jobs. Reread my comment. I said it created more intellectual/service jobs. It's the first line of my comment.
  - robertlagrant 1y ago
    True, but it's confusing. The comment you were replying to said this: > Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform Which seemed to be what you're arguing against at the same time.
bryanlarsen 1y ago
Moving dirt around is an input into many other things. Because moving dirt around is now cheap, we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor. That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs. Similarly, software is a crucial input to pretty much everything in modern society. More / better software would create tons of new jobs. I'm not so sure that more worse software will create those jobs though, and that seems to be the direction we're moving with AI.
- hearsathought 1y ago
  > we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor. Sure, with far less human labor. That's my point. > That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs. Yes. That's my point. It created millions of service/intellectual jobs. Or are you saying the highway system created more jobs for those who own shovels? If people moved from physical to intellectual labor in the past century. What will people move into if intellectual work is mostly done by AI. Assuming that the AI the evangelicals promise comes to fruition.

xg15 1y ago

> Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? This is the "the climate has changed before" argument for economics. > why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? Because there might not be enough demand for those 9 services.

stego-tech 1y ago
Especially when companies lay off the workers that would normally consume license seats or purchase consumer goods with job wages. Funny how all these boosters bragging about automating the economy seem to conveniently forget how much of the economy, in some way, is based around headcount and consumption - both of which are going down due to AI with no replacement being pitched, almost as if that were the plan all along.
bootsmann 1y ago
> This is the "the climate has changed before" argument for economics It's really not, you cannot cause a recession by increasing productivity, money doesn't disappear.
- xg15 1y ago
  That's at least more of an argument than "it never happened before so it cannot happen in the future". Money cannot disappear, but circulation can be confined to ever-smaller segments of the economy. Let's assume a world in which AI is good enough to do 90% if all white-collar jobs and companies have replaced positions with AI accordingly. Then the amount of money that entered the wider economy through salaries will now stay locked up in B2B transactions between AI companies, their corporate customers and their contractors. How will all the laid-off people get money? Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them? What will happen to the businesses that were relying on those employees as customers?
  - shivasaxena 1y ago

deepthunder 1y ago

>If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue? Because cost cutting increases share-holder value. See Jack Welch at GE. Over time he destroyed the company but also raised the share price tremendously.

lubujackson 1y ago
And lo, new companies were created to fill the void. AI will cause quite a shakeup but short term stock manipulation eventually needs to be paid off (let's call it "management debt" like "tech debt"). The simpler way to view this is that AI creates value. We can argue how much and what kind, but our economy is reliant on ever-increasing value and is pretty good at utilizing it. Microsoft didn't get smaller when computers got better, their market got much bigger.

lm28469 1y ago

What you're saying is that no matter the level of automation we have to keep working as much, and we have to consume as much as the system asks us to consume, because now we need a sucker to pay for these 6 new extra "services" Maybe, just maybe, we could slow things down, profit from the time saved instead of trying to squeeze more out of every fucking thing we put our hands on.