[JPws_Prntr_Fngr]

> … instead of the 97% unemployment … we’re instead 30x as productive.

Economic productivity simply means output per worker. So, we could make 97% of the US population permanently unemployed tomorrow, and as long as the AI replacement labor yielded equal or greater proceeds to the remaining 3%, we’d see a colossal increase in “productivity.”

That would be in the interest of the 3% to do (or attempt), which is what makes the scenario so scary.

[comfypotato]

But that’s never happened in the past. Why should it happen now? The Industrial Revolution is used as an example because it was the biggest spike in productivity, but the general trend has been the same since the invention of tools. Agriculture, another perfect example, lead to others having time to produce things instead of hunting/gathering. It’s easy to grasp with the agriculture example that “unemployment” wasn’t even really a risk.

Sure, there will be niche sub-industries that will be erased by LLMs, and people who have those niche skills will suffer. This has always been the case with technological advances. And always, it has not disrupted the economy.

[pixl97]

> Why should it happen now?

What are S-curves.

[antihipocrat]

Perhaps the quantity of labour utilizing each new technology through time is a (n-shaped) parabola that intersects with the technology it replaced.

The fear that technological advances will cause mass unemployment and destroy labour markets has been common throughout history. Yet here we are at full employment. Maybe this time is different?

[flangola7]

It is different this time. In the past automation effected some domains more and some domains not at all. People moved to those other domains. AI can run all the domains humans do and more that they can't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU