[eloff]

That cycle has gone on since the start of the Industrial Revolution. Jobs are destroyed, people complain and protest, new jobs are created and the total economic pie and the absolute size of the average person’s slice increases.

A valid question is are there inventions for which this would not be true? I think yes for general AI, but also yes for people who are unable to migrate between a job lost and any of the new jobs created due to lack of education or willingness to reinvent themselves or relocate to where the new jobs are. Innovation can definitely create winners and losers. That’s bad for the losers, but not necessarily for society as a whole. Unless so many losers are created that they rise up and overthrow the system. That’s a real long tail risk if the pace of change sufficiently outpaces our ability to adapt to it.

[Veen]

You're right, but the phrase "people complain" elides a lot and shows a callous lack of empathy. People complain because they lose their jobs, their homes, their standard of living, their future prospects, their ability to feed their families, their relationships, their social status, their healthcare benefits and therefore their healthcare, their mental health, and in some cases their lives (suicide is not unusual for people who lose all of the above). For every Priya who gets a new job as an AI wrangler, there will be many who do not.

[eloff]

How that is handled really comes down to how your society has agreed to establish a social safety net.

In Northern Europe it’s handled quite well. In the U.S. it’s handled with a “callous lack of empathy” as you phrased it.

My point is disruption is the engine of progress, but it also causes temporary pain (that might not be temporary on the scale of human lifetimes.) It’s the wrong reaction to want to stop or slow progress. You can actually prove that through the lens of game theory and the fact that we have multiple human societies. The right thing to do is ensure your society doesn’t leave the losers of that process behind.

[Veen]

Sure, but many of the "progress is inevitable" people are also often the "get your stinking government hands off my hard-earned money" people. Increasing taxation of the beneficiaries of AI technology to provide a safety net for the losers is one way of dealing with it, but I'm not sure it's politically achievable in much of the world in a way that will instill confidence in the people who face the loss of their livelihoods.

[eloff]

"progress is inevitable": It's not actually. Progress is only made if people take the risk and effort to advance progress. That does require rewarding them appropriately for the risk taken. I'm not saying we get that balance exactly right currently, but it is necessary.

In general just taxing the winners (wealthy) period is well tolerated politcally, but it also requires a goverment that's somewhat fiscally responsible and not spending $800B a year on their military instead of social programs. The US hasn't had a fiscally responsible government since Clinton, and the pigeons are currently coming home to roost in the form of inflation and loss of confidence in the US dollar as the reserve currency.

[bryanlarsen]

Disruptions in the past have almost always been good for society overall, but there have also always been significant localized negative effects. For example, a farrier may have been thrown out of work and had to switch to unskilled labor, but their sons and daughters were better off.

The issue is that as change comes faster and faster, a higher proportion of people fall into the "disrupted" category.

[eloff]

I agree, I said as much about winners and losers being created.

It’s still a good thing for society - the alternative is halting or slowing progress.

[bryanlarsen]

But what if >50% of people are in the "disrupted" category?

[eloff]

Then you get a revolution and the whole system is torn down and rebuilt in a different form. That's highly undesirable, and as I mentioned, is a real tail risk to consider.

[ImHereToVote]

Progress towards what?

[slashdev]

Don't be pedantic. From Oxford dictionary: "advance or development toward a better, more complete, or more modern condition"

[ImHereToVote]

I'm not being pedantic. What the definition of "better" in this context is. Is everything.

[slashdev]

You are being pedantic. You also came by with a three word troll comment. Why don't you make your argument properly and then I'll spend the effort to address it.