If AI is the intern, how do the economics of entry level positions work? And if they don’t, how do people enter the workforce at all? More schooling? Only hire PhDs?
> If AI is the intern, how do the economics of entry level positions work? And if they don’t, how do people enter the workforce at all? More schooling? Only hire PhDs?
They don't, and in 10-20 years corporate leaders will bemoan the shortage of high-skilled experienced people that they created through their own decisions. Of course, they won't take any responsibility or change their approach, though.
> They don't, and in 10-20 years corporate leaders will bemoan the shortage of high-skilled experienced people that they created through their own decisions. Of course, they won't take any responsibility or change their approach, though.
It's a free rider/prisoner's dilemma problem.
If everyone cooperates then we all come out ahead. If you all cooperate while I defect then I end up even better (I don't have to train anyone). But if we all defect then we're fucked.
It used to be that there was entry level work that needed to be done by humans and so you didn't have this problem. If the entry level work can be done by AI then you need something else. Either government coordination and incentives to hire humans (this is the kind of things gov't is good at). Or people stay in education for longer/education becomes different.
Well, we have to work with what we have :-) It would be highly unlikely that something new violates the established trends over thousands of years.
It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.
> It would be highly unlikely that something new violates the established trends over thousands of years.
What now? Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.
> It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.
You know what would count as an adaptation? Large fractions of population becoming immiserated and either dying off or living in poverty at the margins.
I think you're severely overestimating the abilities of this "AI" and underestimating the abilities of the human mind here :-)
However, if you'd like to be pessimistic on it I won't argue, I have that tendency too ;)
And to lighten up the mood, I highly recommend listening to this episode with Gary Marcus, where he invites experts in the field of humor to discuss how distinctly bad the LLMs are at explaining what comes naturally to us: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-ai-make-you-laugh/...
> You know what would count as an adaptation? Large fractions of population becoming immiserated and either dying off or living in poverty at the margins.
> Mere survival is the wrong metric.
People don't have to live in cities. Knowledge work has brought many people to cities and the absence of it will reverse that trend. It is welfare that keeps impoverished people living in cities.
> Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.
I don’t think that’s true. The archetypal constructs of human cognition have been unchanged. Hence the enduring relevance of myths. It’s always the same stories playing out.
They don't, and in 10-20 years corporate leaders will bemoan the shortage of high-skilled experienced people that they created through their own decisions. Of course, they won't take any responsibility or change their approach, though.