[guywithahat]

It's just basic economics; when something makes the economy more efficient, it doesn't destroy jobs forever, people get new, better jobs in a more efficient economy.

Perhaps AI will finally raise the bar so high lower-IQ individuals won't be able to find any meaningful employment, but this has never happened in before and I doubt it'll happen again. I don't think I've seen a respected economist go on a news broadcast and say AI will lead to mass unemployment.

[lm28469]

> It's just basic economics

Is it ?

> when something makes the economy more efficient

How does "ai" make "the economy" more efficient exactly ?

> people get new, better jobs

Which law dictate that these jobs are better ?

I don't see people getting better jobs personally, I see a shit load of people pushed into more and more precarious jobs, with less and less workers rights and job security, with stagnating wages despite rise in productivity, &c.

[guywithahat]

> It's just basic economics

Yes, if you look up any video of an economist talking about AI, they'll bring up the industrial revolution and point out how people thought it would bring the end of employment and instead created more and better jobs. The generally accepted viewpoint is AI will make things more efficient, and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.

[lm28469]

How big is the pool of legit economists who post videos AND know enough about "ai" to talk with any kind of authority ?

99% of economists couldn't see any of the big downturns up to 1hr before shit hit the fan. Yet they all retrospectively can upload 12 hours long video on youtube to explain you how the dot com or 2008 crisis were so obvious you'd have to be blind to not have seen them coming...

> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work.

"freed" is a weird word to employ, given the century+ long race to automation shouldn't we all have been freed by now ? Why do so many people work min wage or other type of precarious jobs ? Why will I retire later than my parents and grand parents ?

And what do you mean by "more important" ? Most jobs are bullshit and workers know it, they don't want important jobs, they want stables jobs that pay enough to live life, and "ai" is going to do anything but improve that

[ethbr1]

> and thus people will be freed to do other, more important work

In a post-labor-scarcity world, there is no longer any "other, more important work."

Which means there's no basis for paying labor currency, which means there's no way for labor to buy things, which means we need a new method to ensure people can get things.

[guywithahat]

Seeing as there's no precedent for a post-scarcity world, and no reason to think such a thing is possible or desirable, I'm not sure how to discuss the topic in a serious fashion. As long as people want to keep improving society, it will require resources, which will produce scarcity.

[ethbr1]

If you commoditize both thinking and action, even at an average human capability level, then I'd argue that would be a post-scarcity world. At least as far as working humans are concerned.

[kelipso]

Yeah, lower IQ people can use AI too...it might even close the gap to the high IQ people depending on their talents, what they learn, what they apply it to, and so on.

[DiabloD3]

So you're saying that members of Congress can finally catch up to the rest of America with technological help? Although that might be true, they're scared of computers. They only recently mastered the fax machine, but can't figure out how to stop the blinking time on their microwave.

Baby steps, I guess.

[tcfhgj]

who would pay lower IQ people when AI can do it itself - 24/7?

[bluefirebrand]

> high lower-IQ individuals won't be able to find any meaningful employment, but this has never happened in before and I doubt it'll happen again

"Meaningful" is a bit weasely here. If a skilled factory worker had their job offshored in the past and wound up employed at Walmart after, they did not find "meaningful" work

It has happened plenty of times

[darth_avocado]

> it doesn't destroy jobs forever, people get new, better jobs in a more efficient economy.

Still doesn’t explain how new jobs are created. Efficient economy doesn’t mean more jobs. You could displace a thousand workers and create a single new better job, but that means nothing.

[showerst]

I think programming is a good example profession.

For a simple model, let's say you hire programmers for three reasons:

1. Because you have (X) work to get done to run your business. Once that work is done, there is no more work to do.

2. Because they get work done that makes more money than you pay them, but with diminishing marginal returns. So the first programmer is worth 20x their salary, the 20th is worth 1.01x their salary.

3. Because you have some new idea to build, and have enough capital to gamble on it. If it succeeds before you run out of money, you'll revert to (1) or (2).

Let's assume AI comes along that means a programmer can do 4x the work. If most programmers are in the first bucket, then you only need 1/4 as many programmers and most will be fired.

If most programmers are in the second bucket, then suddenly there's _much_ more stuff that can be built (and money made) per-programmer. So businesses will be incentivized to hire many more programmers.

For programmers in the third bucket, our AI makes more likely to get built in time, thus ups the odds of success a little.

How you think the market is structured decides how you think AI will effect job creation and destruction.

[darth_avocado]

> So the first programmer is worth 20x their salary, the 20th is worth 1.01x their salary.

> If most programmers are in the second bucket, then suddenly there's _much_ more stuff that can be built (and money made) per-programmer. So businesses will be incentivized to hire many more programmers.

How do these two reconcile? If hiring more programmers is diminishing returns, why would a business hire more?

[showerst]

Because you've moved the frontier of who's making you money out. Now the 20th programmer is still worth 5x their salary, and you hire up to the 30th programmer to hit 1.01.

[LightBug1]

Why are the lower-IQ individuals high?

[guywithahat]

I'm not sure if you're being serious but it was just poor phrasing. It really should have read "AI may raise the bar higher, such that low-IQ individuals ...".

That said, I'm sort of assuming simple tasks will get done with AI, which isn't a given and is something I could easily be wrong about. AI could easily just benefit everyone, as has been the case for every prior technological advancement in human history