[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.