[phyzix5761]

> "Stop AI from taking our jobs" - This shouldn't be solved through regulation. It's on politicians to help people adapt to a new economic reality, not to artificially preserve bullshit jobs.

This is a really good point. If a country tries to "protect" jobs by blocking AI, it only puts itself at a disadvantage. Other countries that don't pass those restrictions will produce goods and services more efficiently and at lower cost, and they’ll outcompete you anyway. So even with regulations the jobs aren't actually saved.

The real solution is for people to upskill and learn new abilities so they can thrive in the new economic reality. But it's hard to convince people that they need to change instead of expecting the world around them to stay the same.

[smallmancontrov]

This presupposes the existence of said jobs, which is a whopper of an assumption that conveniently shifts blame onto the most vulnerable. Of course, that's probably the point.

This will work even worse than "if everyone goes to college, good jobs will appear for everyone."

[phyzix5761]

The good (or bad) thing about humans is they always want more than what they have. AI seems like a nice tool that may solve some problems for people but, in the very near future, customers will demand more than what AI can do and companies will need to hire people who can deliver more until those jobs, eventually like all jobs, are automated away. We see this happen every 50 years or so in society. Just have a conversation with people your grandparent's age and you'll see they've gone through the same thing several times.

[smallmancontrov]

The last 50 years in the USA (and elsewhere) have been an absolute disaster for labor: the economy as a whole grew, the capital share grew even more, and the labor share shrank (unless you use a deflator rigged to show the opposite, but a rigged deflator can't hide the ratios). This contrasts to the 50 years prior, where we largely grew and fell together, proving that K shaped economies are a policy choice, not an inevitability.

A Roosevelt economy can still work for most people when the "job creators" stop creating jobs. A Reagan economy cannot.

[plastic-enjoyer]

> The real solution is for people to upskill and learn new abilities so they can thrive in the new economic reality. But it's hard to convince people that they need to change instead of expecting the world around them to stay the same.

But why do I have to? Why should your life be dictated by the market and corporations that are pushing these changes? Why do I have to be afraid that my livelihood is at risk because I don't want to adapt to the ever faster changing market? The goal of automation and AI should be to reduce or even eliminate the need for us to work, and not the further reduction of people to their economic value.

[phyzix5761]

Because the world, sadly, doesn't revolve around just 1 individual. We are a society where other individuals have different goals and needs and when those are met by the development of a new product offering it shifts how people act and where they spend their money. If enough people shift then it affects jobs.

[plastic-enjoyer]

> If enough people shift then it affects jobs.

Yes, but again, the goal of automatization should be to reduce the need for people having jobs to secure their livelihood and enable a dignified life. However, what we are seeing in the Western Hemisphere is that per capita productivity is rising while the middle class is eroding and capital is accumulated by a select few in obscene amounts. 'Upskilling' does not happen out of personal motivation, but rather to meet the demands of the market so that one does not live in poverty. The idea of ‘upskilling’ to serve the market is also absurd because, in times of ever-accelerating technological development, there is no guarantee that the skills you learn today will still be relevant tomorrow. Yesterday it was “learn to code” but now many people who followed this mantra find themselves in precarious situations because they cannot find a job or are forced into the gig economy. So what do you do with people who couldn't foresee the future, or who are simply too old for the market?

[bawolff]

> But why do I have to?

Because you enjoy eating? Whatever you think society should be, the fact is we live in one where you have to exchange labour for money. What ought to be and what is, are unrelated to each other.

Its interesting how we feel this way about white collar jobs, but when a coal mine closes nobody cares.

[plastic-enjoyer]

This may be true, however, then upskilling should not be a way to solve economic issues as this line of thinking will not bring us further to solve the Is-Ought-Problem. I think most people can accept that a future where we don't have to exchange labour for money is a desirable future, right?

[bawolff]

> I think most people can accept that a future where we don't have to exchange labour for money is a desirable future, right?

That depends at what cost and who the "we" is. There are plenty of variations on this idea i would consider a bad thing.

After all, this is already our present if you are born rich enough.

[mattgreenrocks]

> The real solution is for people to upskill and learn new abilities

AI is being touted as extremely intelligent and, thus, capable of taking over almost any white collar job. What would I upskill to?

[bawolff]

> AI is being touted as extremely intelligent and, thus, capable of taking over almost any white collar job.

The marketing buzz is not the same thing as reality. Upskill to something AI is bad at. There is plenty to chose from in the present.

[smallmancontrov]

The jobs that would exist if only we gave the "job creators" just one more tax cut, I'm sure.

[flag_fagger]

Upskill? No, that’s not the point. You’ll be down leveled (potentially several levels) economically and held there.

Consider some poorly paid servant work. It will be sold to you as “noble work” or something along the lines to entice/slander you.

[mattgreenrocks]

Oh I know, I’m just sowing doubt in the OP’s claims. Note the lack of response to this.

AI is not a value neutral tech.

[sofixa]

> If a country tries to "protect" jobs by blocking AI, it only puts itself at a disadvantage

Regulating AI doesn't mean blocking it. The EU AI Act regulates AI without blocking it, just imposing restrictions on data usage and decision making (if it's making life or death decisions, you have to be able to reliably explain how and why it makes those decisions, and it needs to be deterministic - no UnitedHealthcare bullshit hiding behind an "algorithm" refusing healthcare)