[Night_Thastus]

...it does? This level of automation is recent, and industrialization is the blink of an eye in human history.

If we're talking shorter scale, people have traditionally hand-waived it with 'Oh, these jobs will go away, but they'll be replaced with other, higher-skilled jobs!'.

That's an economist's idealism and doesn't fit reality.

[ihumanable]

CGP Grey has an older video now about what happened to horses over time.

For a while every economic advance seemed to mean more and better jobs for horses. But then the automobile comes along and there's no more need for horses and we can see what happens to an animal that has no economic reason to exist.

We still have a much smaller number of horses for the few economically viable roles a horse can fill and as toys for the wealthy.

The question is if labor will follow the same path.

[BuyMyBitcoins]

At the risk of invoking “but this time it’s different”, AI hasn’t produced a new job sector. A farrier who can’t make a living off of horseshoes could at least go work at the Ford assembly plant.

In other words, I have no idea where all the white collar workers are supposed to go.

[svachalek]

Prompt engineering of course.

[clarle]

Population in developed countries is already decreasing, so who knows what happens after that? Unfortunately a lot of the foundations of our economy are built on top of an ever-increasing populace.

[frm88]

We still have a much smaller number of horses for the few economically viable roles a horse can fill and as toys for the wealthy.

Yes, but those were horses. Now substitute the word 'human'.

[jbxntuehineoh]

The main difference is that horses are incapable of organizing a revolution

[fwipsy]

Domesticated horses are chattel. They existed for the needs of humans. When the needs went away the horses did too. Many of the world's poorest already exist without anyone's tolerance, even though their economic contributions are a rounding error. I suppose it's possible that the world's wealthiest will decide to commit genocide (maybe to create nature preserves?) but it feels like a very far-fetched outcome. If they do not, the price of commodity goods and human wages will decrease in tandem. Massive inequality, perhaps homelessness and lack of healthcare if those sectors remain captured by special interests, but I do not think most people will literally starve or die of exposure. More likely unregulated housing and healthcare will expand.

[est31]

Well Bezos did actually state that he wants to turn Earth into a natural park.

But yeah, the robot armies don't need grain so why hike up the price of bread? Lack of grain makes those people resentful which means you need to deal with their anger. Sure, it can be dealt with but it's just cheaper to give the humans grain so they are docile. This is basic governance 101 that goes back to the romans (and further).

They also didn't slaughter all horses immediately. You can't eat that much horse meat anyways. It happened piece by piece.

The only good reason for an abrupt mass culling of the 99% (for a coldly calculating rich person with no empathy) would be game theory, i.e. them not being a contender for power any more. If there are no humans, there is nobody who can question the control of the 1%. It would be thus less about economics and more about power.

I am really rooting for the bottom 99%, myself being a part of it, but I really don't know what will happen to us.

[jacobn]

Historically it has fit reality, but yes, this time may well actually be different...

[DanielVZ]

I think his answer is just even more work. In this case it could be services where in general and for historical reasons people want to interact with people.