| > but wages for the majority of them will go further and further down until they become roughly equivalent to the average minimum wage, if they are not outsourced entirely. In your framework, can't this be said for all jobs in the long tail of technological development? This is also assuming we get to a point where there is no need for a human to coordinate models and prioritize tasks, otherwise the job will become that. > Many people will attempt to transition to a non-tech field if the number of available jobs and the wages are not commensurate In this world where AI is good enough that most tech jobs aren't present due to outsourcing, why wouldn't the progress extend to other 'non-tech' jobs? I assume you use 'non-tech' to refer to jobs with physical labor but the field of robotics is always getting better. With the cost of writing software for them going down to 0, we should expect jobs in this domain to be scarce as well. > Rent won't really go down, and the price of other things will likely continue to rise or stagnate There's only so high a landlord can make rent without losing tenants and stacking losses due to mortgages or property taxes. Otherwise they're just paying the government for capital that could be used more efficiently elsewhere. > As AI 'knowledge' is populated by more and more countries with different languages and priorities, English- and some other language speakers will be squeezed out English is the most popular language in the world even being used as common languages. by countries that don't have it as their native language. I don't think there's any basis for this. > At some point, looking for work is something AIs will discourage us from doing, if they don't already I don't believe this accurately captures where AI is today. It is not good enough to be left to its own devices in most fields. > Are we not, like, pricing ourselves out of our own careers (and planet?) Planet? If AI is being built to prioritize helping humanity, what reason is there to believe that a superintelligence would push us out? Unless you're assuming we'd mess up alignment so bad that they'd form other priorities where eliminating/removing humans is the best way to go about it. Like the flawed paperclip AI thought experiment that assumes an AI with an unreasonably narrow goal can understand enough of the world's structure to combat humans on every front. Having such a narrow failure case makes it surprisingly hard to realize given we have a hard time aligning trained models to narrow things we want it to steer towards. For better or worse our training methods, and emergent behavior that arises from it, makes having such an inconsistently unaligned view of the world unlikely in my opinion. |