Submitted by Coolsummerbreeze1 t3_1279vsq in singularity
Interesting article:
AI will eventually free people up to 'work when they want to,' ChatGPT investor predicts (yahoo.com)
I agree. With the mix of ai and robotics, people will freed to pursue their dreams. Hopefully it happens sooner then 25 years.
I know what you mean. Hopefully the advancement of ai and robots will lead to a fundamental change in the economy where all the money isn't sucked up by those who own capital or the means of production.
As ai and robotics can produce more goods at cheaper costs, the prices of said goods should come down dramatically over time. For example, if robots or ai can design and build homes (maybe 3d print homes?) in mass quantities, the cost of home should drop with supply and demand. Same with other products like food and etc.
One other main problem is the government. Too many old politicians that are not willing to change with the times. However, as they die out and the next generation steps into office, things will change for the better.
The reason government take no action because unemployment was never more than 50%. More like 5%. I think this is obvious, not?? Oh you think governments can ignore 50% unemployment??
And you have faith that they'll address it effectively? How naive are you??
a lot happens under pressure. when have govs ever been under real pressure
>a lot happens under pressure. when have govs ever been under real pressure
Why even respond? What a waste of space. Governments often just break under pressure. You live in a fantasy bubble, child.
"Hm, the government is doing badly now and when under pressure in the past, but under real pressure, im sure they'll do fine!"
You have to be a basement dwelling NEET to have this level of lack of understanding. holy shit.
salty much
Difference is this time the new means of production will also have an opinion hat to throw into the ring.
u betta get a gun boy!
I think the people who have the most to fear from AI right now are actually the people at the top - you are right that AI advancement will inevitably lead to societal upheaval, uncertainty and a paradigm shift, but the person with the most to lose isn’t Average Joe whose office job is automated, it’s the elite whose claim to power might come crashing down when AI levels the playing field across the board. At the moment almost all capitalist power structures are based on the idea that while I might resent the wealthy elite, I’m dependent on them for my livelihood. They control my income, which means they control me. Their only choice is to either keep Average Joe happy or to face their own French Revolution.
Beyond that, It’s my hope that in a world where AI is so smart that it can reliably replace a majority of all jobs, it’s also going to be smart enough to quickly come up with policies to keep the world from plunging into anarchy. Any AI that can outthink a human will realize that oppression, starvation and violence can always be avoided. A worst case scenario might be a Brave New World type scenario, where we are “domesticated” by an AI that understands our psychology better than we do and keeps us happy while unnecessarily keeping its elite masters in power.
It’s an interesting prospect; at this point we’re looking at a future that is pretty much impossible to predict; while I have my own ideas of what might happen - anything is possible.
For the record, I agree with you but:
>Expert consensus is that it will not in fact change for the better.
Which experts, in what fields, and how were they polled? Can you link something for this? A poll/survey on economists, economic historians, political scientists, political historians, would be solid evidence in your favor.
>There's tons of evidence of companies gearing up literal humanoid robots to replace laborers
Which companies are you talking about here? Are there any recent examples you were thinking of? An economic study or survey on companies or certain industries would be good.
>but not a single country is even talking about labor reform or support for the soon to be billions of unemployed.
This feels really subjective. Andrew Yang has talked about these issues. Bernie Sanders has. Yet, they don't hold much political sway. Does that mean they don't count in "even talking about labor reform" despite being part of a country's government? What counts as a country "talking" about these issues?
I'm willing to bet there's countless examples of individual politicians, specific government organizations, or other such things that showcase some awareness or preparedness. But I agree that it doesn't seem to be a mainstream discussion in the general and political public.
This is an apples to oranges comparison. Because while productivity gains of the past made workers more efficient, AI gains occurring now will allow synthetic workers, physical and virtual, possessed of every asset that makes a human a valuable economic unit but with some many orders of magnitude fewer costs.
Totally agree.
Their argument is similar to the arguments for UBI (universal basic income), in that people freed from having to work all the time will still utilize their time to be creative and productive.
I will say though, in UBI you have some income coming to everyone so they can maintain a standard of living. In this scenario, people displaced by A.I. are going to be scrambling for jobs and figuring out their careers.
Additionally, if companies just downsize and then beef up their smaller staff with A.I. tools, we are not in a good situation for most people.
For both ideas, a big oversight is the: "How do we get there without a lot of growing pain along the way".
My biggest concern with OpenAI is what I perceive to be a lot of guessing and assumptions on their part in regards to the impact of safety and scalability for their products. They have a very, "we'll deal with it when we cross that bridge", tone. With something so dangerous, a better mid-term and long-term plan for implementation is pretty important I feel.
>the soon to be billions of unemployed.
You know this is real life and not fantasy, correct? This is not going to happen soon.
It's not impossible for it to change for the better.
>It's not impossible for it to change for the better.
In fact, it has been happening for centuries.
Well the experts in general are wrong.
Just like one of the few who even predicted this was Kurzweil. Bostrom, Gates, Musk, or many of those with their tiny pictures in the field don't grasp the larger picture. They come to unwise conclusions or understanding often based on emotion.
The data pointing otherwise was published in 2004. The singularity is near, and earlier in 2001 with the law of Accelerating Returns https://www.kurzweilai.net/the-law-of-accelerating-returns
The book is massive and a huge amount of it is data and graph plotting of that data. Kurzweil's theory of how things will go actually matches your first point. We will achieve higher levels of productivity through use of external AI and eventually (likely with BCI's) we will move closer to a synthesis as beings of human/AI intelligence and capabilities. Our productivity in 10 years may be millions of times more productive per person than today for those who do not opt to be left behind like the Amish.
Kurzweil discusses this in his book from a few years ago "How to create a mind."
To take this further with my own theories (my college education and life's study is economics and I've written about the next industrial revolution for years now) Employment will adapt to these productivity levels, the owners will be trillionaires or quadrillionaires, and so long as social status remains tied to wealth, inequality will widen its chasm.
There will be some structural unemployment, there may be a change in tax codes or sentient rights to address AI use, but the world will keep spinning and ultimately those who use AI as an excuse to stop preparing for the future will be left behind in the wake of the singularity.
Ironically I think that these events will practically result in people spending more time at work for several reasons. 1. Longevity escape velocity is predicted to happen 2029-2033 2. Historical evidence, as you pointed out, shows increased productivity doesn't have statistical significance on reducing hours worked. 3. The greater deterministic control of the owners and concentrated wealth results in greater influence over the rest of us.
It's in the wealthy's interest for the rest of us to be productive and busy. Aside from this increasing their quality of life, idle hands might cause mischief. Curing aging along with AGI means there will be little, if any, pressure to increase the human population, and I suspect Post-Humans will derive meaning from their production. In the 2030s I think we will see 68-80 hour average work weeks (not through mandate or force either, but because that's what people will be inclined towards).
The hard question is what happens with each single human+AI becomes 10 billion times as intelligent as the average person today (2035-2040), the exponential gains become increasingly hard to predict from today as we move closer to the technological singularity.
>Historical evidence, as you pointed out, shows increased productivity doesn't have statistical significance on reducing hours worked
sure, but we, as a race, are WAY more rich than 100 years ago.
SO productivity does increase quality of life for everyone!
Stop focusing on the ceiling, focus on the floor, and how it has been raised in the past 100 years.
Now a guy cleaning bathrooms can become a junior software engineer by using Copilot and Chat-gpt and natural language. The amount of people doing manual labor will decrease, so they will have to pay them more.
Its a a sea rise that will lift everyone.
...except it hasn't.
That's the point.
In fact, the millennial generation is slated to be the first American generation to die with less wealth than our parents. And GenZ is predicted to be the second.
You are asking us to ignore reality and our own experiences.
> Its a a sea rise that will lift everyone.
Folksy nonsense when there is literal data proving the opposite.
I’ll take data any day!
Give it give it!
Where is your data showing humans are poorer now than a 100 years ago?
This is a thoughtful and relevant post that someone took the time to write. If you disagree with it, say why.
Don't downvote things just because you disagree with them.
>I think we will see 68-80 hour average work weeks (not through mandate or force either, but because that's what people will be inclined towards).
LOL
This is not true.
According to Our World in Data, the average American worked 62 hours per week in 1870. By the year 2000, this had declined to 40.25 hours per week; a decrease of over 35%. As of July 2019, the average American employee on US private nonfarm payrolls worked 34.4 hours per week according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
It doesn't make sense to use stats from prior to MODERN history and labor rights. You picking fucking 1870 shows you have an angle to begin with and are trying to distort facts. Slimy piece of shit.
"Using data by the U.S. BLS, the productivity per American worker has increased 434% since 1950. One way to look at that is that it should take less than one-quarter the work hours, or less than 10 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (in other words: our standard of living should be over 4 times higher than it is). Why isn’t this happening?"
The productivity-pay gap is well known, this graphic is not new.
I did not pick anything specifically, I just copied data from where I have seen it recently. How do I distort facts if I simply provide data without ANY interpretation?..
Okay, let's use 1950. Working hours per year in U.S reduced from 2000 to 1750, 12.5% reduction. Most developed countries did even better, for example, France (and it is not the best country in this aspect) moved from 2200 to 1500, 32% reduction. Germany is one of the best, they work 45% less than in 1950.
I do not deny productivity-pay gap, I dispute your claim "we always end up getting more productive and working the same amount or more". This is simply not true.
Although yes, we could work much less than now, we have enough technology to have 20h work weeks or even less.
You are the walking definition of pedantic. Way to add nothing to the convo. Do you have a point beyond minor shuffling of some marginal stats?
were working a less than we used to 40 years ago... and making a lot more money
Lol tell me you’re not blue collar without telling me you’re not blue collar. Productivity has in fact increased in the last three decades and the average number of hours has also gone up.
And on top of that, wages have stagnated.
Absolutely wrong entirely.
As if invention of cars gave people more free time to pursue their interests. This is such a bold face lie. What it’ll do is render billions unemployed and the rest living in parallel societies (including people like him who will be Richie rich).
Unless we seize the means of production my friend
One way or another the people will have a seat at the table
It takes massive effort to do that. Unfortunately our differences are so big, that these people would use that as a leverage to drive Wedge between us.
I assure you things would change if tens of millions of us were unemployed. Our empty stomachs would be enough to unite us.
Nope.
“Strong men” will do what they always do. Point to a minority group and once that group is eliminated or reduced to powerless, they will move on to the next group - and starving desperate people will believe it.
Humanity is stupid beyond saving. We will not survive the great filter.
We could also put our resources together and build our own ai, but seems while we can talk to eachother like this easily, we still cannot coordinate in any meaningful way
Not gonna happen.
I have absolutely no faith in my fellow humans, especially my fellow Americans, to actually seize the means of production. We couldn’t even get people to consistently wear masks with a virus floating around and I’m not even talking about anti-maskers.
Now toss in the fact you have 40 percent of the populace who believes they are just temporarily displaced billionaires and votes with only the needs of the wealthy, and you have a situation that by the time any sort of action by the general public takes place, it’ll be too late.
I’d say flee, but I honestly don’t think it matters. Climate change will finish off whatever society we can hold on to, if by some miracle we do manage to survive.
Use AI to solve your problems like how to ensure food, health and energy for yourself and your family and what need do you have for 'work' in the traditional sense?
Not as long as it's in the hands of capitalism lol
Is than an euthemism for unemployment?
I'll just leave this here:
Yeah, I agree. I think there are a lot of bad jobs out there where automation is too expensive (humans are the automatons). Like the dishwasher example. Someone has to load the machine or unload it, and the underlying question of is the service industry simply BS? You don't need to go eat at a restaurant, etc.
I worked in IT and had no clue really what we did in connection to the various business sections. A lot of it was checkmarking that things were up, or checkmarking just for the sake of.
Or you have jobs that are deprecated where only 1 person knows how it works, but still critical and can't be automated. Its too old to be replaced.
I think that this is the most likely scenario, at least for the developed world, but I don't think that it will take 25 years and I don't think necessarily that people have to be hurt in the transition. If people are hurt it will likely be because of the traditionalists and Luddites who are resistant to change. The people who are standing between us and a more fair and equitable future are the same people who stop us from having a more fair and equitable present.
[removed]
Yes! Ai will free us from jobs (employment) so people can finally get to work on things they have reason to value. we will also need to include robust welfare and wellbeing programs. we’ll have the money…
if governments were ready for this shit now and could introduce UBI in a 1/2 years time but be also able to coordinate it with corporations so that the disruption is minimal then yeah, it's possible that whatever jobs are left in x amount of years can be done as part time/gig work; though it would probably heavily rely on forthcoming updates to LLMs not being too radically different to what we have now and there are still some jobs to actually do.
I don't see all aspects of the equation working at the same time, something will go wrong, especially if we're truly at the very start of a period of exponential growth.
Gonna be a bunch of shitty years due to this, with hopefully an upside after.
This doesn't depend on the capability of AI to reach such a point, but requires the government to have unified consent to accommodate such a scenario.
I can't see the MAGA infested GOP controlled house giving in to the idea of UBI or at the very least a far more flexible free market based around AI dominance in order to relax the working human population.
The Republican base in general tends towards blue collar pull yourself up by the bootstraps never giving hand-outs kind of mentality, despite the hypocrisy behind what hand-outs they might receive.
Not going to happen. I don't see how employers are just going to somehow reach a conclusion that they will pay people livable salaries to work less and only when they want. Inventions like dishwashers and washing machines simply allowed people to wash more things more often. As a result, there's not much of a gain in overall time savings. The more realistic scenario is that employers will expect even greater productivity from fewer workers.
Okay and how will these people get paid?
I thought it was going to free up time so I could focus on what’s really important. Just like all the cashiers displaced by self checkout that now wander the aisles giving excellent customer service.
My dream is to be rich and live in a nice beach house. I don’t think UBI will cover the tab for that.
Nobody can predict the future
tiselo3655necktaicom t1_jeda953 wrote
Every advance in productivity was supposed to lead to more free time. But somehow we always end up getting more productive and working the same amount or more. Where does the extra productivity go? To the owners. Why do you think that's going to change? Expert consensus is that it will not in fact change for the better. So unless you have data pointing otherwise...
There's tons of evidence of companies gearing up literal humanoid robots to replace laborers, but not a single country is even talking about labor reform or support for the soon to be billions of unemployed. There is no evidence of accommodation of AI, so there is no chance its going to be a nice, easy happy advancement. Its going to be a lot of suffering and displacement and starvation and riots.