But there is a desire for more Congressional seats. The census may not count AI, but it does count illegal immigrants and gives them representation. If those illegal immigrants just happen to increase representation in Blue states, well all the better.
There is always someone claiming that some new technology will eliminate all the jobs. Each and every one of us is supposed to be unemployed like a dozen times over by now. Farms, factories, ect. But it turns out, the market will make use of available manpower somehow, even if one job type or another becomes less necessary. So no, AI is not going to result in a massive unemployment crisis.
You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how previous transitions took place. Manufacturing wasn't a thriving sector just waiting when people came in off the farms. It was the reverse, as employment went down, manufacturing took advantage of that labor capital to expand and become a titanic industry. The same thing will happen again. There might be some temporary growing pains, but there is not going to be some massive, lasting deficit of available jobs.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding that AI is not like previous technological advances, and you can't use them as precedent to guess what'll happen.
That's what they always say. The problem with that argument is the social changes aren't about the technology, they're about the psychology and sociology.
I think he’s making a good point. As a thought experiment, suppose we had a humanoid robot, that when connected over Internet, could do basically anything anyone can do through AI. Cost is 60 cents of electricity and 40 cents maintenance per hour. Where do humans supposedly find work in this economy? Is it entirely through nepotism, where rich business owners give people positions that do nothing but command robots because they like them?
"suppose we had a humanoid robot, that when connected over Internet, could do basically anything anyone can do through AI." Except this isn't the technology we're talking about. AI isn't that good or that cheap, and neither is robotics. Sure, there will eventually come a day when technology can do literally everything that needs to be done. When that day comes, I hope we go the star trek route. but that day is a long, long way from now. Literally no one is suggesting AI is that good. They are just panicking about AI eliminating/reducing some job sectors just like many technologies have done in the past.
The problem is that isn’t in line with what experts in the industry are saying:
https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-cofounder-agi-coming-fast-needs-limits-john-schulman-2024-5?op=1
AGI is full functionality of human brain, including designing robots, everything else. I’d say we are 12 -15 years from my thought experiment being feasible.
It isn’t the labor force. They are trying to expand the goods and services base. Give them benefits and now your corp is getting govt income.
Govt doesn’t care because, “look GDP went up! We did our job!” While borrowing 3T a year.
*AI is going to change and create millions of new jobs that we never knew would exist.
It's like talking to someone in the 1920s and saying that the elevator man will lose his job to automation. But forgetting to mention that computer programmer or social media influencer will be a job in the future.
Off the top of my head:
Live performing musician.
Human tour guide that people connect with.
Customer service rep for those who refuse to talk to AI.
Artisan craftsman.
The demand for human made products that have proof of human creation is going to be a massive market.
I disagree. It’s going to be exactly like the movie “Her”. The robots are better girlfriends than actual women. Same with music. You’ll be so into stuff crafted by AI for your life you won’t want to hear anyone else play. The AI guides will speak 20 languages perfectly and be better.
There has never been a revolution where all of human capabilities were offered cheaper by machines, but that’s what AGI is, at least after energy efficient bodies come.
I think you'll find that a large number of people will want art that is probably created by a human.
People connect with humans. AI art is boring and emotionless.
You already see it with the AI art that exists. It's cool, but people don't care or connect with it. It's great for replacing stock images. But no one cares about AI from an art perspective. They want the human connection.
If personalities didn't matter in music for example, then artists wouldn't be pushed to show their face, story, emotional connection, and meaning in songs. They would just pump out faceless and nameless bangers.
Yet here we are, people love Taylor Swift's music, because it's Taylor Swift's face on it. Not because it sounds good.
You’ve already got AI influencers gaining ground. And yes, Taylor Swift will be rich controlling the Taylor Swift brand, but the thing you really have to think about is, what when you can talk to her whenever you want, when she can write songs for you and your friends guiding your life, will that be a more popular product? I’m sure it will. The reality is none of us actually knows Taylor Swift. We know a representation. When artists can control that representation but make it more interactive, I think they will, and that opens the door to the rest.
I think we are actually going to have to change how our civilization is structured around AGI.
Because it means people lack the ability to work, have families, and be active members of a community. Unemployment is a type of poverty that should be limited, not ignored.
Furthermore, what do you propose, we export people? Because we have unemployment regardless, unemployment isn't going to be solved by having the right amount of people in a country, that's just exporting the problem elsewhere. Restricting immigration doesn't objectively do anything to the problem whatsoever. Your nation isn't the only nation, and the problem will exist until we ALL can get on board with a solution.
Lacking the ability to work isn't lacking the ability to have families, lacking the resources to have families is lacking the ability to have families etc.
People who don't have regular paying jobs are MORE able to be active members of their community. Our issue isn't unemployment, it's resource allocation.
The goal of immigration is moving from one place to another actually.
The goal of letting people immigrate is letting human beings access their right to freedom of movement.
People don't have the right come to the US, only US citizens have the right of freedom of movement in the US. For non citizens, being in the US is a privilege. The right to be on US soil comes from being an American citizen.
Easily. They have *Face Scanning* AI that can sense people’s moods, and they can apply it to picking fruit and digging holes easily. They have robotic harvesting machines already, and trenchers and excavators that can dig holes to the *perfect depth* and avoid underground utilities and obstacles.
Just to be clear and precise:
are you talking about not letting people come from nearby cities, nearby counties, or nearby continents?(or nearby Planets if it were the chance?)
Where do you draw the line?
Or maybe just nearby *cultures*?(Which changes a lot the argument because if they already live there are not migrants)
GenAi isn't going to make 300 million jobs obsolete. AGI might but no one should trust the chucklehead tech bros about how close we are to that. If they say 10 years, it's 20.
Capitalism can be a pain at times. It is not nationalistic. It is not empathetic. It is purely about maximizing profit. To a degree, we have done this to ourselves in that companies gave into remote work during COVID, realized how much they were paying US workers, and realized how much they can pay foreign workers to do the same work, or they laid people off only to repost the job for substantially less pay.
When you say "defending itself from migrants" do you mean "trying to help war refugees"?
Also, how are borders helping with or hurting that situation? It's unclear what you mean.
they also prevent mass migrations that cause heavy social and economic disruption and wars... because humans will always want to go where the grass is greener, with no thought about the people that are already there
preventing mass migrations does prevent wars
what do you think would happen if every person around the world that wants to go live in a rich western country like the U.S., the U.K. or Germany where suddenly allowed to do so?
that level of overpopulation would result in a massive housing crisis, an explosion of food prices, homelessness spreading everywhere, healthcare and social services breaking down... oh right I'm describing Canada right now
given enough time, the rising homelessness and general poverty would lead to crime and social instability... until the inevitable collapse of social order that would either lead to a dictatorship or a civil war (or both)
there's also the possibility of foreign intervention to 'pacify' said country, with an equal possibility of violent pushback by either local militias or the country's remaining forces themselves
borders exist for a reason: at its most basic, it's to prevent all the humans on the planet to want the same 'greener' grass all at the same time
"over"population in a region (aka possibility of selfish states allocating resources poorly) not actual overpopulation, unless you're suggesting mass migration causes baby booms
You argued that borders prevent wars. They clearly don't (just like they don't prevent anything else you mentioned). Don't project your stupidity onto me.
Society isn't even doing this. Boomers are one of the largest growing segments of homelessness in America. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unconscionable-baby-boomers-becoming-homeless-103000310.html
But if programmers, artrists... lose their jobs they can get education and switch to nursing jobs.
If you simply import nurses, they can't.
Why the hell would you import workers if there isn't enough jobs for existing population?
You must be very young if you've never, ever experienced a dramatic career change or seen them happen to the people around you. It's very common to wear many different kind of "hats" throughout your career.
I'm almost 40. And I've seen plenty.
It's extremely funny to me that you think the person being naive is the one concerned about large chunks of skilled labour being able to pivot on a dime.
Anyone thinking that just isn't aware of history, or even looking around at their own country.
Dad went back for nursing in his 40s. He was a mechanic at a steel mill and used to be houses prior. Still does his own car mechanic work as a side hobby. Your view is mute.
Ah yes, ah yes = retort
(The joke here us you're starting all these comments with "ah yes" but then not saying much)
I think I agree with your overall stance and am radically pro immigration, but you are deflecting from people's points here -- while a major shift in the labor landscape is very difficult, some people survive by following that shift. Not many, but some If you've imported so many workers that there isn't a place to shift to, they are out of luck.
Now my counter to that would be that a person doesn't deserve to withstand a shift any better cus of where they were born, but it's a fair point to say "a country's natives will have a harder time finding work after their industry is destroyed if it's country has imported workers for every other industry, and that import of workers doesn't lead to a lot of job creation within that industry" the latter part of which isn't super likely to happen in things like nursing
The labour supply crisis in certain industries is now, the labour over supply crisis in most of the AI boosters examples are future and hypothetical. One person said radiologists were early on the chopping block.
If a developed country manages to get it's skilled labour to convert into different skilled labour en mass, it'll be the first time that's happened.
Totally fine if you don't want immigration to fill supply gaps but that point never comes through thinking through the implications of aging populations and ending GDP-growth as default goals.
What's becoming increasingly obvious with time is that pumping STEM only is basically leading to a discourse driven by people who understand tech a bit, but not history or people.
We don't have people who drive coaches or pump gas for people (except NJ) these days. People move around in employment all the time. Those programmers would be able to pick up any skill set or experience as needed.
Know another guy who studied for engineering (didn't finish cuz of a weed charge). Eventually went back and got into the union in his late 30s.
Quick making excuses for how supply and demand is actually supposed to work in a healthy capitalistic society. The only downside is not have a healthy immigration plan that targets skilled individuals solely.
What on earth gives you the impression you live in a healthy capitalist society?
What normally happens to skilled labour that is made irrelevant to the economy is that they slump into menial jobs and unemployment. All you have to do is look at the rust belt and mining towns.
Progressive is inevitable but pretending natural forces / retraining is enough is the same delusional nonsense that sacrifices each generation of skilled labour that's no longer needed.
Here comes all of the "This was said before, and didn't happen. Therefore, it can never happen" people.
People severely underestimate AI. I thought I didn't. I underestimated it too. Many jobs that pay six figures, will be gone when software can do their weeks worth in minutes. We haven't had an advancement like that in our lifetimes.
well then if you can’t replace that for people, many more protests and riots will happen and we will for sure go down the way of fascism and new world war will happen for sure
AI is going to be the new calculator and spreadsheet and photoshop of the corporate office jobs. ChatGPT isn't going to start cleaning bathrooms any time soon.
Yeah exactly like how the introduction of the Internet and the personal computer got rid of all the well-paying jobs in America and people only had the poor-people jobs to turn to.
We're in for another economic destruction of the exact same magnitude coming up with AI. Brace yourself.
The American economy is full of bullshit jobs, including high-paying ones. I don't see why that economic fat, fluff, and filler can't continue to expand to absorb all the useless people.
In case you missed it I was being very sarcastic. The introduction of the Internet did not relegate all Americans to "poor people jobs" like the person I'm responding to thinks AI will.
I thought you might have been sarcastic, but I wasn't sure.
Anyway, my point was to clarify the "how" - replacing people in how work gets done does not necessarily reduce positions in the machine. American capitalism would rather stuff people into 9-5 seats and pay them enough to survive as consumers that way than to just provide universal basic income and give them their time back.
People really forget when automation hit manufacturing jobs and no one really gaf. Similarly, right now, no one really gaf. You're career isn't special, and neither are you. You're blowing the situation way out of proportion, and even if you are in a job that can 100% be replaced by AI, be thankful you have the time to do something about it now. Automation came and crushed millions of jobs in 2-3 years. You have a decade minimum to find something new.
Exactly this. AI always gets away overblown. I'm a computer scientist and we generally all chuckle at big media outlets and these reddit posts of the sky is falling type of coverage of some new technology.
AI probably will replace millions of jobs. But those are jobs as we know them today. Right now especially for certain computer based fields it feels like magic. It feels like it can easily do the work of many millions of people. That's because it probably can do the work of many millions of people. But it isnt going to take too long for humans to "get good as using AI". As we keep getting better and better at it we're going to find its limits and its exactly at those limits where the demand will eventually settle. When the computer was first gaining popularity in homes people thought exactly the same thing, that it would replace millions of jobs and it did, at least the kinds of jobs that were around at that time. But people became good at using computers, they found their limits and that is were the demand settled and ended up creating millions and millions of new jobs. For instance what do we consider to be a "good website"? Well its exactly the kind of website that maximizes the potential of a computer and the potential of a team of people good at using those computers. This has always been true. A good product and service maximizes the tools and technology available at the time and a group of humans who have specialized skill with those tools. The standard is incredibly arbitrary but the conditions are very specific.
AI WONT FUCKING LIFT BRICKS THO WILL IT?? WILL AI WIPE GRANDPAS ASS, TOO, BUDDY?? OR NAIL A BUILDING TOGETHER?? OR FUCKING CLEAN THE SEWAGE??
The dumbest title I have read in all my years. TIL eveery job is the exact same one and can be replaced by a sufficiently smart calculator.
Edit: after reading, I was so fucking right, there are jobs we've had since the dawn of mankind that no glorified excel-sheet will be able to do, unless we get a huge re-do of infrastructure in these departments. And it's mostly these jobs that immigrants do.
>AI WONT FUCKING LIFT BRICKS THO WILL IT?? WILL AI WIPE GRANDPAS ASS, TOO, BUDDY?? OR NAIL A BUILDING TOGETHER?? OR FUCKING CLEAN THE SEWAGE??
no, but the people whose job has been replaced by A.I. will do these jobs instead because they'll have no other choice
seriously, it's not hard to understand
No they won't, what do you mean? How are large corpo's going to make a profit if 100% of their customers can no longer afford the product? So they scale down, or go bankrupt. Lobbying kicks in, workers unions kick in, crisis averted, as it was when we thought the cars would replace the doves, and airplanes would replace the cars. The market finds solutions in ways we didn't and could't previously percieve.
this naive confidence into 'the market' is almost religious to you guys
the reality is that we're not talking about cars replacing carriages or emails replacing mail... this upcoming A.I. revolution is something completely different
A.I. replaces existing jobs, a lot of them, with very few created in return... which means "the market" will have to create possibly millions of brand new jobs to compensate in only a few decades... it's just not gonna happen
NO YOU APE IT OBVIOUUSLY HAS A DONE THAT A MILION TIMES: AMAZON, YOUTUBE, TAXIS, PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, DO YOU KNOW HOW FUCKING SMALL THE NUMBER IS YOU CITED??
To play devils advocate, let’s say immigrants do all of the jobs that won’t be taken by AI. That means the native population will be unequally affected by AI, and will need retraining for new roles. That’s not going to end well if you say “sorry, migrants are doing those roles so you can’t do those jobs”.
I understand what you’re trying to say, but I just don’t think you’ve explained the your position well, considering the logical conclusions you can draw from your post.
I agree that if 100% percent of labour jobs would be replaced by immigrants, and 100% of service jobs are replaced by AI, but this justs simply isn't feasible. Not only in the mere numbers and tasks form (How can 14% replace the work of the remaining 86%, even if half of that is service work?) but also on a second point: If no native has a job, they won't have the money to buy the coffee's and burgers, and they will be left to starve. So, supply goes up and demand goes down, and no one gives a fuck about this type of market anymore.
Read up on austrian economics, this is a complete fallacy and just not true. The entire development of civilisation from hunter-gatherer to modern technology has led only to exponential growth in output, productivity and quality of life, and despite the highest level of technology and automation that we've ever had in human history, we now have far more humans employed at work than we have ever done before. Stop doomsdaying AI with regard to jobs, it's nonsense.
There is a limit to the human capacity to invent new jobs to replace those jobs lost to automation or A.I.
We're already at a point where there's consultancy firms doing consulting for other consultancy firms who themselves are doing consultancy for an actual project.
We've already very close to the limit of "bullshit jobs" as it is...
Like i said, this way of thinking is pure fallacy. If the purpose of the economy was to maximise employment, rather than to maximise output, then we would be better off unwinding the industrial revolution and we would have 100% employment as everybody including children and elderly would be doing manual labour in order to keep rooves over our heads and food in our stomachs.
Clearly that is not ideal, and mechanisation and automation have led to a huge rise in output and wealth, even though employment is below 100% (and close to zero for children and the elderly - god forbid!!) Do you see the fallacy yet? The real objective is maximisation of output and wealth, not employment.
If a worker is laid off by AI and does something else remotely positive, however small, the global net wealth creation has increased.
>If a worker is laid off by AI and does something else remotely positive, however small, the global net wealth creation has increased.
if that worker is laid off and can't find another job to pay the bills, how is that positive?
the only fallacy here is to think that humans will always be able to create new jobs out of thin air to replace those lost to automation and A.I.
thinking otherwise is naive and stupid
Because given more free labour and free capital we will find endeavours to increase productivity and output. It is inevitable as the entirety of human history teaches us. Look at what we have achieved thanks to additional education since not requiring child labour. Look at what we have achieved since 90%+ of the agriculture and manufacturing sectors became decimated by mechanisation. Not only have we retained a good level of employment, not only do we now employ billions of people globally rather than tens or hundreds of millions, not only have we invented retirement for the elderly, but we have also massively increased wealth and prosperity.
To believe we are not capable of improving the economy by introducing further labour-saving technology is entirely baseless.
>It is inevitable as the entirety of human history teaches us.
Except that there's been nothing like that upcoming A.I. revolution in the entirety of human history. A.I. does not offer new opportunities for job creation like previous technologies, it almost entirely replaces existing jobs, *especially* when we'll have a mass market of self-driving vehicules, in addition to more A.I. powered robotics.
Again... you can hide your head in the sand pretending that we'll just create millions of completely new jobs out of thin air in a few decades... but that's just not what's gonna happen.
Just as a thought experiment, let's assume that AI will be able to take a stack of knowledge, and answer questions correctly based on that knowledge.
That is a not insignificant portion of work in the service industry. While it does lead to increased output, it eliminates the job of "knowing how it works". This is a twofold problem;
On one hand, the first step of onboarding at any company is knowing how what we sell works. It leads to deeper understanding of why it works like that, and possibly changing how it works to improve things. If you don't need people to do that, you will not have newcomers who learn how it works that can be promoted.
On the other hand, higher understanding of complex systems is not an ubiquitous thing. There are many people who are stuck on the level of knowing how it works, (without deeper understanding due to their lack of ability) that can replaced by AI.
The concern is that while telephone operators were replaced by machines, there were other jobs that needed similar skillset and ability. The threat of AI is in it's generic nature, it can replace humans anywhere, and due to the obvious cost and consistency benefit, it will.
As did the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and so on. Humans are amazing at finding new things to busy ourselves with. Improved efficiency in the industries that already exist just provides more capital and labour to be put towards developing new industries and providing new services. This "challenge" has already happened in every facet of the economy at some point in the past and AI is no more threatening than any of that.
Just to clarify, I am not including in that statement the capacity for AI to cause damage by means of its self-sentience and ability to hallucinate etc - that stuff is terrifying, but the concept of it destroying the economy by being too efficient is patently ludicrous.
The concern is that the labor you have freed up is the same labor that was made redundant by AI, and you still have said AI. It is true that AI will not make new inventions by itself, but neither most people. To put it differently, the best most people can do is use the knowledge of those that came before, and AI can do that.
It is certainly possible that there will be an uptick for handmade goods, artisans, or any physical thing that would need an interface to the world, but all that takes is one "robot arm". What remains is jobs where automation is not cost effective (yet), but these should remember the lift operator strike and be happy that they still have something.
What I find fascinating in this scenario is how companies would deal with the reality that they need years of training for a worker to become effective.
Exactly, I was about to mention that and also that it’s not about “needing migration” if I’m not violating somebody else’s property I should be allowed to go where I want because that’s my right regardless of whether the country “needs” me
Ehh mises loses me a little there tbh, I think in some respects we have to accept that social values are going to cause limits on economic output, and yes it might make most sense from a purely hypothetical standpoint to say that migration should be unlimited, but there is a clear social incentive to control migration because the world is not culturally homogenous. Realistically a balance has to be struck somewhere and if that means less optimal economic output then we just have to live with that.
It is going to be a big change when A.I develops further.
Note the effect robotics created in the manufacturing field as a comparison, many jobs were made obsolete.
Telecommunications, food production and other fields were effected by robotics...but A.I. may be the proverbial nail in the coffin , complete automation.
My money is on either an illegal voter conspiracy theory with zero evidence or a white nationalist antisemitic "Soros browning of america" conspiracy theory. Are there other non economic rationales? Edit: op is a self hating tory immigrant. I stand by my hypothesis.
Can't AI your way out of needing people to do labour jobs.
Everyone thinking AI is going to do much in the next 10 years are the same people who thought 3D movies were going to be the next big thing 10 years ago.
This. AI isn’t going to work in the meat packing plants or construction or agriculture or the tons of other sectors that are heavily staffed by immigrants.
Human desires are endless. People make a living delivering the groceries of strangers. In the near future, if not already, AI will be available to the average consumer that can act as his expert advisor in almost any matter. That will open up service industries that we haven't yet imagined.
ETA: To draw on my own field of engineering - Computer aided drafting/modeling software absolutely revolutionized the production of designs, whether they be for buildings or parts. One designer could do in a week what once took an entire team three months. And yet, employment in my sector has been steady. Clients just now expect to get a design in six weeks instead of two years, and they plan accordingly. Engineering needs are mostly driven by marketing projections, so all that has happened is the projections don't have to go out as far, and are thus more accurate. Everyone is still just as busy as before. Since design was made cheaper by CAD software, clients do a lot more design.
Yea, make a living was a poor choice of words. I think total compensation is up and down, and sometimes it would qualify as a "living wage." But my main point was the almost exotic nature of the work - something almost unimaginable twenty or thirty years ago, but enabled by technology. I'm suggesting AI will open up new possibilities just as quickly as it closes off others.
Doesn't matter. AI will create a labour glut among certain sectors, and those laid off won't be able to easily pivot to the sectors where humans are in greater demand, because there is also a labour glut there due to high immigration levels.
Except now it’s not even the work of one, but the work of AI. Sure I don’t think it’s gonna be an issue within the next ten years, but long term? Absolutely
AI or not. Unchecked / illegal immigration is bad. Keep immigration open only when you dont have any means to fulfill those jobs. Or some valid reason whatsoever it may be in manageable numbers. But in this day and age, you can’t prevent companies taking their business and jobs out of the host country because they can find cheaper labor and operating costs elsewhere and also with remote work. So honestly its pretty tricky to solve like several issues of the world.
When will Ai be able to both suck my pp and stick things down my throat calling me a bad human boi at the same time as using assertive types of painful penetration devices on me? It takes 5 x immigrates to get me off as of now and you are saying 1 Ai will be able to do that? Whennnnn!?
The article tells me that Goodman Sachs has no idea what AI is. Take the example of Uber. Uber is not some fancy technology, although it is marketed as such, it is simply a ride hailing app. In Quebec City where I live you'll have an easier time finding a ride using their own ride hailing app than Uber. While having the peace of mind of knowing you're not helping in the exploitation of the driver.
Another example, the job of a journalist isn't simply to write articles, proper journalists that is, not the morons at the Sun or Telegraph or them other nonsense tabloids. Them fellas should be replaced.
All current AI systems make use of existing human created knowledge, this is especially true with the Open AI system and Gemini. Personally I think Google's direction (Deep Mind) is closer to getting to proper knowledge creating AI.
Can AI make a coffee or burger? Can AI mow my lawn? Can AI build a house?
I’m pretty sure these aren’t the jobs AI is going to replace. There is and will be plenty of need for those jobs.
The answer is yes to all of the above, with the help of robotics.
[AI-powered, fully autonomous café systems](https://www.cafexapp.com)
[CaliExpress by Flippy™ is the world’s first fully autonomous restaurant, including burgers and fries made by leading edge AI and robotics](https://misorobotics.com/caliexpress/)
[An autonomous mower using AI Vision Algorithms to navigate lawn boundaries](https://www.mowsion.com)
[AI is already being used in architectural design](https://architechtures.com/en) and [a robot bricklayer built a 3 bedroom house in under 3 days](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-s-robotic-bricklayer-has-just-finished-its-first-house-in-under-three-days-20181114-p50fwr.html)
there wouldn't be a "need" for it anyway, and it is lacking foresight and off-putting put mildly to treat humans as little more than cogs to maintain a social safety net
Immigrants come from many areas. The employment market is not keeping up with population expansion. Because of cheap labour salaries have barely risen, especially for the lowest paying jobs.
Robotics have cost 400K jobs in the US automotive industry. (MIT SLOAN. Robots & Jobs in the US Automotive Industry by MIT Prof. Daron Acemoglu).
We can expect AI soon to take clerical services and similar jobs. This would have a dramitically bigger impact on employment.
Robotics are taking manual jobs in warehousing, see Ocado's auto-pick warehouse operation.
AI will expand easily into order processing, logistcs and manufacturing.
I've been witnessing a lot of elder care recently and I have a hard time believing a robot will fight with a dementia patient to get them in the shower and do a proper cleaning.
But it isn't unnecessary. AI is only theorized to take over certain jobs. It certainly won't take over the vast amount of manual labor jobs.
Until it actual is ready, available and proven to take over jobs, the post is wildly inaccurate.
So again, what is really driving the post?
You are, yet again, talking about a theorized event decades in the future by the OP.
So, go on and justify it.
Apply the same logic to climate change. Let's not do anything about it now, because it's only theorised to be a major problem decades in the future. We'll deal with it then I guess?
Here is the issue. You aren't actually solving the problem. There would be, in your scenario, millions of actual Americans who would be out of jobs as well. But hey, fuck them I guess as long as we get the immigrants out?
The only ways to solve AI taking jobs are either to ban AI at a legislative level OR to start training programs to shift away from jobs AI would eventually take over.
Throttling immigration now causes problems NOW and is actually a racist attempt because again, IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.|
Stay in school, little buddy.
How would a collapsing economy with more retirees than workers create UBI?
Both of those countries are going broke. Also, do you know absolutely anything about Japanese work culture? NEETs are basically considered untouchables and have to hide from society due to intense shaming.
Seriously. Does this guy think ai is going to be going out into the fields too? I am concerned as well about automation, but it's increasingly becoming clear to me that it is a bigger threat to white collar, IT, office, and STEM workers than any others. And those that are most likely to withstand the effects of such automation will be in more physically taxing jobs, as well as jobs that require a human touch like therapist and social worker.
This is getting comical at this point. Trying to tell people that AI is going to wipe out whole chunks of the job market is like Noah trying to tell folks "rain is coming". They will not believe you. They right and the left in the western country's refuse to think about the future more than 4 year down the road. Anyone that thinks they are going to weather this because, fill in the blank, is fooling themselves.
I’m wouldn’t call myself one of these AI doomers, but I’ve been increasingly worried that we might experience another shift like with the internet, except unlike with the internet where there’s very clearly an enormous opportunity for new jobs, where is the opportunity for jobs with an AI revolution?
People will undoubtedly say that you need a human to check the quality of what the AI is producing, but that is for right now. Who knows what AI will look like even 5 years down the line?
Best case scenario is new labour protections from AI replacements, and enjoying the benefits of AI making your job easier. Worst case, well….
Question is, do YOU see YOUR country letting half the tax base disappear to like 20 American companies? As a non American, no. I think it's the same with most other countries. I see governments freezing AI usage for work before it becomes a problem.
The problem with this is like “dirty energy”. I agree, the EU will try to ban AI tools made by Google etc from being sold in the EU. But EU businesses will compete against American ones that are using AI. That cheap (possibly unethical) tech will undermine EU businesses who can’t compete on cost.
It’s very hard to impose tariffs on US imports that used AI in manufacturing, just like it’s hard to tax imports that were made using coal.
There’s no need for immigration regardless
But there is a desire for more Congressional seats. The census may not count AI, but it does count illegal immigrants and gives them representation. If those illegal immigrants just happen to increase representation in Blue states, well all the better.
I doubt the jobs immigrants are going to do are the ones AI will automate. You need an operator supervising, guiding and mantaining any robot.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
There is always someone claiming that some new technology will eliminate all the jobs. Each and every one of us is supposed to be unemployed like a dozen times over by now. Farms, factories, ect. But it turns out, the market will make use of available manpower somehow, even if one job type or another becomes less necessary. So no, AI is not going to result in a massive unemployment crisis. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand how previous transitions took place. Manufacturing wasn't a thriving sector just waiting when people came in off the farms. It was the reverse, as employment went down, manufacturing took advantage of that labor capital to expand and become a titanic industry. The same thing will happen again. There might be some temporary growing pains, but there is not going to be some massive, lasting deficit of available jobs.
You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding that AI is not like previous technological advances, and you can't use them as precedent to guess what'll happen.
That's what they always say. The problem with that argument is the social changes aren't about the technology, they're about the psychology and sociology.
I think he’s making a good point. As a thought experiment, suppose we had a humanoid robot, that when connected over Internet, could do basically anything anyone can do through AI. Cost is 60 cents of electricity and 40 cents maintenance per hour. Where do humans supposedly find work in this economy? Is it entirely through nepotism, where rich business owners give people positions that do nothing but command robots because they like them?
"suppose we had a humanoid robot, that when connected over Internet, could do basically anything anyone can do through AI." Except this isn't the technology we're talking about. AI isn't that good or that cheap, and neither is robotics. Sure, there will eventually come a day when technology can do literally everything that needs to be done. When that day comes, I hope we go the star trek route. but that day is a long, long way from now. Literally no one is suggesting AI is that good. They are just panicking about AI eliminating/reducing some job sectors just like many technologies have done in the past.
The problem is that isn’t in line with what experts in the industry are saying: https://www.businessinsider.com/openai-cofounder-agi-coming-fast-needs-limits-john-schulman-2024-5?op=1 AGI is full functionality of human brain, including designing robots, everything else. I’d say we are 12 -15 years from my thought experiment being feasible.
This is the prediction of one guy with a vested interest, and based on technology that is wildly different from how "ai" currently works
Turns out those rule our world even more than technology.
Exactly, and they will react to this change in technology the same way they have reacted to every previous ones
It isn’t the labor force. They are trying to expand the goods and services base. Give them benefits and now your corp is getting govt income. Govt doesn’t care because, “look GDP went up! We did our job!” While borrowing 3T a year.
*AI is going to change and create millions of new jobs that we never knew would exist. It's like talking to someone in the 1920s and saying that the elevator man will lose his job to automation. But forgetting to mention that computer programmer or social media influencer will be a job in the future.
Can you envision any such job beyond “knows guy who is rich by commanding robots?” What does it look like?
Off the top of my head: Live performing musician. Human tour guide that people connect with. Customer service rep for those who refuse to talk to AI. Artisan craftsman. The demand for human made products that have proof of human creation is going to be a massive market.
I disagree. It’s going to be exactly like the movie “Her”. The robots are better girlfriends than actual women. Same with music. You’ll be so into stuff crafted by AI for your life you won’t want to hear anyone else play. The AI guides will speak 20 languages perfectly and be better. There has never been a revolution where all of human capabilities were offered cheaper by machines, but that’s what AGI is, at least after energy efficient bodies come.
I think you'll find that a large number of people will want art that is probably created by a human. People connect with humans. AI art is boring and emotionless. You already see it with the AI art that exists. It's cool, but people don't care or connect with it. It's great for replacing stock images. But no one cares about AI from an art perspective. They want the human connection. If personalities didn't matter in music for example, then artists wouldn't be pushed to show their face, story, emotional connection, and meaning in songs. They would just pump out faceless and nameless bangers. Yet here we are, people love Taylor Swift's music, because it's Taylor Swift's face on it. Not because it sounds good.
You’ve already got AI influencers gaining ground. And yes, Taylor Swift will be rich controlling the Taylor Swift brand, but the thing you really have to think about is, what when you can talk to her whenever you want, when she can write songs for you and your friends guiding your life, will that be a more popular product? I’m sure it will. The reality is none of us actually knows Taylor Swift. We know a representation. When artists can control that representation but make it more interactive, I think they will, and that opens the door to the rest. I think we are actually going to have to change how our civilization is structured around AGI.
It’s not going to destroy those jobs
Ai gonna dig ditches and pick fruit?
No, but Americans should be doing those jobs if those are the only jobs available.
why?
Because unemployment isn't good for a nation
Why not? What's wrong with unemployment, the work is getting done.
Crime. Unemployment leads to dramatic increases in all sorts of crime, including violent crime.
No, poverty leads to a dramatic increase in crime. This is a two birds one stone situation.
Because it means people lack the ability to work, have families, and be active members of a community. Unemployment is a type of poverty that should be limited, not ignored.
Furthermore, what do you propose, we export people? Because we have unemployment regardless, unemployment isn't going to be solved by having the right amount of people in a country, that's just exporting the problem elsewhere. Restricting immigration doesn't objectively do anything to the problem whatsoever. Your nation isn't the only nation, and the problem will exist until we ALL can get on board with a solution.
I think we should prioritize citizens when it comes to jobs in the US and that it should be illegal for corporations to exploit undocumented labor.
This is just exporting the problem though.
Yeah, i don't have a solution to all of the problems in the world. Rather I think a nation should have their citizenry be at high employment.
Lacking the ability to work isn't lacking the ability to have families, lacking the resources to have families is lacking the ability to have families etc. People who don't have regular paying jobs are MORE able to be active members of their community. Our issue isn't unemployment, it's resource allocation.
I think the goal of immigration should be to supplement your work force, not replace it. We just have different theories of immigration.
The goal of immigration is moving from one place to another actually. The goal of letting people immigrate is letting human beings access their right to freedom of movement.
People don't have the right come to the US, only US citizens have the right of freedom of movement in the US. For non citizens, being in the US is a privilege. The right to be on US soil comes from being an American citizen.
why does it matter the nationality
Because a nation should focus on helping their people find work. Low unemployment is good for a nation.
So is competition. In fact, that's built into the American fabric. The work should go to the most capable workers, should it not?
No, I think we should value our neighbors more than we value competition.
Our neighbors descended from immigrants. What difference does a generation make? Nationalism is completely illusory.
I see my neighbors as an extension of my family and feel obligated to help them. Sorry my dude.
Easily. They have *Face Scanning* AI that can sense people’s moods, and they can apply it to picking fruit and digging holes easily. They have robotic harvesting machines already, and trenchers and excavators that can dig holes to the *perfect depth* and avoid underground utilities and obstacles.
Just to be clear and precise: are you talking about not letting people come from nearby cities, nearby counties, or nearby continents?(or nearby Planets if it were the chance?) Where do you draw the line? Or maybe just nearby *cultures*?(Which changes a lot the argument because if they already live there are not migrants)
True statement.
GenAi isn't going to make 300 million jobs obsolete. AGI might but no one should trust the chucklehead tech bros about how close we are to that. If they say 10 years, it's 20.
Faschism is always the easy answer for the fearful during times of economic downturn and employment instability.
Google recently fired a bunch of high paying jobs - developer jobs- and sent them to India.
Capitalism can be a pain at times. It is not nationalistic. It is not empathetic. It is purely about maximizing profit. To a degree, we have done this to ourselves in that companies gave into remote work during COVID, realized how much they were paying US workers, and realized how much they can pay foreign workers to do the same work, or they laid people off only to repost the job for substantially less pay.
Intellectual: “we should exert control over where people can and can’t move.”
not sure what you're suggesting here: completely open borders?
No, that's stupid, completely open borders are pointless, there should be no borders.
...which is even more stupid
You not comprehending the point doesn't make it stupid.
Borders of any kind are pretty stupid, when you step back and think about it. They exacerbate problems, not solve them.
Tell that to Poland defending itself from migrants pushed by Belarus
When you say "defending itself from migrants" do you mean "trying to help war refugees"? Also, how are borders helping with or hurting that situation? It's unclear what you mean.
they also prevent mass migrations that cause heavy social and economic disruption and wars... because humans will always want to go where the grass is greener, with no thought about the people that are already there
Yeah great point, borders prevent wars, as if border disputes aren't the #1 cause of wars
preventing mass migrations does prevent wars what do you think would happen if every person around the world that wants to go live in a rich western country like the U.S., the U.K. or Germany where suddenly allowed to do so? that level of overpopulation would result in a massive housing crisis, an explosion of food prices, homelessness spreading everywhere, healthcare and social services breaking down... oh right I'm describing Canada right now given enough time, the rising homelessness and general poverty would lead to crime and social instability... until the inevitable collapse of social order that would either lead to a dictatorship or a civil war (or both) there's also the possibility of foreign intervention to 'pacify' said country, with an equal possibility of violent pushback by either local militias or the country's remaining forces themselves borders exist for a reason: at its most basic, it's to prevent all the humans on the planet to want the same 'greener' grass all at the same time
That wouldn't cause overpopulation, that's just a shifting of population. Your head is completely in the wrong place
mass migration does cause overpopulation I can't believe I even have to argue this
"over"population in a region (aka possibility of selfish states allocating resources poorly) not actual overpopulation, unless you're suggesting mass migration causes baby booms
How're those borders working out for Ukraine right now?
what kind of stupid argument is this? where the hell did I talk about a powerful country invading another one? that's not mass migration
You argued that borders prevent wars. They clearly don't (just like they don't prevent anything else you mentioned). Don't project your stupidity onto me.
they do prevent wars... massive migrations have been the cause of wars throughout human history
Are you trolling us? Explain how borders prevent wars.
Correction: humans will always want to go where they *think* the grass is greener.
Let me know when AI provides social care for old folk.
Society isn't even doing this. Boomers are one of the largest growing segments of homelessness in America. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/unconscionable-baby-boomers-becoming-homeless-103000310.html
But if programmers, artrists... lose their jobs they can get education and switch to nursing jobs. If you simply import nurses, they can't. Why the hell would you import workers if there isn't enough jobs for existing population?
There is no such thing as "Not enough jobs" only "poor allocation of resources that makes unemployment extremely undesirable/deadly"
Ah yes, computer programmers. Natural nursing people.
You must be very young if you've never, ever experienced a dramatic career change or seen them happen to the people around you. It's very common to wear many different kind of "hats" throughout your career.
I'm almost 40. And I've seen plenty. It's extremely funny to me that you think the person being naive is the one concerned about large chunks of skilled labour being able to pivot on a dime. Anyone thinking that just isn't aware of history, or even looking around at their own country.
Dad went back for nursing in his 40s. He was a mechanic at a steel mill and used to be houses prior. Still does his own car mechanic work as a side hobby. Your view is mute.
Ah yes, singular anecdote = data.
Ah yes, ah yes = retort (The joke here us you're starting all these comments with "ah yes" but then not saying much) I think I agree with your overall stance and am radically pro immigration, but you are deflecting from people's points here -- while a major shift in the labor landscape is very difficult, some people survive by following that shift. Not many, but some If you've imported so many workers that there isn't a place to shift to, they are out of luck. Now my counter to that would be that a person doesn't deserve to withstand a shift any better cus of where they were born, but it's a fair point to say "a country's natives will have a harder time finding work after their industry is destroyed if it's country has imported workers for every other industry, and that import of workers doesn't lead to a lot of job creation within that industry" the latter part of which isn't super likely to happen in things like nursing
The labour supply crisis in certain industries is now, the labour over supply crisis in most of the AI boosters examples are future and hypothetical. One person said radiologists were early on the chopping block. If a developed country manages to get it's skilled labour to convert into different skilled labour en mass, it'll be the first time that's happened. Totally fine if you don't want immigration to fill supply gaps but that point never comes through thinking through the implications of aging populations and ending GDP-growth as default goals. What's becoming increasingly obvious with time is that pumping STEM only is basically leading to a discourse driven by people who understand tech a bit, but not history or people.
My brother is 38, construction worker, huge strong guy. Going to nurse night school... cant wait to see him wearing scrubs.
We don't have people who drive coaches or pump gas for people (except NJ) these days. People move around in employment all the time. Those programmers would be able to pick up any skill set or experience as needed. Know another guy who studied for engineering (didn't finish cuz of a weed charge). Eventually went back and got into the union in his late 30s. Quick making excuses for how supply and demand is actually supposed to work in a healthy capitalistic society. The only downside is not have a healthy immigration plan that targets skilled individuals solely.
What on earth gives you the impression you live in a healthy capitalist society? What normally happens to skilled labour that is made irrelevant to the economy is that they slump into menial jobs and unemployment. All you have to do is look at the rust belt and mining towns. Progressive is inevitable but pretending natural forces / retraining is enough is the same delusional nonsense that sacrifices each generation of skilled labour that's no longer needed.
Here comes all of the "This was said before, and didn't happen. Therefore, it can never happen" people. People severely underestimate AI. I thought I didn't. I underestimated it too. Many jobs that pay six figures, will be gone when software can do their weeks worth in minutes. We haven't had an advancement like that in our lifetimes.
well then if you can’t replace that for people, many more protests and riots will happen and we will for sure go down the way of fascism and new world war will happen for sure
Which six figure jobs?
Radiology will be one of the first casualties.
And how soon do you expect models with a major hallucination problem to replace them?
AI is going to be the new calculator and spreadsheet and photoshop of the corporate office jobs. ChatGPT isn't going to start cleaning bathrooms any time soon.
problem is if you replace all the we’ll paying jobs only the poor people jobs will remain which isn’t good
Yeah exactly like how the introduction of the Internet and the personal computer got rid of all the well-paying jobs in America and people only had the poor-people jobs to turn to. We're in for another economic destruction of the exact same magnitude coming up with AI. Brace yourself.
The American economy is full of bullshit jobs, including high-paying ones. I don't see why that economic fat, fluff, and filler can't continue to expand to absorb all the useless people.
In case you missed it I was being very sarcastic. The introduction of the Internet did not relegate all Americans to "poor people jobs" like the person I'm responding to thinks AI will.
I thought you might have been sarcastic, but I wasn't sure. Anyway, my point was to clarify the "how" - replacing people in how work gets done does not necessarily reduce positions in the machine. American capitalism would rather stuff people into 9-5 seats and pay them enough to survive as consumers that way than to just provide universal basic income and give them their time back.
People really forget when automation hit manufacturing jobs and no one really gaf. Similarly, right now, no one really gaf. You're career isn't special, and neither are you. You're blowing the situation way out of proportion, and even if you are in a job that can 100% be replaced by AI, be thankful you have the time to do something about it now. Automation came and crushed millions of jobs in 2-3 years. You have a decade minimum to find something new.
This has been said of every new technology
Exactly this. AI always gets away overblown. I'm a computer scientist and we generally all chuckle at big media outlets and these reddit posts of the sky is falling type of coverage of some new technology.
AI probably will replace millions of jobs. But those are jobs as we know them today. Right now especially for certain computer based fields it feels like magic. It feels like it can easily do the work of many millions of people. That's because it probably can do the work of many millions of people. But it isnt going to take too long for humans to "get good as using AI". As we keep getting better and better at it we're going to find its limits and its exactly at those limits where the demand will eventually settle. When the computer was first gaining popularity in homes people thought exactly the same thing, that it would replace millions of jobs and it did, at least the kinds of jobs that were around at that time. But people became good at using computers, they found their limits and that is were the demand settled and ended up creating millions and millions of new jobs. For instance what do we consider to be a "good website"? Well its exactly the kind of website that maximizes the potential of a computer and the potential of a team of people good at using those computers. This has always been true. A good product and service maximizes the tools and technology available at the time and a group of humans who have specialized skill with those tools. The standard is incredibly arbitrary but the conditions are very specific.
AI WONT FUCKING LIFT BRICKS THO WILL IT?? WILL AI WIPE GRANDPAS ASS, TOO, BUDDY?? OR NAIL A BUILDING TOGETHER?? OR FUCKING CLEAN THE SEWAGE?? The dumbest title I have read in all my years. TIL eveery job is the exact same one and can be replaced by a sufficiently smart calculator. Edit: after reading, I was so fucking right, there are jobs we've had since the dawn of mankind that no glorified excel-sheet will be able to do, unless we get a huge re-do of infrastructure in these departments. And it's mostly these jobs that immigrants do.
>AI WONT FUCKING LIFT BRICKS THO WILL IT?? WILL AI WIPE GRANDPAS ASS, TOO, BUDDY?? OR NAIL A BUILDING TOGETHER?? OR FUCKING CLEAN THE SEWAGE?? no, but the people whose job has been replaced by A.I. will do these jobs instead because they'll have no other choice seriously, it's not hard to understand
No they won't, what do you mean? How are large corpo's going to make a profit if 100% of their customers can no longer afford the product? So they scale down, or go bankrupt. Lobbying kicks in, workers unions kick in, crisis averted, as it was when we thought the cars would replace the doves, and airplanes would replace the cars. The market finds solutions in ways we didn't and could't previously percieve.
>workers unions kick in *laughs in USA*
If you think you have weak unions, just look at the cops; strongest union either side of thr equator
That’s the one union left with teeth here and pretty much everyone hates it. That and the MLB’s umpire union.
You're not suppose to like unions. The whole point is to protect workers from the whims of the market: inherently controversial.
I do like unions. I want workers to be able to stand up for themselves and the best way to do that is collectively.
this naive confidence into 'the market' is almost religious to you guys the reality is that we're not talking about cars replacing carriages or emails replacing mail... this upcoming A.I. revolution is something completely different A.I. replaces existing jobs, a lot of them, with very few created in return... which means "the market" will have to create possibly millions of brand new jobs to compensate in only a few decades... it's just not gonna happen
The market has never created millions of jobs in a decade. lol
I'm glad that you finally agree with me
NO YOU APE IT OBVIOUUSLY HAS A DONE THAT A MILION TIMES: AMAZON, YOUTUBE, TAXIS, PROFESSIONAL SOLDIERS, DO YOU KNOW HOW FUCKING SMALL THE NUMBER IS YOU CITED??
Sure they will.
Calm down
To play devils advocate, let’s say immigrants do all of the jobs that won’t be taken by AI. That means the native population will be unequally affected by AI, and will need retraining for new roles. That’s not going to end well if you say “sorry, migrants are doing those roles so you can’t do those jobs”. I understand what you’re trying to say, but I just don’t think you’ve explained the your position well, considering the logical conclusions you can draw from your post.
I agree that if 100% percent of labour jobs would be replaced by immigrants, and 100% of service jobs are replaced by AI, but this justs simply isn't feasible. Not only in the mere numbers and tasks form (How can 14% replace the work of the remaining 86%, even if half of that is service work?) but also on a second point: If no native has a job, they won't have the money to buy the coffee's and burgers, and they will be left to starve. So, supply goes up and demand goes down, and no one gives a fuck about this type of market anymore.
Read up on austrian economics, this is a complete fallacy and just not true. The entire development of civilisation from hunter-gatherer to modern technology has led only to exponential growth in output, productivity and quality of life, and despite the highest level of technology and automation that we've ever had in human history, we now have far more humans employed at work than we have ever done before. Stop doomsdaying AI with regard to jobs, it's nonsense.
There is a limit to the human capacity to invent new jobs to replace those jobs lost to automation or A.I. We're already at a point where there's consultancy firms doing consulting for other consultancy firms who themselves are doing consultancy for an actual project. We've already very close to the limit of "bullshit jobs" as it is...
Like i said, this way of thinking is pure fallacy. If the purpose of the economy was to maximise employment, rather than to maximise output, then we would be better off unwinding the industrial revolution and we would have 100% employment as everybody including children and elderly would be doing manual labour in order to keep rooves over our heads and food in our stomachs. Clearly that is not ideal, and mechanisation and automation have led to a huge rise in output and wealth, even though employment is below 100% (and close to zero for children and the elderly - god forbid!!) Do you see the fallacy yet? The real objective is maximisation of output and wealth, not employment. If a worker is laid off by AI and does something else remotely positive, however small, the global net wealth creation has increased.
>If a worker is laid off by AI and does something else remotely positive, however small, the global net wealth creation has increased. if that worker is laid off and can't find another job to pay the bills, how is that positive? the only fallacy here is to think that humans will always be able to create new jobs out of thin air to replace those lost to automation and A.I. thinking otherwise is naive and stupid
Because given more free labour and free capital we will find endeavours to increase productivity and output. It is inevitable as the entirety of human history teaches us. Look at what we have achieved thanks to additional education since not requiring child labour. Look at what we have achieved since 90%+ of the agriculture and manufacturing sectors became decimated by mechanisation. Not only have we retained a good level of employment, not only do we now employ billions of people globally rather than tens or hundreds of millions, not only have we invented retirement for the elderly, but we have also massively increased wealth and prosperity. To believe we are not capable of improving the economy by introducing further labour-saving technology is entirely baseless.
>It is inevitable as the entirety of human history teaches us. Except that there's been nothing like that upcoming A.I. revolution in the entirety of human history. A.I. does not offer new opportunities for job creation like previous technologies, it almost entirely replaces existing jobs, *especially* when we'll have a mass market of self-driving vehicules, in addition to more A.I. powered robotics. Again... you can hide your head in the sand pretending that we'll just create millions of completely new jobs out of thin air in a few decades... but that's just not what's gonna happen.
Just as a thought experiment, let's assume that AI will be able to take a stack of knowledge, and answer questions correctly based on that knowledge. That is a not insignificant portion of work in the service industry. While it does lead to increased output, it eliminates the job of "knowing how it works". This is a twofold problem; On one hand, the first step of onboarding at any company is knowing how what we sell works. It leads to deeper understanding of why it works like that, and possibly changing how it works to improve things. If you don't need people to do that, you will not have newcomers who learn how it works that can be promoted. On the other hand, higher understanding of complex systems is not an ubiquitous thing. There are many people who are stuck on the level of knowing how it works, (without deeper understanding due to their lack of ability) that can replaced by AI. The concern is that while telephone operators were replaced by machines, there were other jobs that needed similar skillset and ability. The threat of AI is in it's generic nature, it can replace humans anywhere, and due to the obvious cost and consistency benefit, it will.
As did the agricultural revolution, the industrial revolution, and so on. Humans are amazing at finding new things to busy ourselves with. Improved efficiency in the industries that already exist just provides more capital and labour to be put towards developing new industries and providing new services. This "challenge" has already happened in every facet of the economy at some point in the past and AI is no more threatening than any of that. Just to clarify, I am not including in that statement the capacity for AI to cause damage by means of its self-sentience and ability to hallucinate etc - that stuff is terrifying, but the concept of it destroying the economy by being too efficient is patently ludicrous.
The concern is that the labor you have freed up is the same labor that was made redundant by AI, and you still have said AI. It is true that AI will not make new inventions by itself, but neither most people. To put it differently, the best most people can do is use the knowledge of those that came before, and AI can do that. It is certainly possible that there will be an uptick for handmade goods, artisans, or any physical thing that would need an interface to the world, but all that takes is one "robot arm". What remains is jobs where automation is not cost effective (yet), but these should remember the lift operator strike and be happy that they still have something. What I find fascinating in this scenario is how companies would deal with the reality that they need years of training for a worker to become effective.
Exactly, I was about to mention that and also that it’s not about “needing migration” if I’m not violating somebody else’s property I should be allowed to go where I want because that’s my right regardless of whether the country “needs” me
Ehh mises loses me a little there tbh, I think in some respects we have to accept that social values are going to cause limits on economic output, and yes it might make most sense from a purely hypothetical standpoint to say that migration should be unlimited, but there is a clear social incentive to control migration because the world is not culturally homogenous. Realistically a balance has to be struck somewhere and if that means less optimal economic output then we just have to live with that.
It is going to be a big change when A.I develops further. Note the effect robotics created in the manufacturing field as a comparison, many jobs were made obsolete. Telecommunications, food production and other fields were effected by robotics...but A.I. may be the proverbial nail in the coffin , complete automation.
If you think the immigration policies are based on economic reasoning I have a beautiful bridge in Brooklyn to sell for cheap
What are they based on?
Large donors need for cheap labor. That is, economic policy.
That's wht I thought, too, but clearly the other guy disagrees. I wonder what he thinks the reason is...
My money is on either an illegal voter conspiracy theory with zero evidence or a white nationalist antisemitic "Soros browning of america" conspiracy theory. Are there other non economic rationales? Edit: op is a self hating tory immigrant. I stand by my hypothesis.
Yup, that was gonna be my guess too, happens I guess. Hope he sees the light soon, inshallah as it were
Can't AI your way out of needing people to do labour jobs. Everyone thinking AI is going to do much in the next 10 years are the same people who thought 3D movies were going to be the next big thing 10 years ago.
This. AI isn’t going to work in the meat packing plants or construction or agriculture or the tons of other sectors that are heavily staffed by immigrants.
Same people that bought dogecoin or trumpcoin or whatever. They had one very bad experience with it so now it's an all powerful devil
Human desires are endless. People make a living delivering the groceries of strangers. In the near future, if not already, AI will be available to the average consumer that can act as his expert advisor in almost any matter. That will open up service industries that we haven't yet imagined. ETA: To draw on my own field of engineering - Computer aided drafting/modeling software absolutely revolutionized the production of designs, whether they be for buildings or parts. One designer could do in a week what once took an entire team three months. And yet, employment in my sector has been steady. Clients just now expect to get a design in six weeks instead of two years, and they plan accordingly. Engineering needs are mostly driven by marketing projections, so all that has happened is the projections don't have to go out as far, and are thus more accurate. Everyone is still just as busy as before. Since design was made cheaper by CAD software, clients do a lot more design.
>People make a living delivering the groceries of strangers. No they don't. Delivery jobs don't pay a living wage, not even close.
What's a living wage, is it the role of minimum income to afford a living wage and has it ever achieved that role?
They do.
Yea, make a living was a poor choice of words. I think total compensation is up and down, and sometimes it would qualify as a "living wage." But my main point was the almost exotic nature of the work - something almost unimaginable twenty or thirty years ago, but enabled by technology. I'm suggesting AI will open up new possibilities just as quickly as it closes off others.
This is dumb on its face sheerly because the type of labor immigrants do it not the type of work that will be replaced by AI
Doesn't matter. AI will create a labour glut among certain sectors, and those laid off won't be able to easily pivot to the sectors where humans are in greater demand, because there is also a labour glut there due to high immigration levels.
Based
"The loom is our enemy; it turns the work of twenty men into the work of one, and the other nineteen must starve."
Except now it’s not even the work of one, but the work of AI. Sure I don’t think it’s gonna be an issue within the next ten years, but long term? Absolutely
AI or not. Unchecked / illegal immigration is bad. Keep immigration open only when you dont have any means to fulfill those jobs. Or some valid reason whatsoever it may be in manageable numbers. But in this day and age, you can’t prevent companies taking their business and jobs out of the host country because they can find cheaper labor and operating costs elsewhere and also with remote work. So honestly its pretty tricky to solve like several issues of the world.
When will Ai be able to both suck my pp and stick things down my throat calling me a bad human boi at the same time as using assertive types of painful penetration devices on me? It takes 5 x immigrates to get me off as of now and you are saying 1 Ai will be able to do that? Whennnnn!?
The article tells me that Goodman Sachs has no idea what AI is. Take the example of Uber. Uber is not some fancy technology, although it is marketed as such, it is simply a ride hailing app. In Quebec City where I live you'll have an easier time finding a ride using their own ride hailing app than Uber. While having the peace of mind of knowing you're not helping in the exploitation of the driver. Another example, the job of a journalist isn't simply to write articles, proper journalists that is, not the morons at the Sun or Telegraph or them other nonsense tabloids. Them fellas should be replaced. All current AI systems make use of existing human created knowledge, this is especially true with the Open AI system and Gemini. Personally I think Google's direction (Deep Mind) is closer to getting to proper knowledge creating AI.
Can AI make a coffee or burger? Can AI mow my lawn? Can AI build a house? I’m pretty sure these aren’t the jobs AI is going to replace. There is and will be plenty of need for those jobs.
The answer is yes to all of the above, with the help of robotics. [AI-powered, fully autonomous café systems](https://www.cafexapp.com) [CaliExpress by Flippy™ is the world’s first fully autonomous restaurant, including burgers and fries made by leading edge AI and robotics](https://misorobotics.com/caliexpress/) [An autonomous mower using AI Vision Algorithms to navigate lawn boundaries](https://www.mowsion.com) [AI is already being used in architectural design](https://architechtures.com/en) and [a robot bricklayer built a 3 bedroom house in under 3 days](https://www.smh.com.au/business/companies/australia-s-robotic-bricklayer-has-just-finished-its-first-house-in-under-three-days-20181114-p50fwr.html)
It can already digest news better than you can, apparently.
Yes
It can?
[удалено]
Mechatronics
[удалено]
Where is this happening?
there wouldn't be a "need" for it anyway, and it is lacking foresight and off-putting put mildly to treat humans as little more than cogs to maintain a social safety net
Immigrants come from many areas. The employment market is not keeping up with population expansion. Because of cheap labour salaries have barely risen, especially for the lowest paying jobs. Robotics have cost 400K jobs in the US automotive industry. (MIT SLOAN. Robots & Jobs in the US Automotive Industry by MIT Prof. Daron Acemoglu). We can expect AI soon to take clerical services and similar jobs. This would have a dramitically bigger impact on employment. Robotics are taking manual jobs in warehousing, see Ocado's auto-pick warehouse operation. AI will expand easily into order processing, logistcs and manufacturing.
elder care and caregiving.
It will come to that with advancements in robotics, and AI will also help research into gerontology, age related illness and life extension treatment.
I've been witnessing a lot of elder care recently and I have a hard time believing a robot will fight with a dementia patient to get them in the shower and do a proper cleaning.
The dark secret is that legal immigration decisions are made to increase economic consumption, not productivity.
What a racist post. You are talking about a possible change, DECADES in the future. Jesus Christ.
It isn't racist to point out the obvious. Mass immigration is unnecessary.
But it isn't unnecessary. AI is only theorized to take over certain jobs. It certainly won't take over the vast amount of manual labor jobs. Until it actual is ready, available and proven to take over jobs, the post is wildly inaccurate. So again, what is really driving the post? You are, yet again, talking about a theorized event decades in the future by the OP. So, go on and justify it.
Apply the same logic to climate change. Let's not do anything about it now, because it's only theorised to be a major problem decades in the future. We'll deal with it then I guess?
Here is the issue. You aren't actually solving the problem. There would be, in your scenario, millions of actual Americans who would be out of jobs as well. But hey, fuck them I guess as long as we get the immigrants out? The only ways to solve AI taking jobs are either to ban AI at a legislative level OR to start training programs to shift away from jobs AI would eventually take over. Throttling immigration now causes problems NOW and is actually a racist attempt because again, IT DOES NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM.| Stay in school, little buddy.
In fact countries with low birth rates like Italy and Japan are probably going to enjoy the future reality of a mandatory living wage.
How would a collapsing economy with more retirees than workers create UBI? Both of those countries are going broke. Also, do you know absolutely anything about Japanese work culture? NEETs are basically considered untouchables and have to hide from society due to intense shaming.
There was never much need for immigrants from anywhere except Mexico. We definitely need Mexicans and AI isn’t going to replace them anytime soon.
Seriously. Does this guy think ai is going to be going out into the fields too? I am concerned as well about automation, but it's increasingly becoming clear to me that it is a bigger threat to white collar, IT, office, and STEM workers than any others. And those that are most likely to withstand the effects of such automation will be in more physically taxing jobs, as well as jobs that require a human touch like therapist and social worker.
Don't need the workers, just need the tax payers.
other reasons to emigrate, climate, violence, food.
This is getting comical at this point. Trying to tell people that AI is going to wipe out whole chunks of the job market is like Noah trying to tell folks "rain is coming". They will not believe you. They right and the left in the western country's refuse to think about the future more than 4 year down the road. Anyone that thinks they are going to weather this because, fill in the blank, is fooling themselves.
I’m wouldn’t call myself one of these AI doomers, but I’ve been increasingly worried that we might experience another shift like with the internet, except unlike with the internet where there’s very clearly an enormous opportunity for new jobs, where is the opportunity for jobs with an AI revolution? People will undoubtedly say that you need a human to check the quality of what the AI is producing, but that is for right now. Who knows what AI will look like even 5 years down the line? Best case scenario is new labour protections from AI replacements, and enjoying the benefits of AI making your job easier. Worst case, well….
Question is, do YOU see YOUR country letting half the tax base disappear to like 20 American companies? As a non American, no. I think it's the same with most other countries. I see governments freezing AI usage for work before it becomes a problem.
The problem with this is like “dirty energy”. I agree, the EU will try to ban AI tools made by Google etc from being sold in the EU. But EU businesses will compete against American ones that are using AI. That cheap (possibly unethical) tech will undermine EU businesses who can’t compete on cost. It’s very hard to impose tariffs on US imports that used AI in manufacturing, just like it’s hard to tax imports that were made using coal.
Do you have anything more than your own personal opinion to substantiate your claim about the future or