No different than the automated looms…
Every time tech advances people worry about job loss.
When the solution is worker work less hours and get the same pay.
It’s past time for the 32 hour work week
How many will it create though?
Exactly. I keep hearing this “they’re taking our jobs” argument, and it’s been going on for a long time. The people saying this are not lookng at the stats of how many people are now employed compared to 10, 100 years ago. From the industrial revolution onwards, it’s been generally an upward trend.
People are worried about the jobs they actually have, not jobs that may or may not appear decades from now.
Hope is not a strategy.
Yes, on a personal basis the job losses are devastating. On a societal bssis, they are not.
For many, the worry will be that it will take away thousands of high paying jobs and replace them with significantly lower salaried, or even minimum wage jobs. People have bought houses, had children, and generally made life plans based on the premise their vocation could support that lifestyle. The Government need to provide support and retraining to try and prevent these events because they are good for no-one except bad actors and vulture capitalists.
I agree. I think some are really going to benefit from AI, but perhaps many more will be negatively impacted. The government seems to be waiting for the problem to get ugly before waking up and addressing.
It will lead to “economic growth” for stock markets. Everyone else will be left to die. Technology in the hands of the capitalist 1% leads to only one result for the rest of us, death. They don’t care.
Sorry for pasting this in every discussion to do with AI, but if I said anything else, it would really be taking excerpts from the following:
People have long said that new technology only creates more jobs. To those people, I would like to direct your attention to the cart-horse. Around a hundred years ago, before electric cars, people used to go around on horses, or in carts and wagons pulled by horses. Horses were an integral part of the transport system, and most horses were employed as such, even being bred specifically to cope with higher demand on people needing to go places. With the advent of the car, large swathes of the horse population became unnecessary, and the population dwindled to a new equilibrium as fewer horses were needed in transport, but fewer horses were also bred. Compared to the busy, hard life horses had to put up with only a few decades ago, most horses nowadays, although there a fewer of them, live a life of comparative luxury, living in fields most of the day where they are free to graze, are given good food by their owners that care about them, and are only occasionally ridden by humans, and even when they are, it is far more relaxed and more of an enjoyable activity than horse-riding was when it was the only way to get somewhere, and done on a daily basis.
Humans often have this idea that they are special. That they are the only ones that can weave cloth – until it is automated. That they are the only ones who can make pottery – until it is automated. That human labour is the only way to get power – until power production is automated with the advent of electricity. That they are the only ones can be ‘creative’, who can write stories, make art, play music – until that is automated too. True, in all those cases, humans were still involved in the process to some extent, mostly for quality control and maintenance, but far fewer humans are needed to create the same amount of stuff – whether physical goods or more ‘idea-like’ stuff such as art – than before. In fact, recent progress has shown video games that were even tested and quality controlled by AI, as well as being programmed by AI and using AI generated assets, doing away with the need for humans entirely. This is analogous to the true scenario that I outlined in the first paragraph, and is not necessarily a bad thing.
It is quite likely that, in an impossible to predict timespan (it may be 20 years, it may be much more), humans will have developed technology with the capacity to completely create all the things we need, and more – good food, comfortable shelter, entertainment, and so on. Some will argue that this cessation of the need for humans to work will results in economic collapse and mass hardships, but this is a small minded perspective, often viewed through a capitalistic lens. The horses didn’t have a population explosion and lack of resources due to their work being gone, on the contrary, their numbers dwindled – which is not a bad thing, as long as it is through natural means, which it was, it just means that every individual has more attention and resources – and their lives improved, since they no longer had to endure hard labour every day just to survive. It is certainly attainable for the same thing to happen to us. Population growth is already falling in developed countries, and only people who are unable to image a world without human labour see this as a bad thing. If less humans work every year, and more AIs do their jobs, it balances out, and is a way to ease into a world where there is very little to no human labour, and all our needs and most of our wants are produced by AI.
As much as many people dislike the sentiment, this would not work in a capitalistic world where what someone gets is dependent on what they contribute to society, for self-evident reasons (those being that no one would need to contribute anything to society if it is all being done by robots), and therefore in a world where all necessary labour is done by AI, we would have to move to a system where everyone gets resources simply by dint of existing, rather than needing to contribute anything themselves. You can call this socialism if you want, it doesn’t really matter what you call it. This system would have the benefit of reducing stress caused by the feeling that you are obligated to do something, while not removing the ability to contribute something if you want – after all, it is necessary labour that has been abolished, to all labour, and just as horses are still used as a novelty and entertainment today, and many people value hand-made pottery, food, etc., over manufactured counterparts, there is likely to still be a desire for art, objects, and stories made by humans even in such a world where all necessary labour has been abolished.
This also deals with the counterpoint made by many that people will struggle for a sense of meaning and purpose in a world where there is no necessary labour – first of all, people struggle for meaning and purpose even when they do work necessarily, and second of all, as mentioned above, they can still do unnecessary, but still valued labour, and get the same meaning and purpose from that. Some people, myself included, think that although the above scenario may work in theory, in practise it would be difficult to get the billionaires and billionaires’ puppets in government to agree to such a sensible system when the huge benefit to everyone may come at a small cost to themselves – even if the cost is just ego, even if they could still keep all their material resources. I admit, I don’t see a good solution to this problem myself, but, in conclusion, I hope we can think of one together, as this is a world many, including myself, would like to live in.
The capitalist billionaires will happily let everyone die. Their ideal world is one without the need for humans besides themselves. They see themselves as superior, therefore all others deserve to perish.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that entry level, part-time and administrative jobs were most exposed to being replaced by AI under a “worst-case scenario” for the rollout of new technologies in the next three to five years.
The thinktank warned that the UK was facing a “sliding doors” moment as growing numbers of companies adopt generative AI technologies – which can read and create text, data and software code – to automate everyday workplace tasks.
It said routine cognitive tasks – including database management, scheduling and stocktaking – were already at risk, with potential to displace entry level and part-time jobs in secretarial work, administration and customer services.
However, the second wave of AI adoption could impact non-routine tasks involving the creation of databases, copywriting and graphic design, which would affect increasingly higher earning jobs.
Sounding the alarm over the impact on workers, the left-of-centre thinktank said government action could prevent a “jobs apocalypse”, and help to harness the power of AI to boost economic growth and raise living standards.
Carsten Jung, senior economist at IPPR, said: “Already existing generative AI could lead to big labour market disruption or it could hugely boost economic growth.
The original article contains 473 words, the summary contains 198 words. Saved 58%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Good thing pop is going down. Just cut down on immigration a bit and all set.
