Hmm, millions of humans are spending a bulk of their lives plugging away at numbers on a screen. We can replace this with an AI and free them up to do literally anything else.
No, let's not do that. Keep being slow ineffective calculators and lay on your death bed feeling FULFILLED!
You're skipping over a critical step, which is that our society allocated resources based on the labor value that an individual provides. If we free up everyone to do anything, they're not providing labor any more, so they get no resources. In other words, society needs to change in big ways, and I don't know how or if it will do that.
Where is the existing work these people would take up? If it doesn't exist yet, then how do you suppose people will support themselves in the meantime?
What if the new work that is created pays less? Do you think people should just accept being made obsolete to take up lower paying jobs?
>Where is the existing work these people would take up? If it doesn't exist yet, then how do you suppose people will support themselves in the meantime?
Everywhere in human society. "Jobs" is literally when you do something that someone needs, so that in exchange they do something that you need. And in human society, because of AI, neither people’s needs, nor the ability to satisfy them, nor the possibility of exchanging them will suddenly disappear. So the jobs will be everywhere.
>Do you think people should just accept being made obsolete to take up lower paying jobs?
Let's start with the fact that on average all jobs will become higher paying because the amount of goods produced (and distributed) will increase. So the more correct answer to this question is "What choice will they have?".
AI will make the masses richer, so society will not abandon it. Subsidize their obsolete well-paid jobs to make society poorer? Why would anyone do that? So the people replaced by AI will go to work in other jobs. Sometimes higher paying, sometimes lower.
If we are talking about real solutions, the best alternative they will have is to form a cult like the Amish did (God bless America and capitalism), in which they can pretend that AI does not exist and live as before. The only question in this case is whether they will find willing participants, because for most, participation in such a cult will mean losing the increase in income provided by the introduction of AI.
No, that's just logic. AI doesn't thwart the ability of people to satisfy their needs (getting richer).
>Inequality is worse now than it was 20 years ago despite technology progressing.
And people are still richer than ever before (if we take into account the policies that are thwarting society's ability to satisfy each other's needs and that have nothing to do with technologies)
Huh? If AI can do any job cheaper and better than a person can, why would anyone hire a person? What "useful" skill could a person exchange for resources in an era when computers write code, drive cars, fight wars, and cook food?
But you answer your own question: the only situation in which it makes no sense to hire another person to satisfy a need is when that need has already been satisfied in another way.
And if all needs are already satisfied... Why worry about work? The purpose of work is to satisfy needs. If needs are satisfied, there is no need for work.
You assume the everyone's needs are solved together. More likely is that the property owning class acquire AI robots to provide cheap labor; and everyone else doesn't.
>You assume the everyone's needs are solved together.
No, I am not assuming that. "Together" are not required. It's just combination of needs, ability to satisfy them and ability to exchange - creates jobs. And nothing of this will be thwarted by AI.
>More likely is that the property owning class acquire AI robots to provide cheap labor
Doesn't matter. Your everyday person either will be able to afford this cheap AI labor for themselves (no problem that required solving) or if AI labor for them are unaffordable - will create jobs for other people (there will be jobs on market everywhere)
>We can replace this with an AI and free them up to do literally anything else.
I would happily support automation to free myself, and others, from having to work full-time. But we live in a capitalist society, not StarTrek. Automation doesn't free up people from having to work, it only places people in financial crisis.
Manual labor in the US pays far less than any of the above mentioned jobs. That's the alarming part--if we're to transition to manual labor and the wages for these jobs stay the same, then workers will be forced to work harder jobs for less money. I'm not sure why you'd expect this proposition to be popular?
I think you along with some others in this thread are looking at the real individualistic view - "If I go from high paying to low paying, I'm in trouble". Think about how the economy may react along with it. If companies are no longer paying these high salaries, perhaps products and services go down and despite earning less $, your purchasing power stays the same or even grows!
Of course lots of speculation, but I am not particularly worried by the fields we can wipe out in future with automation and AI.
>If companies are no longer paying these high salaries, perhaps products and services go down and despite earning less $
There is endless amounts of cheaply produced slop in stores today. By and by I don't give a fuck about affording those kinds of goods. I care about being able to afford a home, having access to good healthcare, being able to travel, etc. These are the kinds of goods and services that I doubt will come down significantly in price.
Hmm, millions of humans are spending a bulk of their lives plugging away at numbers on a screen. We can replace this with an AI and free them up to do literally anything else.
No, let's not do that. Keep being slow ineffective calculators and lay on your death bed feeling FULFILLED!