Comment by jacquesm
1 year ago
> the history of technological development provides cause for optimism in the long run
I think it actually provides cause for pessimism: in the past those people had other kinds of jobs to move to. But this AI revolution makes it much harder to move to another job other than a menial one because a lot of the lower level office jobs are affected all at once. This creates a lot of downward pressure on fields that were already paying peanuts and where employers have realized they can now squeeze even further, either by cutting wages directly or by having more desperate entrants in the race to the bottom.
Going from agricultural work into technology was an improvement, going from office work to unskilled labor is a regression. Upward mobility is limited because there is less room there anyway and there too there will be more competition for fewer jobs.
So for the moment I don't really see the upside on a societal scale, even if for some individuals there are upsides.
> this AI revolution makes it much harder to move to another job other than a menial one because a lot of the lower level office jobs are affected all at once
If we automate away administration, there is a bonanza to be had. Every person would in essence be a start-up team. That's enough surplus to figure out a transition. I'm not optimistic about every political system finding the solution. But some will, and then it slowly spreads.
Most people don't want to be start-ups. Media is overbiased towards leaders and makers. But the average person just wants to show up, get paid, and go home. They don't want to have to figure out how to constantly reinvent themselves to be marketable.
> Most people don't want to be start-ups
Most people don’t want to do work. The point is there will be terrific surpluses generated at every level of society. That gives those people choices. In some societies, they’ll horde it. But in resilient ones, they’ll recognise the long-term collective interest in ensuring everyone who can make does.
The number of people that want to be part of a start-up is limited, the number of people that want the responsibility that comes with being an entrepreneur is further limited. Those people that would like to be entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, the rest is more than happy to just have a job and a stable life. Risk appetite and willingness to hyperfocus on one thing at the expense of the rest, including quality of life is something that varies widely from one individual to another.
HN is not an 'average' in this sense at all, more likely an extreme outlier. This is also why the 'gig economy' is such a huge step back.
> Those people that would like to be entrepreneurs are entrepreneurs, the rest is more than happy to just have a job and a stable life
The 9 to 5 job was invented alongside the Industrial Revolution. (And clocks.) Before that, many civilisations were collections of entrepreneurial households. (Plus slaves/serfs/servants.)
The point is civilisation adapts. But the long run, in making some people more productive, has historically been everyone getting richer.
11 replies →
not only do many people not want to be startups, many people struggle (and fail) to understand the administrative office jobs they currently have.
It is important to remember that innovation doesn't raise all boats, even if it raises the average boat. Some will sink, along with their crew.
We comfortably laugh at the resistant luddites, but many of them died impoverished, were shot, or hung.
That shouldn't be a condemnation of innovation, but simply to point out that there are real winners and losers.