Comment by array_key_first
7 hours ago
The main difference is that a plow cannot replace a human because a plow is a machine operated by a human.
The premise of AI is that it replaces humans.
Even if AI creates, say, 200 million new jobs - you would just fill those jobs with AI. Why would you fill them with humans? That's stupid.
>The main difference is that a plow cannot replace a human because a plow is a machine operated by a human.
A single human with a plow replaced 20 humans with shovels.
Do you believe the ratio of AI replacement will actually be higher? I doubt it.
> A single human with a plow replaced 20 humans with shovels.
Right, my point is, that single human cannot now be replaced with a plow because a plow and a human are two distinctly different things.
This is the opposite of the premise of AI, which is that AI and humans should be as similar as possible.
I can't get a plow to ride a plow because it doesn't have legs. It's made of metal.
I CAN get an AI to prompt AI because that's what AI does.
So again, even if you create X Y Z jobs, surely the goal then is to replace those jobs with AI? Like we can get rid of programmers, okay great. Now we need more people to write specs. Okay great.
Um... Why not have the AI write the specs? They can be different AIs. It's software, it's trivially copiable, unlike flesh and bones.
While there will be spots where a human will be replaced by AI there won't be nearly as much as people think over the next decade.