Comment by array_key_first
12 hours ago
> 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.
Idk I think the plow still has similar scaling. You can make a much bigger plow now maybe it replaces 40 humans. You could make it bigger still and have ox pull it, now maybe 400 humans since you still need one to lead the ox.
Farmer Joe then claims he can train ox + border collie teams to eliminate the need for humans entirely when it comes to plowing. But by that point no one cares because the cost to plow a field is so low that it really doesn't matter, other things are the bottleneck.
The cost of things where AI can produce value will trend downward and human labor will move to other things, like entertainment, services. IMO there will always be demand for things like human-given massages, human chefs, human teachers, etc.
> The cost of things where AI can produce value will trend downward and human labor will move to other things, like entertainment, services. IMO there will always be demand for things like human-given massages, human chefs, human teachers, etc.
Thereby suppressing the wages of jobs that are already at the lower end of the compensation ladder.