Comment by Jcampuzano2
6 hours ago
> Why da f*#$ do they have to continue developing a technology which they think will replace droves of people by machines?? There is nothing sexy about it. There is nothing cool about it either.
This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall. You could use this argument to say we should have never invented the printing press if you only thought of the people who used to manually transcribe books and documents.
Yes, but it's trivially obvious that AI is different from previous technological automation, since with AI it's ALL jobs being automated, starting with white collar ones, not just some narrow segment.
What was true with previous automation, that some jobs disappear, but new ones are created in their place, will not be true of AI, because AI is a general purpose technology capable of doing the new jobs it creates just as well as the old ones it displaces.
I agree was going to comment that yes it does feel slightly different because in most cases technology narrowly targeted specific niches at the time, that when replaced could at least in hindsight be seen to likely benefit the majority at the cost of the existing laborers.
Whereas in this case most of the top brass of AI do push it as something more akin to "we think this will replace practically all human labor". And without the availability of human labor, at least given the current economic system its hard to see how that'd lead to anything but mass suffering.
I do think the argument still holds. If we were able to see it as a net benefit to all, it would still be worth it. Its just that with the level of replacement we're talking about the net benefit would need to be massive (however we define "benefit") The problem is there is plenty of research showing it is still net negative in many cases, especially (in my opinion) when it comes to cognitive ability and early stage development for children/youth.
The closest similarity may be the development of the personal computer or something along those lines.
> If we were able to see it as a net benefit to all, it would still be worth it. Its just that with the level of replacement we're talking about the net benefit would need to be massive (however we define "benefit")
Well, let's assume that the AI companies building and pushing this tech are right, and it WILL take your job (and every other job you may consider career pivoting to). Presumably the government isn't going to let you actually starve, as long as they have the means to do that, but it does mean your comfortable life, built on your own labor, is gone, and now you are barely surviving on government welfare.
So, what potential benefit (even hypothetical) would offset that? An AI cure for cancer perhaps? Personally I'd rather have a nice life and take my risks with cancer, which anyways human intelligence will solve in due course if it is solvable.
This "AI will take ALL the jobs" isn't just some sci-fi far distant future. It's already acknowledged that all work that can be done in front of a computer can be automated. Did you work at home during covid (not just developer - manager, teacher, a lot of jobs) - if so then your job can easily be automated in the near future.
OK, so you'll be able to retrain as a plumber or nurse perhaps, and work with your hands. We'll all be plumbers, except that doesn't scale. We'll all be self-sufficient farmers perhaps. We've seen this before, and no reason it can't happen again.. most of the power and the money in the hands of a very few, and the rest living as peasants.
Note that physical jobs being replaced by AI also isn't some sci-fi far distant future, although it will start with factory jobs, driving jobs, then move to ones requiring a greater level of physical ability (e.g. plumber), and perhaps human touch (nurse). Look at Japan to see where things are headed. Many countries have declining populations, hence declining GDP and tax receipts; most countries have turned to immigration as the solution to this, but Japan has decided to turn to technology instead - robotics and AI. Replacing human jobs with robotics and AI isn't a sci-fi dream in Japan - it is the official government policy that they are working on, and that includes things like care for the elderly.
> The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall.
That's just treating the very real, living people, who exist right now, and can read your words, as if they're already dead.
> You could use this argument to say we should have never invented the printing press
So, what displaced person will you swap your livelihood with? After all, if it's just about the general arc of progress, and the individual lives don't matter, why not sacrifice yours for that of someone else? The same could be said to those who say "there will always be inequality", life is unfair, etc... it all sounds great but it's really just more words for "fuck you, got mine" IMO.
Nowhere in my argument do I contend it may not affect myself. In fact I have basically already accepted its very likely I'll be replaced due to AI in the very near future. Thats just the unfortunate reality of things at the individual level.
So yes, I do agree it sucks for lots of people living in the moment.
I mention in some other comments that yes, AI "visionaries" make the level of replacement seem to be on a scale almost never before seen and so the "benefit" for the majority would have to be absolutely massive (however we define benefit). And currently its hard to see how it could reach that level. I was just noting we cannot "only" see it through the lens of replacement. If for example billionaires (trillionaires now?) did actually spread the benefit and we overhauled the economic systems in much of the world for humanity it _might_ actually be a benefit. Its just hard to see this ever happening given history.
I definitely have not "gotten mine" like the billionaires pushing AI. But other inventions in hindsight have very clearly benefited humanity as a whole even with the unfortunate effects on the people of the time.
> I definitely have not "gotten mine" like the billionaires pushing AI.
Yet your whole comment is about them "not being all that", with no answer for the "taxi driver facing his family knowing he will be replaced by a machine fully" (emphasis mine).
Are you in this situation? Anywhere close? "Having accepted it's very likely" is a far off from that, unless that means "so I threw all my possessions into the dumpster and started living on the street, because it's a foregone conclusion".
> If for example billionaires (trillionaires now?) did actually spread the benefit and we overhauled the economic systems in much of the world for humanity it _might_ actually be a benefit. Its just hard to see this ever happening given history.
"Okay family, we all starve to death now, but just think: if it was different, it would be different!"
No, that doesn't work either.
> other inventions in hindsight have very clearly benefited humanity as a whole even with the unfortunate effects on the people of the time
But we know that the productivity gains of the last few decades haven't gone to "humanity", already. And that was even before the raw hatred of the vulnerable we see on display now.
How many inventions and tools simply improved life as people adopted them at their own pace, without it being this situation where people get herded into giving up all direct, deterministic access to the machinery they need to communicate, work, live, with the added benefits of cheap mass surveillance, cheap mass manipulation, and displacement of labor on a scale that will require the aforementioned to keep people in check?
This is not about other inventions, it's about what this actually is, not about penicillin or the plow.
> This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
This argument alone works just fine. If you explicitly threaten billions of people that you will make them redundant then you better focus on building a guillotine proof neck.
>>This argument alone doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history from the explicit development of technology that replaces the need for human labor.
"throughout history" - go look at the time it took to replace those jobs. how those jobs were replaced. A trillion dollars will be put into investment this year to put AI in everything. People who's companies those money is going to are actively saying there will be 20-30% job loss.
>>The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall.
Define 'net benefit overall'. Does overall include people who's job is getting automated? How skewed the benefit is towards some b(t)illionaires?
I wrote in a separate comment elsewhere that I don't really disagree that the current top brass of AI push it as something that would replace people on a much larger degree than most other technology, but that in my opinion the argument does hold - where if we did see it as a net benefit greater than the loss it would still be worth it, and that is the measurement we should be using. But yes, given the level of replacement the net benefit would have to be absolutely massive.
And yes, "net benefit" is hard to measure for an unrealized/developing product.
So I don't disagree with you. In the current economic system where we need human labor (in the majority of the world) to make a living, its hard to see the current vision of AI by those in charge to lead to anything but mass suffering.
AI will quickly turn the world into an even greater disparity between the "haves" and the "have nots" with its current vision.
> The question should not be whether the technology replaces people by machines, it should be whether it provides a net benefit overall
I like this framing.
But I wish more people would acknowledge that genAI offloads thinking in ways that the printing press, the loom, the calculator, and the computer never did.
I find a net benefit to be extremely unlikely, but the devil's in the details. We'd have to define "benefit" and that's already a big kettle of worms.
We cannot talk about net benefit until we agree on the objective: net benefit for whom?
I don't care if my current job is being replaced or the whole industry I am working in vanishes. But as an individual, if the new technology says it aims to wipe out all the possibilities of my future career, it is not net benefit for me.
Just saying "net benefit" "overall" sounds like some collectivism propaganda.
>doesn't really work because literally billions of peoples jobs and livelihoods have been replaced throughout history
And it entailed social unrest every time.