25% of jobs set to be disrupted in the next 5 years – A.I. could play a key role
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Future_of_Jobs_2023.pdf
Future of Jobs Report, 2023
It's almost 300 pages long. I'm not even sure what's most interesting so far. Largest job decline? Data entry clerks, Administrative and executive secretaries, Accounting, bookkeeping and payroll clerks, Security Gauards and Building caretakers and housekeepers are the top 5.
Largest job growth? Agricultural equipment operators is number 1, followed by truck/bis drivers, then Vocational teachers, Mechanics and Business development professionals
hmm, at first I was thinking burglars gonna have a hard time if their target is big businesses but I guess it's the same as today - you break in, you enter the code that you know somehow OR you break in, after dismantling security in some way?
I guess though it would be a good tool for outdoor security, but then the main deterrent of a security guard there is they have a gun and come running when you're stealing the stuff.
Less in-person retail -> less security guards
If AI fullfills its promises these are probably under the most danger.
"Technology is also not the only factor at play when it comes to job disruption, according to WEF. In fact, it comes sixth on the list of factors leading to net job creation or elimination."
99% of humanity used to spend their lives farming and now it’s 1%. I don’t bemoan that 98% of farmers are now out of work.
We are at historically low unemployment. People have found new desires to be fulfilled and created businesses to fulfill them, forever and ever.
The language of socialists / Marxists - “workers are ‘exploited’” etc. is very inflammatory and inaccurate. It is like once you get this worm in your brain that all work is just evil exploiters taking advantage of the workers, you became a bitter cultist and can’t see how backwards your thinking is.
So either the top end of the bracket is pocketing more or the bottom end is loosing some. But it’s definitely not equal. Acknowledging that and considering that a problem is neither a Marxist standpoint nor a sign of a rotten mind. And neither is acknowledging that there’s a whole class of people that are exploited by society.
If you're dead set on favoring consumers over producers, then consider by freeing the producers time up they'd be able to produce more passion projects for consumers to enjoy. Today's consumers don't necessarily get the highest quality "stuff" but rather the "stuff" that is "safe" and guaranteed to maximize profits (see Hollywood movies). If socialism/Marxism ever did take hold, then I agree that there would be less "stuff" to consume, however, the "stuff" that is produced would be of higher quality because it would be made with passion and love of the craft. True builders will build anyway regardless of whether there are financial gains. It would be quality over quantity.
Hollywood movies seem to be to be one of the least able kind of task to be done "for the love of the craft" across all thousands of people involved in a blockbuster. How does that coordination work out across everyone who's interested "in the craft"? Ever see fan productions? It can be done, but they're also often driven by people actually doing tasks for cash that was gathered via donations.
I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious.
You're correct that a passionate hobby does not necessarily translate to higher quality output. These sorts of discussions are handwavy by nature because the truth is never black and white. In fact, I can easily provide an example that contradicts my own assertion that there would be "less stuff" in a socialists/Marxists environment: Wikipedia. Before Wikipedia, when I wanted a digital encyclopedia, I purchased software from Encyclopedia Britannica. The nice thing about their encyclopedia was the articles were high quality, vetted by experts. The problem is the number of articles was limited, updates and additions were infrequent, and it cost money. By comparison, Wikipedia has a massive number of articles, frequent updates, and is freely provided by a non-profit foundation. Unfortunately, it doesn't have the same vetting as Encyclopedia Britannica and so the quality is inconsistent. So here the "socialists" Wikipedia offers consumers more "stuff" to read, albeit with inconsistent quality, than the "capitalists" Encyclopedia Britannica.
> I also might point to the people who are so well liked and famous that they basically can "write their own ticket" - George RR Martin is an example. His first few books were considered amazing, but it's also considered that given no real impetus anymore - he's unlikely to finish the saga ever. As a whole then, is an unfinished saga really "higher quality" than one finished to make a buck? The answer IMHO isn't obvious.
Why did George RR Martin lose his passion? Was he only after fortunate and fame? Did the dopamine hit he received from said fame outweigh the hit he received writing books? Questions like this are far more revealing because they touch on a deeper truth.
> There are plenty of examples of people doing things already "for the love of the craft" either because they're wealthy, or at least doing well enough for it to be a serious hobby.
What makes someone a natural builder? Why aren't there more engineers like Ton Roosendaal who, when asked why he gave his creation away for free, is quoted as saying "Money doesn't mean anything. It's not interesting. I call myself a maker; I want to make stuff." Why aren't more physicians like Dr. Frederick Banting who, after discovering insulin, sold the patent for $1 because he believed "insulin does not belong to me, it belongs to the world."
Human nature can be less-than-stellar and economic systems like capitalism attempt to channel it into something constructive. Is this channeling necessary and at what point does it become counterproductive?
Humans are a product of their environment and experiences. On this very board many folks idolize CEO's...but why CEO's and not folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting? I think the real truth, the deeper truth, is the "revolution" starts with the culture itself: rather than TV shows like Shark Tank lets have programs emphasizing non-profit founders, rather than hero worshipping CEO's, let's encourage emulating folks like Ton Roosendaal and Dr. Banting, then...maybe...capitalism will fade away on its own.
They havent though. They've gone to shareholders and landowners.
It would theoretically be nice if the productivity gains were evenly distributed but in practice to make that actually happen would probably require a great deal of violence.
What about them?
Do you think the bottom 90% of pensioners do not deserve to own more than 11% of the capital stock of the country?
It’s hard to just point the finger at this thing or that thing and pretend it’s just “the 1%” who benefits and they are causing all the problems. The economy, and society itself, is far far more complex and trying to do something extreme like destroy private business has enormous knock-on consequences.
The rising tide may not lift all boats but it lifts a lot of them.
* The 1% lose 50 cents
* The top 10% lose 90 cents.
* The bottom 90% lose 10 cents.
* The bottom 50% lose maybe 1-2 cents (and only some of them).
A net loss in the stock market that leads to a slight redistribution of that wealth would thus be better for the majority of pensioners.
As somebody who is primarily concerned with the welfare of the average joe you would support this, no?
Take Elon Musk. Even if you stole all of his money, he would start a new business, and people would back him with capital (whatever is left after the socialists stole it all) because of his background, and it would be successful, and he would be rich again.
You can’t stop talented people from making money unless you use guns.
The thing is - basically being a grifter is a great skill for making money for oneself and friends, but not actually a skill that helps society as a whole. And sure, advertising is a kind of expertise, but I don't think many people actually hold it in high regard as being worth a lot in terms of "deserving".
The pace at which it's happening now with no social safety net for the work force being left by the wayside - is what is worrisome.
I’ll believe it when it actually happens because the futurists have cried wolf for too many decades.
Serious question, how exactly do you envision unemployed people without any renueve stream can afford to "fulfill their wants" when the goverment and landlords will yell them for their cut of the meal on taxes and rent at the end of every month, implying they've enough food savings to last up to that point?
> People have found new desires to be fulfilled and created businesses to fulfill them What about the desiree to not die thanks to a crashed economy and inexistent safety nets? Seriosly, on what kind of cutesy fantasy spot do you think vast mayority of people live on, that they've the time to daydream about hypothetical wants instead of the real treath of being kicked out of a roof and starving to death?
Maybe, at some point in the distant future, some middle spot can be reached, but not sure not right now, society as we know it may be the verge of crashing and those holding the keys are hardly willing to care.
yet.
I appreciate the assertion that we ought to solve that problem. Energy expended upon countering the positive reasons we get to do so could be better spent. No reason for you (or anyone) to expect $randomInternetStranger (i.e. me) to care but I do. I have come to believe the problem is a creativity supply problem, alongside insufficient transition supports, and incentive design problems with many beneficial human labors. I believe that we constrain our growth and prosperity due to this lack of vision and this is why I endeavor to do better, extend ladders, and so on.
You're severely underestimating how much high education and creative jobs will be impacted. Those are the "fun" jobs, involving imagining, learning, thinking. Illustrators, architects, designers, writers (of different sorts), journalists, even programmers and musicians. In fact, manual and repetitive labour is the one kind of job not impacted by today's AIs.
It's not that you'll fully replace all of those jobs with AI. It's that if you needed 10 illustrators, or 10 designers or 10 writers, now you might only need 1 to make sure the output of the AI is ok.
There'll be new opportunities afforded by this increase in productivity, new jobs in new industries, but retraining will not happen fast enough to employ those 9 extra people. And the problem is it'll happen in many different areas of the economy and at roughly the same time, that we won't have enough new jobs to go around for everyone in a timeframe that saves them from unemployment.
It's specially hard on entry level jobs: a beginner designer would come up with a few designs and a more experienced designer would shoot some down and approve others, thus helping the beginner learn and improve. The company needed the beginner to do the leg work that would be too expensive to pay the experience designer to do. Now the experienced designer does not need the beginner at all, just the AI as they already know what is a good design, and for actually zero cost.
The beginner designer in this example will not be able to find another job in the industry, because they do not yet possess any skill that is valuable, and will never acquire the experience necessary for those skills. Maybe they'll transition to a different industry, but that will take some amount of time and for that time they may be unemployed.
what if there aren't any this time?
like horses after the invention of the motor car
Not for horses
>or the fact that the jobs that were destroyable were also often not a whole lot of fun in the first place
Very few things in this world can be agreed to be "fun", but goverment wants taxes and shareholders rent, and they precisely don't care much about your quality of life when you don't find a way to provide them those. Can't blame the players for doing what they can.
The "regular" BuzzFeed is still there.
In any case, I've never been one to say that technology enhancements for humanity is a bad thing. It's only the powers that be that can wield it for bad.
Also, there's more of "us" ("workers" which, btw, are knowledgeable about the infrastructure) than billionaires.
I'm not saying it's a guaranteed win, I'm saying I really don't see how AI is anything other than a net win for an autocrat with plenty of capital.
You're right that this is a possible avenue. I just hope you're wrong. Or we may have some kind of butlerian jihad on the table in the future.
I just hope that something good might come of it but I don't expect it will, looking back at history.
Another source of info.