If AI is the intern, how do the economics of entry level positions work? And if they don’t, how do people enter the workforce at all? More schooling? Only hire PhDs?
They don't, and in 10-20 years corporate leaders will bemoan the shortage of high-skilled experienced people that they created through their own decisions. Of course, they won't take any responsibility or change their approach, though.
It's a free rider/prisoner's dilemma problem.
If everyone cooperates then we all come out ahead. If you all cooperate while I defect then I end up even better (I don't have to train anyone). But if we all defect then we're fucked.
It used to be that there was entry level work that needed to be done by humans and so you didn't have this problem. If the entry level work can be done by AI then you need something else. Either government coordination and incentives to hire humans (this is the kind of things gov't is good at). Or people stay in education for longer/education becomes different.
* Past performance is not indicative of future results.
It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.
What now? Established trends have been regularly violated over thousands of years.
> It's not surprising that the human race has survived for this long - we always find ways to adapt, no matter what challenges history throws at us. This is what distinguishes us (and I suspect will always do) from the machines.
You know what would count as an adaptation? Large fractions of population becoming immiserated and either dying off or living in poverty at the margins.
Mere survival is the wrong metric.
However, if you'd like to be pessimistic on it I won't argue, I have that tendency too ;)
And to lighten up the mood, I highly recommend listening to this episode with Gary Marcus, where he invites experts in the field of humor to discuss how distinctly bad the LLMs are at explaining what comes naturally to us: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/can-ai-make-you-laugh/...
"This AI" seems perfectly capable of resulting of extending the kind of economic immiseration that has already affected many blue collar jobs into many types of white collar work (ironically enough, the kind of work those blue collar workers were told to pick up).
Past this iteration of AI, who knows if the advances will peter out, but it's foolish to assume things will be fine because other things were adapted to in the past. That's kinda like assuming you won't die before having kids because none of your ancestors did.
List them.
You mainly been making vague, unsupported assertions backed by emoticons. It's a stretch to call that an "argument," and arguable you haven't been really engaging from the start.
I don't think you can convince me because I suspect you don't really have any support or specifics for your position to provide.
Regardless, I flagged your comment since it really doesn’t follow HN etiquette on respectful arguments.
Come on. If you have them formulated, you should have responded with them. It's not that hard.
> Regardless, I flagged your comment since it really doesn’t follow HN etiquette on respectful arguments.
Again, come on. The disrespectful thing is expecting someone to go on a scavenger hunt just to find out what you, some internet rando, should be saying in your half of a conversation thread.
It's also just bizarre for you to note you flagged my comment. Am I supposed feel intimidated or ashamed or something?
I don’t think that’s true. The archetypal constructs of human cognition have been unchanged. Hence the enduring relevance of myths. It’s always the same stories playing out.
> I don’t think that’s true. The archetypal constructs of human cognition have been unchanged. Hence the enduring relevance of myths. It’s always the same stories playing out.
I think you misunderstand. I didn't say everything has changed, just that many "established trends" have been.
I mean, at some point it was a well established trend that all humans hunted and gathered for their substance, then that trend was violated.
At some point, the trend of "we will find something productive to do with all these people who's jobs have been made obsolete" may be violated. And it seems like that's getting more likely the more rarefied the remaining valuable skills become.
> Mere survival is the wrong metric.
People don't have to live in cities. Knowledge work has brought many people to cities and the absence of it will reverse that trend. It is welfare that keeps impoverished people living in cities.
But I'm basing my opinion on history as well. The focus will be on reducing costs, which means eliminating as many workers as possible.