As with ever other major innovation, it will both destroy and create jobs. Whether AI creates more good than harm will be hard to actually evaluate. Like every innovation, there will be general disagreement on what constitutes "good".
Yep.
Major innovations change economic equilibriums and as the economy shifts accordingly winners and losers are produced. Economic losers who see what's happening get angry and oppose the innovation. In extreme cases this leads to social problems.
IMO a key role of government is shepharding societies through major economic shifts while minimising social instability. IMO it's more productive to accept change and plan for it than try to prevent it.
> Whether AI creates more good than harm will be hard to actually evaluate.
Perhaps I'm excessively fatalist, but I think that's largely irrelevant.
Even if we had an oracle which could tell us that a given innovation will be a net negative in the long term, any innovation still presents opportunities for individuals and groups to gain advantages over others in the short to medium term.
WMD proliferation is the only example I can think of of a collective decision to slow development of a particular technology due to a belief it will ultimately be a net negative. Even then we haven't stopped, we only slowed after major players consolidated their positions, and we've yet to see how successful that slowing will ultimately be. As in - did we put the cat back in the bag permanently, or will it get out again?
Climate action might be heading that way, too, but I don't think the cat's even back in the bag yet.
[0]Fantastic discussion with Suleyman and Yuval Harari https://youtu.be/7JkPWHr7sTY