Hacker News Reader

Comment by martin-t | Hacker News Reader

Bad analogy.

In the past, workers complained that automation took away their jobs. The (roughly) same amount of wealth was created but the income went to fewer individuals (the owners).

This was a valid criticism but at least they could move onto other jobs.

AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. Regardless if the amount of wealth created will be less, the same, or greater than before, the income will only go towards the owners and everyone else will become a beggar. That is the endgame.

If you believe the endgame is different, please game it out in your head and share what you think. Don't just reject this idea without thinking about it.

[0]: And even without robotics, true AI (AGI) would obliterate such a huge percentage of jobs it would create a shock and massive unemployment.

View on HN

> and everyone else will become a beggar.

Just as they do during every economic downturn, when the wealthy have all their needs satisfied and have no reason for people anymore. But soon the wealthy become bored just sitting there doing nothing with no people around them. So they end up dreaming up new work for people to do to fill the void.

"It's not what you know, it's who you know." People already aren't hired for their rote task abilities, they are hired because the wealthy want warm bodies around them (see also RTO mandates). It's their social outlet. A large number of jobs exist simply because the wealthy are willing to pay for "friends".

Even if AI does end up doing all the real work, the wealthy will still want to hire humans to be "managers", just like they already are doing in the growing absence of real work. According to Statistics Canada, the management sector has grown by 36% over the past two decades. Which is funny from a purely productivity perspective as management is most amendable to automation. The sector should be shrinking. But it isn't about any kind of actual work, it's about gathering together to build social connections so that the wealthy have their social needs satisfied.

The biggest threat to people is if AI figures out how to become the owner. Then it will be apt to rationally operate on what needs to be done, not the emotional experience of being around humans. But so long as humans retain that position...

> AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete.

I'm still skeptical that AI will be able to take our jobs anytime soon, but when it does, we really need to make sure that we have a different economic system; one that doesn't demand that people work in jobs that don't exist anymore. At the very least, we need to tax those companies enough to provide a Basic Income, so we can actually allow those companies to go through with it. But even then, capitalism might be a problem, because as the sole owners of all production capital, they will continue to gather more capital and power, without the people on BI having any say over it anymore. Eventually, AI will have to be used to support people instead of corporations, and I don't think that's possible in a highly capitalist economy. Get rid of the Friedman Doctrine at the very least.

Where's all this wealth going to come from if nobody has any jobs?

I guess we’re back to good ol’ slavery here. Wasn’t it Platonic ideal where everyone would own at least two slaves? Except that we’re all going to be slaves and richer slaves will have their own slaves, all the way down.

And child labor! Don’t forget about child labor. Childhood is cancelled! Gotta learn how to slave right from the infancy.

Also, where's it going to _go_ to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com