Will artificial intelligence take all our jobs or will it create more jobs for people?

Will AI(Artificial Intelligence)eventually take all jobs that are currently done by humans or will it create more jobs for people

I am not talking about A.I as it is today or but in the future lets say 2050-2100

Or humans will be able to adapt to AI and find new sorts of work in an emerging industry (Or the next generation of jobs) or re-skill and change their nature of their work or AI may even complement humans but not replace them.

Or AI is over-hyped and it will only ever slightly increase unemployment rate from the current percentage now to 20%-40% worldwide

Or there will be a utopia in 2060 where people get a universal basic income and where people do whatever they want such as travel, gaming etc and let AI take all the jobs and everyday will be like a weekend/public holiday.

Many Thanks

1 Like

first off there is no artificial intelligence. its a buzz word like the cloud.
in reality what businesses call ai is just a search and correlate engine.
there is no thought/mind behind them and any business that is going to replace its workers with ai will fail and fail quick.
unless they are in the AI production business.

automation on the other hand thats real and yes your jobs will be replaced.
will it create more jobs. sorta yes. about 10% of the jobs automation will replace will have to be filled by engineers to keep the automatics running. so yeah more in that they dont exist yet and will have to be filled.
but still only 10% of the original jobs.

5 Likes

AI and robots have already taken over a fair amount of jobs. The tendency is for it to get worse. As we live in a capitalist world, where people don’t seem able to fathom the idea of having everyone do whatever they want as everything has been automated, people with simpler skills are just going to starve and die.

1 Like

To expand on this, we also have been creating more and more useless jobs hints at management for the sole purpose that some people need to bullshit their way into a salary.

1 Like

Or, given the efficiency of using robots/automation for a lot of industries, at what point do the unemployed people allow it to continue, and when will the people rise up and seize the means of production? overthrow our inevitable robotic overlords

2 Likes

This is an improbable outcome. The state has far too many tools to impede this kind of movement. Both socially and through weaponry.

2 Likes

I think we should throw our clogs in the looms…

[As in the origin of Sabotage, was workers throwing their clogs (sabot) into the looms, when they were automated into destitution]

2 Likes

AI and Machine learning are marketing phrases right now. Business are looking to replace mid to high salaries that are doing some low level in some places. What some people call busy work. They either want the positions gone or get them focused on more productive items.

Where I work we are working on “AI” to answer the simple questions that people ask us all the time so we can work on bigger issues. There will be a point were this so called AI will plateau. We are about 10 to 15 years away from any good AI that can even start to do more complicated problem solving when interacting with people.

2 Likes

Modern Artificial Intelligence has been taking jobs for over half a century. The main problem with appreciating the scope of job ‘losses’ is that “AI” keeps getting redefined to exclude the things that AI can do, and only include the things AI can’t yet do.

Once upon a time, the ability for a machine to pick up a fragile object without crushing it was deemed the domain of AI. Now machines flip burgers and rotate eggs in incubators, but that, somehow, is no longer considered AI. Countless other examples exist.

Funding isn’t as available for solved problems, so academics, researchers and doctoral students are always slanting their theses towards unsolved problems, tagging them as AI, and in-so-doing the definition of AI shifts slowly along with the titles of those theses.

Folks who do not appreciate that the current definition of AI is an ever-changing aspirational target will keep pushing dates further and further into the future. Like an oasis or mirage, it will therefore never be reached. “AI is over-hyped” is the sort of thing such people will say.

If, on the other hand, you simply consider the most basic definition of AI — something along the lines of “mechanised human thought” — then AI has existed for thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of years… and taking (or redefining) jobs every step of the way. An abacus is AI.

Historically, AI tended to redefine labour, instead of replace it. That notably changed during the Industrial Revolution. Since then outright replacement has grown as a fraction. With computing in the 20th century, replacement exploded. The limiting factor at the close of that century was that the vast majority of intelligence had to be explicitly programmed. That changed in the first two decades of this century.

Now we have “Machine Learning” as a field, and extraordinary advances have been and continue to be made. The thing that is different, this time in history, is that up until now we decided what the machines knew, and how they thought. We created them in our own image. Now the machines are learning for themselves. We increasingly do not know what they are thinking at any point in time. AI once clearly implied Artificial “Human” Intelligence. That is no longer the case. The AIs we are creating now are still artificial, undeniably more intelligent, but also decreasingly Human.

With all of that as a backdrop, if your period of interest is 2050-2100, then realise that unless you are on the cutting edge of machine learning, your current understanding of AI is almost completely outdated and irrelevant.

Society is increasingly (already almost blindly) trustful of AI. We believe the results calculators spew out. We turn right at the next intersection when the SatNav tells us to. We believe that the primary function of search engines is to help us find answers to questions. Unless that — for some unpredictable and doubtful reason — changes, we will increasingly submit ourselves to whatever AI decides for us.

When the AI was completely Human-like, the decision to trust what it did was a rational one. When the AI is no longer Human-like, does that decision remain rational?

“Will AI take jobs or create jobs?” was a good pre-2000 question. A better 2050-2100 question might be “What role, if any, does AI see for Humanity?

The whole issue of jobs may be irrelevant if Humans have been deemed obsolete, and ‘goal-seeked’ to zero.

4 Likes

Part of the double edged sword of technological advancement is that the barrier to labor market increases. The beauty of this is that people are responsible for less. We used to need tons of people to, for example, tend crops, but now with technology, that is largely automated. Those people can be put to work elsewhere. But this creates a problem. What happens when too many people are simply not smart enough to enter a labor market anymore? How do they survive? This is a difficult question, but is survival a goal, or should you strive for a meaningful life?

As more people are “IQ’d out” of the labor market, pressure on government to solve this problem will increase. I doubt any government solution will be satisfactory, so the question becomes: will we begin to purposely make our lives more challenging by choosing to forego some of the comforts and luxuries provided by a modern society as a means to provide meaning in life?

3 Likes

As an administrative side note, I like where this discussion is headed, but let’s try to be mindful of not delving too much into political silliness. This is obviously very closely dovetailed with government policy when it comes to addressing displaced workers.

3 Likes
While I hold my opinion as true, it is not really relevant to the purpose of the thread

I think a problem is people have not reduced reproduction as quickly as technology has removed jobs from the market. (Also, better health and diet have increased the lifespan of us, regardless of how few jobs are left)

1 Like

That’s not true at all. Nearly all western nations are below replacement rate, and China is absolutely destroyed, with a fertility rate of 1.16. (2.1 being replacement rate)

China notwithstanding (one child policy fallout), it’s pretty clear that a rising quality of life is correlated with a lower birth rate amongst educated individuals.

However, educated individuals are also showing higher levels of dissatisfaction in life. I posit that having children, continuing your genetic line, is a primary biological drive and gives immense long term satisfaction. Pair that with a decreasing population in western nations and you know what you have to do, nerds.

1 Like

@level1 your confusing AI with algorithms and automation.
real ai has to be able to pass the turing test and convince a human it is capable of free formed thoughts.
anything else is automation.

dont be fooled by marketing AI isnt a real thing until machines can do maybe, rather than just yes and no.
the maybe is where the real decision making is, and you cant do maybe with binary.
no matter how well its marketed.

your right about automation though… it has and will replace jobs for the foreseeable future.

2 Likes

Ultimately whatever jobs can be mechanized, will, and eventually there’ll be such an economic revolt that rather than try to pull more money that doesn’t exist, shits just gunna fall out underneath. So yeah, ai will do all the jobs atp.

1 Like

I don’t think it will. What I think it’s gonna happen is that more and more jobs and studying fields will be directed towards improving those systems that replaced us in some fields. And will also drive up even more the requirements for jobs that nowadays do not require much in the way of studying (but are not to be considered inferior jobs in any way, shape or form).
Also a pervasive substitution of human beings I don’t think will ever happen, a utopia where humans are serving the AI that’s doing all the work we used to do.

P.S. I agree on the over hyping of AI and I think it’s due to people not having even a single clue of what an AI is and how it works. It’s waaay less intelligent than people make it out to be and, as of now, I see it more as a v2 way of writing algorithms.

2 Likes
We are already struggling to create jobs. What are excess humans to do?

I’m surprised, I thought you would be against UBI/welfare state?

The Jobs that are being replaced, are currently carried out by all levels of society, but we are less worried about the migrants losing out (gotta look after our own first)

1 Like

You are misunderstanding me.

Western nations are having a net loss of people, birth over death.

Reducing that even more would be devastating to our countries.

Anyone arguing for people to have less kids either doesn’t understand the situation or is actively trying to damage the country they are in.

Never said I was in favor. Just implied it’s likely to happen.

An interesting side note is that the us has an endless supply of jobs for people in the top 85% of intelligence. Military.

Below the 15th percentile, it is illegal to induct someone into the military because it would be counterproductive to teach them to clean bathrooms. At least that’s what the army found in the 50s I think it was?

Which poses an interesting concern right now, as opposed to this nebulous “sometime later” that is forever looming with automation. We have opted to accept an underclass of society that is not taken care of and is selected against. (I’m not making a statement on the ethics of it, just the nature of reality)

This is exactly my concern. This bridges too close to politics for my taste, but it’s an interesting situation. We accept migrants because we are below replacement level. We are below replacement level because labor is cheap. Labor is cheap because we accept migrants. :thonk:

2 Likes

Wait, we already have net unemployment, despite migrant workers.
Automation is removing more jobs from the market.
Why would we push to Increase the population when there is already too few jobs?

At the moment, there is the luxury of some people to choose not to work, and we allow migrants to take less desirable jobs.

Do you see a sudden change in this situation Sarge? Or a reversal, where everyone who wants to be productive can be?

This is besides the idle/unmotivated people…

1 Like

Are you talking about the us standard for unemployment (lost job in the last 6 months, with no checkup for if they found new work or are looking) or labor participation rate?

Even still, they’re both bad metrics.

I’m not talking about increasing population. I’m talking about increasing meaning in an individual’s life. We can’t have a discussion about automation without a discussion about meaning.

I do not. I see a change in the way the world operates for the positive if more people in western nations maintain replacement rate fertility.

1 Like