A.I. will create more jobs that can’t be filled, not mass unemployment

[AeneasBK]

Exactly. Higher profit margins due to lower costs for human labour.

Someone was trying to explain to me that as the value of human labour goes down and down, the DEMAND for it should go up massively because of economics. I wasn't convinced.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems like he missed Intro to Economics and assumes that demand is unlimited?

119th richest guy in the world I@m sure he understands business better than I do, but it seems a little 2 dimensional to look at it in this way.

[I Push Buttons]

So why wouldn't an A.I. fill these jobs.... eventually?

Some argue it would.

[Deleted]

119th richest guy in the world I@m sure he understands business better than I do, but it seems a little 2 dimensional to look at it in this way.

The business being him likely still having stocks in a company that will be a big player on the AI market.

[Zantos]

We are a very long way off of this being an issue. I am of the firm believe that as soon as we get to the point of this being a possibility, AI rights will start to need to be discussed. For example, take a stocker at walmart. Why can't they be automated? Size. They are small enough to be able to move through out the isles without being in the customers way. They are also capable of acting as customer service personnel for helping and greeting customers. A robot right now would be too big and would not interact with customers. There are ways to automate stores, but only for smaller stores by making them run on vending machines. Sure, you could add tubes, but those tubes need to be filled and built.

Then you have cost. By the time robots can be small enough and work efficiently enough, they will need to be nearly humanoid with an AI. They would cost a huge amount of money. It would be cheaper just to keep a human who can also help and greet customers to ensure they are kept happy. Once they add AI, then you get to AI rights debates.

In a nut shell, I don't see AI taking away jobs, Nor do I see them creating jobs. I do however, see them creating a whole new rights movement and a new discussion on morals and robot rights.

[belfpala]

119th richest guy in the world I@m sure he understands business better than I do, but it seems a little 2 dimensional to look at it in this way.

Let's pull back to burger flipping. And let's forget AI and automation.

Let's say Burger Flipper A can flip and serve 100 burgers in an hour. Let's say Burger Flipper B is just better and can do 150. But Burger Joint only sells 40 burgers per hour.

It doesn't matter if Burger Flipper gets more productive. The place would be alright with Burger Flipper C who can only handle 50 per hour.

Or maybe I'm completely missing his point.

[Kontinuum]

An AI running on my computer can't move furniture from a store into my house. That was part of his point.

Yes, some tasks require hardware (broadly speaking). I think Schmidt knows that.

The business being him likely still having stocks in a company that will be a big player on the AI market.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Career

[Zantos]

Let's pull back to burger flipping. And let's forget AI and automation.

Let's say Burger Flipper A can flip and serve 100 burgers in an hour. Let's say Burger Flipper B is just better and can do 150. But Burger Joint only sells 40 burgers per hour.

It doesn't matter if Burger Flipper gets more productive. The place would be alright with Burger Flipper C who can only handle 50 per hour.

Or maybe I'm completely missing his point.

This may be, but during the down time, they can also have them do other tasks that are not just about flipping burgers. A lot of companies utilize this, especially with their managers.

[AeneasBK]

Let's pull back to burger flipping. And let's forget AI and automation.

Let's say Burger Flipper A can flip and serve 100 burgers in an hour. Let's say Burger Flipper B is just better and can do 150. But Burger Joint only sells 40 burgers per hour.

It doesn't matter if Burger Flipper gets more productive. The place would be alright with Burger Flipper C who can only handle 50 per hour.

Or maybe I'm completely missing his point.

I think you're inexperienced if you think burger flippers only flip burgers. At least in the fast food restaurants I worked in, if I had a machine-arm to flip the burgers (fyi who flips burgers (?) they use a double sided grill plate) then I could have used the time free'd to do anything else. Essentially a kitchen that required 5 peopel to run, would start only needing 4 people. Eventually as each process is more automated, you will have 1 guy greeting customers taking orders and serving them over the counter.

Where you had 5 jobs meeting a demand of 500 meals of an evening, you will need 1 job to meet the demand of 500 meals of an evening. Oh and for every 500 stores you'll need a handful of guys to maintain the machines if/when they break down.

Someone in the other thread was explianing that what would actually happen is the meal would cost 1/5 its price and you'd actually still need 5 peopel because suddenly you needed to serve 2500 meals of an evening because they got cheaper. Which kinda ignores the fact that people only need one meal of an evening, not 5, regardless of how cheap they get.

[belfpala]

I think you're inexperienced if you think burger flippers only flip burgers. At least in the fast food restaurants I worked in, if I had a machine-arm to flip the burgers (fyi who flips burgers (?) they use a double sided grill plate) then I could have used the time free'd to do anything else. Essentially a kitchen that required 5 peopel to run, would start only needing 4 people. Eventually as each process is more automated, you will have 1 guy greeting customers taking orders and serving them over the counter.

Where you had 5 jobs meeting a demand of 500 meals of an evening, you will need 1 job to meet the demand of 500 meals of an evening. Oh and for every 500 stores you'll need a handful of guys to maintain the machines if/when they break down.

Simplification was simplification. You don't even need that one guy if no one wants what he's serving.

[AeneasBK]

Simplification was simplification. You don't even need that one guy if no one wants what he's serving.

hehe yeah not sure what I was trying to achieve with the first few lines ;p

[Deleted]

The main issue is if in a gig-world people will be taken care off, or not. If there's not a decent social system in place, it will become uncomfortable for many.

[Deleted]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Schmidt#Career

That says he is still executive chairman of google, so it's extremely unlikely he sold his shares. whats your point?

[Mittens]

Some argue it would.

Humans need not to apply was better, at least that one doesn't try to (wrongly) use economic trends to push an agenda.

[Deleted]

Holy shit, what a unappreciative dick. I get what he's trying to say, that his workers would preform better with more advanced tools, but what a douchey way to word it.

No, it's not, he said exactly what he meant. Recall: even now workers at Amazon logi facilities (giant warehouses, really) are outfitted with a special gizmo that tracks them in real time via GPS and continuously feeds them info regarding where to go and what to pick up next, complete with angry beeping if the worker is not moving for more than whatever time (10 secs), escalating to low mgmt if the unscheduled stop is longer (say, 60 - pulling numbers out of my arse, would have to check).

The argument here is - every single worker in our economy should get that, somehow. Sigh in exasperation and get fined 2$, you wasteful lazy shit. That's your master's time you're a-wastin'!

[Independent voter]

A lot of us these days work at a computer a hundred percent of the time, I think these desk jobs are pretty vulnerable. Something like the janitor that cleans the place? His job is more safer I think, he mops stairs, dusts off desks without knocking over stuff and can spot stains in carpets, things that are hard for a robot to do. Also he doesn't get paid as much so there's less reason to automate a janitor's job.

[Deleted]

A lot of us these days work at a computer a hundred percent of the time, I think these desk jobs are pretty vulnerable.

Your intuition is correct, the greatest % reduction in jobs now is in low level IT, due to automatization of simple support, testing or maintenance jobs. Practically every large IT corporation has been putting very big money in developing solutions to do this.

[Zmaniac17]

A.I. taking everyone's jobs would be a good thing, if people decided not to be so greedy. If robots did everything, then nobody would have to work. Of course that is entirely dependent on the people who own the robots not taking advantage of their power to reduce supply in order to extort more than their share. I just don't see that happening. Not everything has to be a struggle but collectively it seems humans just wanna make it that way.

[Airlick]

If a machine can be maintained by 5 people and does a job of 100 uneducated workers faster, more reliably and probably cheaper, how does it create jobs for said workers? It creates jobs for 5 maintenance workers. It also probably creates some posts in logistics and offices. But it won't create 100 jobs. So in a way, the guy from the article is right. AI will create jobs that can't be filled. There's already a shortage of IT specs, it will only get worse if automation goes faster than we can get enough IT specs out on the labour market. And none of these workers will suddenly get proper education for said jobs.

[Deleted]

A.I. taking everyone's jobs would be a good thing, if people decided not to be so greedy. If robots did everything, then nobody would have to work. Of course that is entirely dependent on the people who own the robots not taking advantage of their power to reduce supply in order to extort more than their share. I just don't see that happening. Not everything has to be a struggle but collectively it seems humans just wanna make it that way.

I admire your optimism

[belfpala]

hehe yeah not sure what I was trying to achieve with the first few lines ;p

As long as we can teach our Burger-matic-tron to shit talk while it does all its jobs, I'm in

- - - Updated - - -

A.I. taking everyone's jobs would be a good thing, if people decided not to be so greedy. If robots did everything, then nobody would have to work. Of course that is entirely dependent on the people who own the robots not taking advantage of their power to reduce supply in order to extort more than their share. I just don't see that happening. Not everything has to be a struggle but collectively it seems humans just wanna make it that way.

People have been talking about this since the... 50s? earlier?

In short, we have almost everything automated. Nobody has to work, and gets a basic lifestyle from all the automation going on. One can choose to do more (art, science, things that automation isn't very good at), and earn a better lifestyle.

Idealism, sure, but the idea has been around.