Will AGI take jobs or will it evolve jobs and create new industries?

[minecraftaddict21]

Hi Guys

 

Will AGI take all jobs or will it evolve them and change the nature of the job and create new industries?I am not talking about A.I as it is today or ASI but in the future let's say 2060?

 

Or will there be a utopia in 2060 where people get a universal basic income and people do what they want to do such as gardening, travel, reading, Full Dive VR Gaming etc?

 

Thanks

[YellowJersey]

Probably not. CGP Grey did a great video on this. While the tech sector has created new jobs, his conclusion was that it didn't create more jobs than it destroyed. I don't hold out much hope for the future.

[spartaman64]

net? it will probably destroy the majority of jobs. in the future maybe being unemployed will become the norm. 

[Monkey Dust]

Looking at the birthrate in most western countries we're going to have to survive with fewer workers, relative to the retired population, in the future. So eliminating the need for labour in some sectors in a couple or more decades isn't necessarily a bad thing.

 

We one day may reach a point at which human labour has no value, at that point we'll just have to change how our economy works. The laws of economics change with society, and it's needs, it's not a fundamental law, it's not physics. 

[wasab]

 

Jobs got replace is a good thing. Once all labors are replace by AIs and machine, all humans can live off of universal basic income and be complete hedonists and let our robotic slaves tend to our every needs and desires. Money is no longer relevant, if we want something, we simply ask for it and everything will be readily available because we would have archive post scarcity. After all, we have matter converters and matter in the universe is infinite. We have zero point quantum reactors and so infinite energy. 

[YellowJersey]

I really don't share the optimism of "All labour is replaced by machines so humans will be free to do whatever we want." I see the vast majority of humanity being left behind because a lot of people subscribe to the mentality of "the world does not owe you a living. If you didn't work for it then you don't deserve it." You see glimpses of this in The Expanse where the masses live in poverty living on UBI while only a very small class of elites enjoy the fruit of the automation revolution. We see this mentality today in that businesses deliberately destroy perfectly good product that they can't sell rather than give it away.

 Hell, we could solve poverty and world hunger today but we choose not to because "they didn't do anything to earn it" is something hardwired into our brains. It's literally cheaper to just give every homeless person a place to live and food to eat than leaving them on the streets, yet we deliberately choose the more expensive option because we take offence to someone getting "something for nothing." (trying not to get political here) Just look at the resistance to universal healthcare in the US; a perfect example of this.

[dalekphalm]

It's a complex question with complex answers.

 

In short, I think AI (proper AI) and continuing automation will eventually lead to the majority of traditional jobs being simply obsolete. Yes, some of that will create new and innovative jobs - such as repair technicians and the engineers that make or design the machines, etc. But that will only be a percentage of the jobs that will be lost in the process.

 

How we deal with it from there is going to be an issue. @YellowJersey hits the nail on the head. Even if we do come up with a UBI initiative of some kind, there exist plenty of people who are inherently selfish, and have the opinion that they're not obligated to lift a finger for their neighbours, and that if someone doesn't "work to earn it", they don't deserve money or help.

 

In an idealized utopian society, such as Star Trek's The Federation, the economy has changed enough that most people in the core worlds can life a life of what we would consider perfection and ease, not having to worry about food or money - it's not exactly explained in detail, but some kind of UBI system must exist for consumables and luxury items.

 

On the flip side you have the United Nations of Earth's UBI program from The Expanse, where rich people have everything, and poor people are on a UBI that barely provides for them, and they essentially live in poverty.

 

The Expanse is much more realistic, but the reality could be anywhere in between.

[dalekphalm]

8 hours ago, comander said:

Here's one issue. Peoples' standards escalate upwards with time. 

This is true, but at the same time, technological innovation can help keep pace with that.

8 hours ago, comander said:

Today's working poor, in terms of income (though not necessarily psychological well being), would be the envy of the "middle class" of the 1800s. HVAC. Supercomputer in their pocket. Washing machines.

This is true, as those technologies became cheaper and cheaper.

8 hours ago, comander said:

20ish hours of work a week vs 60-100 on a farm. 

I get the feeling you don't have a good idea of what "working poor" means. Most working poor are working multiple dead end jobs, and are likely working a lot more than 20 hours per week. Some, certainly yes.

8 hours ago, comander said:

Another issue - $100 in one person's hands isn't as good as in another's. Some people (myself earlier in life) are better at stretching a dollar... and some (step parent) have an AWFUL quality of life while spending far more and they don't even know they have a problem... while speeding towards bankruptcy and propped up only by others' largesse. 

Yes different people have different levels of financial ability. Some are irresponsible, others are not.

8 hours ago, comander said:

The only way I could see Star Trek working would be bio-engineering the stupid (and greed and anxiety and...) out of a few billion people... which is hard and ethically dubious. 

Obviously you're not going to change ever stupid behaviour some people have, but certainly there's a lot we can do in simply designing a system that can help protect an idiot from their own decisions, especially regarding things like money vs essential needs. You won't stop them all, certainly, but you can mitigate the problems.

 

And besides that, just because morons exist doesn't mean we can simply ignore the problem. AI and automation are happening already, and in 100 years, it'll be a problem that must be dealt with (sooner than 100 years in my opinion - the planning must start now).

 

There quite simply won't be enough jobs for everyone, unless government's start instituting work programs where you employ people doing made up "make work" (and whether that's a good solution or not would depend on who you ask).

[dalekphalm]

25 minutes ago, comander said:

If you're defining it based on the US poverty level...

Not an American, so no, I wouldn't be basing that off of US Poverty levels.

25 minutes ago, comander said:

$10/hr at ~20 hours a week gets you right at around that threshold, assuming 0 government subsidies. For a household of 3 it'd require 2x that income though. I lived off of (in terms of rent/living expenses, not tuition and school supplies) something like $7000/yr when the level was 10k during college. Not fun. Definitely doable. 

 

"back in my day" the usual complaint of people at my dead end survival job (let's call it "totally not Wal-Mart") complained about their hours being cut/low moreso than anything else. I started at around $7 an hour in a high COL area around 15 years ago. Would not recommend - I wish I did something more similar to what I assume your path was (going into IT at an earlyish age). I feel like I would've loved it. 

The point being, the issue in the 1800's was that you worked very long hours for little to no pay. Now, even if we assume that the primary issue is lack of hours, it's because businesses aren't giving enough hours to workers, and their pay is still shit (just not as shit as in the 1800's).

25 minutes ago, comander said:

Somewhat tangential but Roman soldiers built roads. I don't see why the US military doesn't have a construction & engineering corps. 

The US Military does have a Corps of Engineering. They do build stuff - and sometimes even domestic infrastructure projects, but I don't think they're involved in typical road building.

[Rybo]

On 4/30/2021 at 12:58 PM, dalekphalm said:

In an idealized utopian society, such as Star Trek's The Federation, the economy has changed enough that most people in the core worlds can life a life of what we would consider perfection and ease, not having to worry about food or money - it's not exactly explained in detail, but some kind of UBI system must exist for consumables and luxury items.

I guess it's UBI in the most generic sense of the term, but Star Trek is a post scarcity society.  It literally doesn't cost anybody anything to create food or water: if you have a person with needs, just replicate them a replicator.  After that, all you need is the raw elements for the replicator to work with (energy being so abundant as to be free).  

I think our immediate future will be different.  We'll convert more heavily into a service oriented society.  We currently undervalue human connections because we take them for granted, but (as this Pandemic has laid bare for all to see), we NEEEEEEED human contact, even if it's in the form of a stupid ignorant teenager telling you about the sound card that you definitely need to buy because your motherboard definitely doesn't have one. 

So yeah, there will be a Wal Mart of services occupied by A.I. servicers, but many people will opt out of those in favor of technically inferior products from humans with whom they can empathize and connect.  Having an actual human help you to, for example, pick a countertop or write up a legal document will be seen as a valuable luxury.  

Or the AGI will decide we're inferior and atomize us in an atomic fireball.  Only time will tell!

[dalekphalm]

9 minutes ago, Rybo said:

I guess it's UBI in the most generic sense of the term, but Star Trek is a post scarcity society.  It literally doesn't cost anybody anything to create food or water: if you have a person with needs, just replicate them a replicator.  After that, all you need is the raw elements for the replicator to work with (energy being so abundant as to be free).  

Replicators are one of those things in Star Trek that are extremely inconsistent.

 

In theory the tech is supposed to work by retrieving raw elemental matter from a stockpile within the ship - likely using transporter tech. But in practice, it often just works as magic, because the writers didn't care or know about that "in universe" technical detail, or the story demanded that they ignore it.

 

But you also have to remember that the entire Federation, let alone the rest of the galaxy is not a post-scarcity society. If you live on a fringe world or a colony world (Eg: near the Cardassian DMZ), you likely have very little if any access to a replicator, and you wouldn't have access to vast stores of the raw materials needed to make it work.

9 minutes ago, Rybo said:

I think our immediate future will be different.  We'll convert more heavily into a service oriented society.  We currently undervalue human connections because we take them for granted, but (as this Pandemic has laid bare for all to see), we NEEEEEEED human contact, even if it's in the form of a stupid ignorant teenager telling you about the sound card that you definitely need to buy because your motherboard definitely doesn't have one. 

Perhaps - but even in situations like that, it'll be one or two kids working at a physical retail store. Those jobs will not make up for the ones lost in the transition to automation.

9 minutes ago, Rybo said:

So yeah, there will be a Wal Mart of services occupied by A.I. servicers, but many people will opt out of those in favor of technically inferior products from humans with whom they can empathize and connect.  Having an actual human help you to, for example, pick a countertop or write up a legal document will be seen as a valuable luxury.  

A luxury that likely will become more and more unaffordable to the average person.

9 minutes ago, Rybo said:

Or the AGI will decide we're inferior and atomize us in an atomic fireball.  Only time will tell!

Well you know, can't really predict if that'll happen lol.

 

A UBI of some sort is going to be required, I think, in the long run. Either that, or we'll have to re-invent the economy in a vast and different way that we cannot even predict right now, but I just don't see where all the jobs would come from. Governments can regulate and limit automation to preserve human jobs, but other governments will be like *FUCK IT!* and let automation run rampant there, drawing in big businesses (same issue right now with cheap labour in some parts of the world).

 

So until we get the entire world to agree on some basic frameworks, there will always be problems, and there will be loopholes around any short term fixes.

[Rybo]

1 hour ago, dalekphalm said:

Replicators are one of those things in Star Trek that are extremely inconsistent.

 

In theory the tech is supposed to work by retrieving raw elemental matter from a stockpile within the ship - likely using transporter tech. But in practice, it often just works as magic, because the writers didn't care or know about that "in universe" technical detail, or the story demanded that they ignore it.

I haven't watched the entire canon, but they seem pretty consistent to me.  In general, there's enough stockpile that it doesn't warrant mention.  Voyager, however, mentions it from time to time -- they're often on replicator rations and talk about the need for raw materials and the like, and they often talk about recycling goods.  In fact, there's a recurring race in the show that DOESN'T recycle their waste and it always comes up how Voyager is good at recycling.  

 

Quote

Perhaps - but even in situations like that, it'll be one or two kids working at a physical retail store. Those jobs will not make up for the ones lost in the transition to automation.

Quite the opposite -- I'm talking about services as well, not goods exclusively, and there will be MORE employees at these places, not fewer.  I'm already consistently pissed whenever I walk into Lowes and can't ask a simple question for lack of an available employee.  Honestly I think our future will resemble our pre-Internet past: when you needed a service, you talked to a human.  When you needed to understand what kind of good you had to get, you talked to a human.  There will always be the POSSIBILITY of using an AI to make your decision for you, but as that becomes more ubiquitous, the human element will become more valuable.  

Now, I'm sure there will be a "reckoning" as we're sorta seeing here where automation is making a select few hyperproductive at the expense of the lowest class, but such changes are always generational.  We are probably already raising the generation that says "I DON'T WANT TO ASK GOOGLE.  GET ME A HUMAN TO HELP ME."  As they grow up, the economy will sort itself around them as it's currently doing during our temporary infatuation with limiting human interaction.  

Quote

A luxury that likely will become more and more unaffordable to the average person.

This is where I think a lot of the CGP Grey apocalypse crowd fall off the rails.  You don't become a multinational conglomerate by having a tiny, rich customer base.  If your hyperproductive AGI farm is generating quintillions of servings of delicious rice, it's still worthless if there's nobody to buy it.  Same with all kinds of nonessential consumer goods.  Thus, the economy won't sort itself in such a way as to render the masses unable to buy goods.  I feel like that scenario only plays out if we envision humanity as a whole as a collection of mindless automata with this algorithm for consumption: buy cheapest thing possible.  That's not us today, so it probably won't be us tomorrow, either.  

I'm predicting that the situation will sort itself out by making human interaction a valuable selling point.  Business makes a thing.  Humans want to buy it from other humans, so business employs humans.  Those humans can buy stuff.  At the lowest level, the humans will buy the AGI rice.  Better-off humans will buy Certified Manmade in Origin (CMO) crops.  (we're already there, aren't we?  Penny pinchers just buy eggs.  I buy freerange eggs, but I'm not quite elite enough to care about organic stuff!)

The change could manifest in any number of ways, but I just don't see the apocalypse scenario.