A conservative economics prof says no – or not necessarily:
”I’ve summarized about twenty-five books that have been written in the last three years. And, if you notice something, they share a fundamental assumption: that machines are capable of replacing us.”
At the time of the American revolution, he reminded the audience, 95% of the population lived and worked on farms because they had to. Today, about 1 percent do. “So does that mean that 94% of the population is unemployed? Of course not!” He agrees that there will be displacement and disruption as mechanization gives us resources to create new and different jobs: “Anything that can get automated will get automated. That’s a really good rule of thumb.” More.
I think Richards is right if we are talking about an educated population that uses AI to increase productivity and offer more services. The renovation specialist, for example, can use AI to show you how her new concept for your living room would look with your furniture much more quickly than if she had to do drawings for you by hand. AI isn’t going to replace her because the machine does not have any ideas of its own.
And at one time only a duchess could afford her. Now lots of people can.
But people whose only commitment to the work force is a repetitive job that involves no creativity are, I fear, in for a rough ride. One thing they will be, of course, is enthusiastic voters for welfare state government simply because they have few other options.
See also: Amazon pulls out of the New York City deal “From the beginning, it was clear that Amazon was seeking to build a second headquarters because of the extremely hostile climate of Seattle, where it is headquartered. AOC and other progressives in New York did everything they could to repeat the mistakes of Seattle.” –
Can training for an AI future be trusted to bureaucrats? We hear so much about how the AI revolution gobbles industrial era jobs that we don’t notice the digital era jobs unfilled.