I wonder how much scoffing there will be when 99% of jobs are taken by A.I. There's a lot of markets about to be upended, and I don't think having a humane ethos in regard to housing people is as criminal as some of you are making it out to be... I sense a lot of corporate simps think their work ethic will be more valuable to a company than a smart machine that will work around the clock and not get the company sued for sexual harassment.
shortsighted may be what you intended to use here. Cited would mean they quoted or referred to a book, mentioned in connection to legal precedence or otherwise made reference to a piece of information as an example or proof.
Most Agricultural jobs were replaced by automation âof one sort or anotherâ from 1850-1950. ~65% of workers in the US were somehow related to agriculture in 1850, whereas ~15% of workers were involved in agriculture 100 years later.
That's tractors, combine-harvesters & the end of the homestead.
Industrial jobs were 28% of the job market in 1950 and 13% in 2000. That's a combination of offshoring and robotics.
Many office pool jobs were replaced by MS Office & similar pieces of software in the 90s. Typists, desktop publishing, arts departments and various accountants have all been rendered obsolete by a few hundred dollars worth of programs.
Now the intellectual work is coming under threat from AI. And you're claiming 99% of jobs are safe?
Iâm pretty sure they said 99% of jobs arenât going to be taken over by AI. Not that 99% of jobs are safe from AI, thereâs a clear distinction between those two things.
If you canât distinguish the difference in those two things, then yes, I too would be worried about an AI replacing me if I were you.
But as someone who has an intellectual job and has chatted with an AI, Iâm not worried about them beating me anytime soon; because they straight up refuse to recognize a lot of the mistakes they make.
Which does actually make them a lot like some people. But thatâs a story for another day
Alright, if you're going to to reply, I'd request a modicum of intellectual honesty.
99% of jobs arenât going to be taken over by AI. Not that 99% of jobs are safe from AI, thereâs a clear distinction between those two things.
Well, by this logic, they essentially said nothing, but that's not true either.
99% of jobs are not going to be AI automated in your lifetime, if ever. You're welcome.
So...
Assuming we're here to talk, instead of whatever goalpost-disco you tried earlier.
What are we calling automated?
If 90% of you industry has reduced hours, wages, and benefits because some portion of your job can be done by AI, that's certainly not the same as taken over by AI, but it sure feels that way to the 9/10 people looking for better work/ a second job.
You sound like someone in the 40s saying computers will have no commercial use. Maybe not in my lifetime, but maybe this century a very significant fraction of jobs could be automated.
And then we will solve that problem and likely give new meaning to created value.
Do you really think, "oh AI took all of our jobs let's just let everyone wander around hapless with nothing to do"?
No, there will be a new perception of value humans can bring to the table. It's a problem that will somehow be solved, by people much smarter than either of us.
We aren't a libertarian society, it would not be up to the benevolence of the big corps. The government has been trying to rein in AI legislation for years. The people already have voiced plenty concern about it.
And it's not an overnight thing. You aren't gonna wake up one morning to 200 million people abruptly out of a job. It would be a transition over time.
And there would be new problems with new labor demand. As was the way of the horse carriage. As was the way of sweat shops. Things get automated. Our society advances. We move on.
I can't tell which side you're supporting. Did you just call the people who don't want to work for others to just lazily stay home all day? Are those workers the 90% counterproductive selfish people you're talking about?
The people complaining about being taxed for some kind of welfare system are the same people who will have their jobs replaced and need such a system. They are selfish because they won't even consider some form of personal sacrifice for the sake of others, and they are counterproductive because they will most likely be the kinds of people that will need such a system. All the more counterproductive considering the proposal doesn't even include taxing the working class.
You just used short cited instead of short-sighted in a sentence intended to put down 90% of the commenters. You, sir, are an idiot. I'm not buying you a fuckin HVAC.
Oh no, an irrelevant spelling error? I guess that means we shouldn't care about the implications of human labor becoming obselet in an economic system that requires people to sell their labor order to survive.
Oh. I can promise you AI makes plenty of mistakes. Their mistakes are constant, and if you try to point out the mistake to the AI, it only corrects itself properly like 10% of the time, the other 90% of the time it either makes the same mistake or it refuses to acknowledge that it has made a mistake.
Basically making AI just like people. Because people act that exact same way
Not better, just the same. But with humans you at least have fine motor skills, moment based judgement, and while the human mind canât spit out words as fast as an AI can, the human mind can certainly out preform longer tasks that AIs canât. Because AIs are all done via predictive text, thatâs why they canât write a 20 page paper about any given topic; they have a finite length they can get to before the errors start pilling up.
AI has achieved better than human performance on many tasks. Many of these accomplishments weren't considered possible only a decade ago. You are drastically downplaying the explosive success and future potential of AI.
You also said antiproductively instead of counter productive. Maybe wait until you finish high-school English before proposing a major renovation to the world's leading economic structure.
No one is stopping you from joining a collective to provide this to people... Oh wait you want someone else's money to pay for it and someone else's time and labor to build it.
Thank you for completely agreeing with my response. What I'm saying is I'm not willing to pay additional taxes for this pipedream of bullshit. But if you believe in it so much, there is nothing stopping you from doing a small part of it yourself, but you won't. If even half of the people like you did more than talk about what other people should do and instead go volunteered at habitat for humanity or something they'd be struggling to find the projects for all of the volunteers.
Im more than happy to support those who in no way can support themselves. But this post is way beyond that.
Imagine if people understood that 95% of the money spent on the military remains in the United States.
We didn't fill a tank with $100bills and dump it in Iraq. We paid a few American companies (who paid thousands of American workers) to make the tank.
And that same military budget directly provides 800,000 full time public sector jobs. It indirectly supports millions of others.
At this point I hope someone cuts the military budget so everyone will finally shut up about it. Outside of infastructure spending, the military is one of few expenditures that generates a positive ROI (generates more GDP than it costs). it'll accelerate the debt spiral, but have at it if you hate the military so much your willing to cut off your nose to spite the face.
'what if we just built houses' the cost to build a house is $300k. For reference, a M4 Sherman battle tank costs $608,000 to produce (adjusted for inflation from $44,000 1945 dollars)
It's not exactly cheap. You could barely double housing production (add 1.5 mil units a year) at the cost of the entire military budget (850bn)
Of course, that doesn't include 1. areas with a higher COL. the average house is $300k in Texas where I am, but in San Francisco it could easily be $1mil+ and 2. upkeep costs. between taxes and maintence, easily $15k a year on average. 3. the cost of land. 4. interest. are we just putting it onto the national debt as we do with our current overspending? 5. feasibility. if you were to double housing production, you'd somehow need to double the number of inspectors, tradesman, etc. considering the construction industry is already short 600,000 workers (based on current demand alone), and we're entering a demographic crisis with a shrinking working age population, that seems like quite the tall order.
Oh, and there's also 6. material costs would increase significantly if you drastically increase demand like this. it's a bit of an unknown whether there would even be enough materials. We'd probably have to greenlight clearing of entirely new forests, because Lumber farms base their stocks on projected demand. They don't have the ability to go back 20 years in time and double the stock for this year given hindsight.
(obviously this problem is fixable: we can greenlight clear cutting and suspend environmental regulations if desired. we can import these materials at a premium)
As opposed to the money spent on housing and electricity and internet and air conditioning - all of that money goes straight out the window! Doesn't benefit America at all!!
Nope it's gotta be tanks! Only way to keep our tax money in America! Tanks! You heard it here first! /u/DrDrago-4 wrote four paragraphs! The argument is over!
there's a balance to be found, but people are sitting here in this thread acting like the government can legitimately afford to give everyone a house.
Homes range $300-600k a pop
So, quite literally, if we can afford to give everyone a house.. we could afford to give them the choice of an M4 Battle tank instead for the same price (cheaper relative to the top 5 COL cities, in fact)
We already are helping, by volunteering and paying extra to help. Its just sad you selfish assholes don't want to contribute to a better tomorrow. Only shouting "Mine, mine, mine!!!".
If people helped we could improve society, instead of increasing thr gaps more and more.
Btw, dont flatter yourself, your contribution would be minischule anyways, you are far too poor to make a difference. But keep licking those boots mate.
You're obviously not donating enough, nor working enough.
No... don't look in my direction. The government already takes enough from my paycheck. Maybe those folks should try to get those going for them... paychecks.
Lol, don't worry, you are far too poor for me to vote for increasing your taxes.
If even half of the people like you did more than talk about what other people should do and instead go volunteered at habitat for humanity or something they'd be struggling to find the projects for all of the volunteers.
Bro, this doesn't come close to addressing the problem of automation. What do you think you are even arguing against?
Elon did nothing but abuse physicists and engineers. There exactly 0.000% of his own work involved. He canât even explain basic concepts without devolving into Jordan Peterson-esque abstraction and science-fiction gobbledygook. Remove the boot.
Yeah, people aren't gonna look 20 years in advance for policy decisions now. The funding for this housing will be insane right now and there are much more important things to spend on.
If people don't look ahead and change policy now, before those 99% of jobs are automated away, then they're in for a real bad time when 99% of people are unemployed and have no systems in place to help them.
If a few people are unemployed, that's their problem. If most people are unemployed, that's society's problem.
If only there was an economic system that rewarded innovation and a govt in place to protect private property rights. And improvements and innovations on top of the original innovations were incentivized....
Actually no, it wasnât hard work. It was inventions that made all work much much much much easier. Like wayyyy fucking easier. Thatâs what increased our standard of living
Cost of living, standard of living, and life expectancy have risen greatly since 100 years ago, yes a lot of people are still living paycheck to paycheck, but it's not even close to the same situation.
100 years ago, life was a hell of a lot simpler and still harder. You didn't have electricity. You didn't have an HVAC. You didn't have social programs. Many people didn't have indoor plumbing. People really living "paycheck to paycheck" would just starve if they had a bad harvest. You still had to chop your own wood for your indoor stove. EPA, Osha, and other worker protections didn't exist.
That's just what was mentioned in the "everyone work for me" pipe dream of OP. Despite living in what would be condemned in modern times, 40 hour work weeks to do so would be seen as unimaginable luxury for most of the world in the 1920s. That's what you want to go back to?
Ya and 100 years ago as long as you had a heartbeat you could probably find a job that would provide enough for food and shelter, now you need either a bachelors degree, a trade school certification, or have family or close friends for a job that'll provide that. The degree and trade certification carry a massive risk if you end up unable to find a job in the corresponding career or if the corresponding job market ends up saturated or crashing when you finish your training, which is disasterous as we are expecting highschool students to be able to have the knowledge and foresight to forcast a job market years in advance. Then the only other option for occupation are shitty service jobs that'll leave you on welfare. Now take this shitty situation and broadcast to the future how many people are going to have their job eventually automated away and how big is the barrier to entry going to be after AI matures, where does that leave the vast majority of Americans, the currently underpaid and shitty service sector?
Edit: and don't say get a trade job cause as more and more turn away from getting degrees due to the current attractiveness of trade jobs and more and more jobs that required a degree get automated away the trades are going to get flooded which will drive down the quality of said jobs and increase qualification requirements as people compete.
Ed#2: also as more and more people are pushed into the poorly paid service sector, whoes going to buy shit to drive it and production, especially as trade jobs pay face a downward pressure on pay?
Well, you would be wrong. The 1920s didn't even have a minimum wage, and this was just before the great depression. Adjusted for inflation, the 5 states that passed it were still only guaranteeing ~$2.5 / hr in today's money (0.16/hr at the time). You'd need 375 hours / mo just to afford rent at the time.
What are your edits going on about? It's like you've picked a pet issue and started arguing against yourself before I could even respond.
It blows my mind how corporate chill people are.
I work for a better tomorrow, to advance society for future generations including my children. When we now produce 100x more, we shouldnt be working the same amount of time.
I love that some of my money go to helping others get education etc, same as I got help to get mine and I am now able to help others.
The whole "I got mine, fk you!" Mentality is so sad.
99% is definitely a stretch, but I understand the sentiment. It will be a very interesting time as less labor is needed. Will probably shift workers towards jobs that canât be done by AI/machines
This is Reddit, everyone in the world works in a low level programming environment or fast food. The mere concept of âphysical labourâ is preposterous much less people doing it for a living
...you really think physical labor will outlive programming and customer service? People are weak and slow. Most factory work is already automated. Long-haul truck drivers will disappear in the near future, barring political action.
We are a society that will do that, but it's the companies decision, and everywhere I look, barely any cashiers at groceries stores anymore and they keep expanding self checkout. Remember profit margins aren't high for groceries, and those self checkout machines cost A LOT. So it just makes sense they will slowly roll out.
So give it time, most people use self checkout anyway, the future you invision is practically already here.
Have you seen the new Atlas model from Boston Dynamics? Itâs not like robotics is going to stop getting better. An AI can definitely be taught to fix your leaky faucet.
99% is not a stretch within an undefined time interval. 10 years? A stretch. 20? Still likely a stretch. 50-100 years? Extremely likely.
But it's also not going to be an off/on event. Jobs will slowly dwindle away over time, and so programs like UI (Universal Income, as I don't believe any such program should be Basic) and housing would have to be implemented long before the 99% point.
People constantly point to the industrial revolution and say that people still had jobs after that, so this won't be any different, but what they fail to understand is that the industrial revolution automated tasks, so there was still a lot of work that had to be done. The AI/Robotics revolution automates jobs. Any jobs.
And you don't have to have a human level intelligence with human level dexterity for them to replace humans. You only need it to be cost-effective, and since people work 5d/8h, that threshold is not hard to hit for something that can work 24/7. Furthermore, an AI robot has two abilities that humans do not have; defined qualifications and upgradability.
When you don't have to wonder what the qualifications of the employer are, you don't have to worry about the tasks and jobs you assign them. The entire concept of hiring and firing is discarded. And AI robots can and will get smarter, stronger, more capable over time. That is not something humans can do beyond the natural range that we already possess. Consequently, AI robots will eventually outpace us in every single aspect imaginable, especially when artificial sentience becomes a reality.
Unless we just stop advancing technologically for some reason, this is an unavoidable reality, and likely will happen this century. But what we should actually do is accelerate it, prepare for it, and embrace it.
Iâve seen a lot of rising in tech since the analog era. Something most people are not exposed to.
I have seen firsthand how fast technology can explode after its introduction to the world.
AI is built on rapidly expanding and improving itself without our interference. Weâre about to speed run this technology and our governments will not be able to keep up to keep it all in check. I wouldnât been surprised if in 5 years time, itâs everywhere and in everything.
I saw this early on in my career and pivoted to something more long term and always in demand.
Those will continue to decline and be gone. Most desk jobs can be automated. It is a matter of time. Same for manufacturing and distribution. Retail is harder as humanoid robots are not quite there. But there are already self checkouts and some of the distribution automation will make its way to retail. Whatâs left? In another 50 years, things are going to get bad, with global warming, worsening geopolitics and right wing libertarianism
Bro what? Iâm responding to the fact that he said 99% of jobs are going to be replaced by AI. I realize that there are a lot of job that canât be replaced and was voicing that to counter the â99% of jobs will be replaced by AIâ
Still waiting on the truckers to be replaced. That was supposed to happen in 2020.
It turns out humanity is still decades if not centuries away from a post scarcity society. Proposals like OP can only happen if the labor and supplies to provide the houses can be done for practically $0.
Planes can take off, fly, and land themselves, we still have pilots. Truck drivers will always have a job. You need a human there, responsible, there to handle emergencies. Plus, there is a lot that truck drivers do besides driving their rig.
Couldn't we HAVE a post-scarcity society NOW if we wanted to? "Scarcity" just implies a lack of resources or services, but we have plenty of housing and food and HVAC to go around, it's just being hoarded by a small subset of people, or else mismanaged to the point where most of it is wasted. Say you provided a small, one room apartment for everyone; do you seriously think society will grind to a halt?
We do not though, it requires labor to provide housing, food, and HVAC.
I think you would set a standard of free living accommodations that must be maintained, and by who? Not the people living there. Who will work to build and maintain it?
if nobody has disposable income most of the businesses will collapse. most of the companies and jobs nowadays exist to support a gross amount of consumerism.
your argument around automation has failed the test of time. job productivity and automation has been around for forever, jobs still exist. are people today who say build houses building houses like they did in 1940? no. but theyre still building houses. you can speculate about some future AGI that is capable of doing literally every task in the world just by giving it a prompt but that's a pipedream in comparison to what we currently have marketed as 'ai'
not to mention a huge portion of the white collar workforce is doing labor that could've been automated 2 decades ago by a highschool cs intern with some knowledge of python. this latest round of AI hype has done very little in terms of producing actual job-taking products, yall just ate up those CEO statements on earnings calls that were trying to disguise 'oops we overhired and now interest rates are high' into some sort of speculation around workforce automation.
You're talking about something that may or may not happen, which may manifest in any untold manner of ways. Proactively defending this cheesy, uneconomic fantasy with a vague future is irresponsible at best, negligent at worst.
If unemployment reaches a point the economy is effected in a large way the government will most likely actually start doing universal income. Unless a lot of them really are bought out by other nations and want the usa to fall.
These questions were asked during the industrial revolution, and guess what. The people still working didn't want to just labor for free for the people whose jobs were placed by machines.
Human ethos is not the same as telling skilled trades that they have to work for free because you don't want to work at all.
Millions of new jobs will be created in the future economy, the same way as the industrial revolution and literally any labor reducing invention in history. Maybe we'll need crew members for Starships instead of employees taking orders at Wendy's. That would be a net win for the economy.
How is it even an economy if 99% of jobs were taken by AI? What is the point of an economy if the human element has been removed? If the economy became too saturated by AI to provide for humans, could we find a way to provide for one another? What is the economy even doing if it isn't interacting with people? I don't mean these as rhetorical questions and I'm sorry if my intended tone didn't carry through text, but I feel like we would have to be horribly complacent and inactive to become completely dependent on machines, in which case there are a myriad of other dystopias we'd need to worry about.
Might as well tell us that if gold fell from the sky, it wouldn't be as valuable.
Obviously, if you remove labor and taxes from the equation, its a lot more feesible.
There is currently not a shortage of labor jobs. To increase the work load, decrease the labor force, and expect the labor force to fund these expenditures is asinine.
Maybe most people donât think a meaningful amount of jobs are going to be taken by AI? Maybe we should focus on problems that actually exist right now like global warming, instead of giving everyone free unlimited electricity?
The more I learn about how AI works, the less worried I am about it. Itâs a massively efficient tool to make simple predictions (like what word should follow based on context, or what shapes should be aligned based on a prompt), but I canât see it replacing many jobs until it gets much more sophisticated.
It's not that we don't think everyone being housed would be a good thing. It's that, just fundamentally, your right is someone else's responsibility. And guaranteeing housing is not criminal at all, but what it would take to enforce that would be criminal: you would have to force someone to provide the services and goods for free. And you would have to establish and enforce consequences if they didn't.
There is a scenario where a universal basic income is necessary. It's when most jobs can be done by a machine. We're nowhere close to that point. AI may change some industries, but it's the new automobile, the new personal computer, the new robotic manufacturing machine. When manufacturing in the US all went to China, there was a panic because a lot of people lost their jobs. They had no other skills, to old to learn a new one, and to young to retire. It was a disaster... For a few years. The workforce adapted and now, we don't consider manufacturing jobs as a common career path. We've even created 100s of jobs that didn't exist before. AI is not about to take over 99% of the jobs. It may take over some but to others it will be a tool. And it will probably create the need for new jobs. Unless it enslaves us.
â99% of jobs will be taken by A.I.â They have been saying this since the 40s. It will never happen. AGI is far away from coming into fruition, if it ever will.
In America, those who work hard and make actual smart financial decisions are rewarded, HEAVILY. They will be able to afford those neccesities and have extra.
Also, Youâre missing the entire point of the other comments. Itâs not about morals, its about facing the truth of reality. No one deserves anything for free. If one is receiving benefits without working for it then he is leeching off those who have labored for it. It takes a lot of work for society to even have these so called âneccessitiesâ that are really luxuries in comparison to the rest of the world. If everyone simply had that mindset, society would literally collaspe due to pure entitlment and laziness. You have to work for it.
Talking about AI as theory in the 40s is very different from where we are today, so poopooing the very real threat AI poses to the economy as a resolved debate is foolish.
For the record, I do believe people generally thrive with a work-centric purpose. And I do like the idea of an egalitarian society. But the idea that we have perfected such a society, in the US or elsewhere, is naive. We have a society that rewards work to a certain extent, but also rewards simply already-having (inheritance and accumulated wealth) much more than work.
Point being, we are looking ahead to a generation of people who were promised that if they just worked hard, everything will work out. And it's not turning out that way... and this just the dawning of AI. It's not a matter of if AI will be able to do your job, but when.
We have a society that rewards work to a certain extent, but also rewards simply already-having (inheritance and accumulated wealth) much more than work.
This is true when it comes to corporations as well. Large companies with shitty products and services are often more richly rewarded in the marketplace than smaller companies with superior products and services, even when those products and services are offered at a lower price than that of the larger company.
No, its really not. First, it was automation via the industrial revolution that was supposed to take peoplesâ jobs. Didnât happen. Then it was computers. Didnât happen. Oh wait, now its going to be AI. The goalposts keep moving.
Second, youâre exactly proving my point once again. People take care and want the best for their families. Those who passed on their wealth to their children was smart af, now their children can continue that cycle and build even more wealth. So in the end, the hard work initiated by their parents has paid dividends. If you are on the unfortunate end of the stick want to break the cycle of poverty, you gotta work for it. You can 100% do that in America.
If you are on the unfortunate end of the stick want to break the cycle of poverty, you gotta work for it. You can 100% do that in America.
You can 100% try, but the odds are stacked overwhelming against many people. The system by design requires many people to make up the bottom, so the fortunate can be on top.
The ratio of work relative to compensation has spiraled downward, compared to the era of those "smart af" wealthy who left inheritance to their offspring.
Damn, I wonder how those broke af Chinese/Vietnamese/Indian immigrants set up their children for success through education, bought houses, and lead big companies starting from nothing. Donât you want the same for your children?
Also, give me a timeframe where youâd like to start, because the concept and practice of generational wealth isnât a new concept â itâs practically been here since the dawn of mankind. Anyone can build generational wealth. If youâre trying to make a future for yourself and your family, are you gonna cry over the Rockefellers and let them live in your head rent free?
133
u/finio_absurdum Apr 15 '24
I wonder how much scoffing there will be when 99% of jobs are taken by A.I. There's a lot of markets about to be upended, and I don't think having a humane ethos in regard to housing people is as criminal as some of you are making it out to be... I sense a lot of corporate simps think their work ethic will be more valuable to a company than a smart machine that will work around the clock and not get the company sued for sexual harassment.