I take issue with the argument that "X breakthrough technology in the past (mechanized agriculture, factories, computers, etc.) did not put everyone out of a job, therefore X new technology (AI) won't either; it will create as many new industries and jobs as it destroys, just as before."
This argument ignores the fact that technological advances are not created equal, nor is the context in which they operate equal. It _may_ be that the future plays out the same way as the past, but circumstances are completely different so there's also a significant chance that it doesn't.
In previous such events it was possible to imagine what new industries/jobs could come about that would require human labor (i.e., farms -> factories). But with AI (which has been around for a long time but I mean the most recent advances using LLMs/etc), I have yet to hear any articulation of concrete concepts of new professions/industries _requiring large amounts of human labor_ that would be created by it (the number of new high-expertise jobs needed to create/expand/deploy such systems is small).
Secondly, and more importantly, corporations and investors, in almost every industry, are singularly focused on _eliminating as much human labor as possible_ since humans are, in most cases, the most expensive (and troublesome) component of their operation. With so much of our collective intellect and brain power focused on "solving" this "problem", it's inevitable that progress will continue to be made in that direction. And we are finally inventing tools that make it possible to eventually automate large numbers of professions across a wide spectrum, that previously were impossible to replace (we're not just talking typesetters being displaced by Linotype machines).
On the flip side, how many research $$ and corporate (or billionaire) $$ are being spent on creating new industries or professions that will soak up the human labor made obsolete by AI? I'd venture to say the number is close to zero, because it's not a profitable route. We're hardly giving it any thought other than a few "radicals" suggesting some form of UBI.
For that reason I see this technological revolution much differently than past ones, and I don't expect past events to predict future ones in this regard.
This argument ignores the fact that technological advances are not created equal, nor is the context in which they operate equal. It _may_ be that the future plays out the same way as the past, but circumstances are completely different so there's also a significant chance that it doesn't.
In previous such events it was possible to imagine what new industries/jobs could come about that would require human labor (i.e., farms -> factories). But with AI (which has been around for a long time but I mean the most recent advances using LLMs/etc), I have yet to hear any articulation of concrete concepts of new professions/industries _requiring large amounts of human labor_ that would be created by it (the number of new high-expertise jobs needed to create/expand/deploy such systems is small).
Secondly, and more importantly, corporations and investors, in almost every industry, are singularly focused on _eliminating as much human labor as possible_ since humans are, in most cases, the most expensive (and troublesome) component of their operation. With so much of our collective intellect and brain power focused on "solving" this "problem", it's inevitable that progress will continue to be made in that direction. And we are finally inventing tools that make it possible to eventually automate large numbers of professions across a wide spectrum, that previously were impossible to replace (we're not just talking typesetters being displaced by Linotype machines).
On the flip side, how many research $$ and corporate (or billionaire) $$ are being spent on creating new industries or professions that will soak up the human labor made obsolete by AI? I'd venture to say the number is close to zero, because it's not a profitable route. We're hardly giving it any thought other than a few "radicals" suggesting some form of UBI.
For that reason I see this technological revolution much differently than past ones, and I don't expect past events to predict future ones in this regard.