A question about the future and automation

[Ivyleaguestoner]

If AI and automation continues to replace jobs then what will happen to the economy?
Machines don't spend money.
If most jobs are replaced then what will happen to capitalism?
My job will, in time, be replaced by a computer. My partners already has in many parts of the world. There will not be enough jobs for us all to move into new roles.
Unemployment benefits will not stretch to us all spending money in the same way we do whilst employed. And so will the economy just slump, and will it matter?

There are still miners getting the minerals needed to make computers! They're just operating machinery.

One of my grandfathers was from a Durham mining family (the Durham mining industry pretty much collapsed in the 1930s). He moved on to work in a cokeworks. His sons both got scholarships to uni to do chemistry. When I was a school kid I said I'd do a job which wasn't invented yet... I'm a PhD chemist but in silico ie I write software- including machine learning applications. There's far more we want to do than we've got people to do it!

There’s still a lot of work and money in traditional trades like building, plumbing, electrician etc

@NocturnalClocks

Love to know how many ex-miners are working in AI. 🤣

Do you think ex miners can't retrain and join other professions?

I think we will go back to an 'upstairs/downstairs' society with very little in the way of middle classes/professionals. People either very wealthy or in servitude (serving the wealthy in their homes and doing caring duties).

There’s still a lot of work and money in traditional trades like building, plumbing, electrician etc

Also cooking, 'creative arts' - film industry isn't and never will be all CGI, for instance!

This is a common misconception. It actually creates jobs, they are just different jobs.

Of course they can. I just don't believe it's likely that a very high proportion of them retrained to work in AI. Happy to be corrected though if you have stats on this!

Most pro-automation theorists are also pro-universal basic income. Because as you say, there's no point in machines making things no-one can buy.

Of course they can. I just don't believe it's likely that a very high proportion of them retrained to work in AI. Happy to be corrected though if you have stats on this!

Well of course not. You'd be looking at their children, grandchildren and great grandchildren by now. They'll be doing a variety of things. There's not that many people working in AI as such but the poster you were responding to said 'AI and new tech' - the latter will include all sorts of skill and ability levels.

Plenty of to be done, or that can be done.

Not so sure about the amount of human resources available to do those jobs.

I am not sure that the average human smartness level is increasing at the same rate as the average job brainpower required level.

I think how society operates will need remodelling to account for AI, but how that will actually be done, either revolution or evolution, who knows.

Well machines are supposed to make way so humans can spend time on 'higher value work', but I do sometimes wonder how many people are even capable of this when Joe Bloggs seems to be below average intelligence!

I am not sure that the average human smartness level is increasing at the same rate as the average job brainpower required level.

But while well-designed 'new technology', medical advances etc certainly need clever people to do the research, design and implementation, the results are often systems which don't necessarily require much brainpower to use. Any idiot can use a computer nowadays, to do things that they couldn't have in the past.

Joe bloggs might be a great gardener who brings joy to many and benefits the environment. Or an inspirational PE teacher. Or .... etc etc.

how do you define 'higher value'?

Aren't some saying that the WEF have this idea of handing out 'universal salaries' (like £500) to everyone globally to be used on basics. No working required

Oh, and you won't be able to afford much either!

When I was a lot younger there was constant talk about the fact that, because of the amazing advantages of technology, we'd all be working a three day week and have so much free time that the government would have to start providing things for people to fill their time with.

We were going to be a society filled with leisure activities; it never happened.

At the time the average office worker worked 9-5.

What has happened now is that people are working longer hours than ever, just at different jobs and ways of working and it's constantly changing. Remember the industrial revolution?

People will always be needed in the workplace. It'll just be a different kind of workplace.

I thought the whole point of the debate was that "any idiot" can be replaced by AI.

Most of the problems with peoples thoughts on AI are that they think of it as a complete replacement for humans, whereas in fact what will tend to happen is humans will increasingly argument themselves with AI over time. You can see this creep happening at the moment with driving technology. First there is satnav, then lane assist, then emergency breaking, all small steps on the path to having driverless cars. But it won't happen overnight, it will happen in small, often almost inperceptable stages.

One project I have been involved in used AI (for want of a better word) analysis of medical scans. The idea in the publics mind might be that the AI completely replaces the radiologist. It is actually better at spotting anomalies in many circumstances. But what happens in practice is the AI arguments the radiologist, who uses it as an assistant to cross check the results or spot stuff they haven't. I doubt very much there will be a situation in the near future where the radiologist is completely replaced, because of the legal implications of the AI overlooking something and how to deal with the consequences of that.

Who/what will be the future equivalent of mass employers of people in-country on, at the very least, a living wage and how will it be funded?

Absolutely agree with you. I mean more in terms of robotics and doing 'grunt work'. That's literally how and why it started. So the great Gardner doenst need to waste their time mulching leaves for example and can spend more of their time spreading joy to others - something that a robot can't do (well yet anyway ...)

This is a really interesting subject. I'm noticing things more and more with self service shops and automated phone services etc. I saw something with a robot taking your order at a restaurant. Slowly human contact is fading, which will be detrimental as humans are social creatures. Look how things were in lockdown. I think it's bad for extroverts, and even worse for introverts.

Take the average car now to one say 50 years ago, you don't really have to have many skills to drive as they basically do everything for you. So now you're no longer using that part of your brain, I do wonder how this will slowly change people over time, and I assume for the worse. I mean look at how we all are on our phones now.

I mean look at how we all are on our phones now.
Having interesting discussions about a diverse range of subjects including the future do AI ...

At least we will all be in it together (well, most of us!). There will be a shared interest/ goal to ensure the future success of humanity.

What does OP mean about the advancement of AI over the last two months? Can I have some examples?