Capitalism Doesn't Need Consumers Anymore...

[@EconomicsExplained]

Learn how you can use AI tools with Hubspot’s Free eBook: clickhubspot.com/ee

[@simonbravo87]

Is this Issac Arthur?

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

You haven't heard about AI projects replacing the job of CEO in the future. or an AI who can analyze financial markets faster and more accurately than people who work at investment banks kzbin.info/www/bejne/gYfbamOfl9GVY8U kzbin.info/www/bejne/qJa4i4Wvjd2IqZY

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

there are only 8 billion people in this world who are able to think and invent new ideas. but by 2050 we could have 100 billion GPT agents capable of thinking and inventing new ideas

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

Auto gpt . It now can even automate the work of the prompt engineer. In the near future.not to mention if OpenAI was successfully created AGI by 2030.

[@carkawalakhatulistiwa]

6:00 From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs in the Soviet Union : workers pretended to be working . and managers pretend to pay workers a universal basic income. if robots and AGI can replace humans workers. the workers will pretend to work for the government. and the government will pretend to hire workers while maintaining their power even without the Soviet Union's market economy. people are still innovating and working. even though in the future robots can replace humans, people will still do something, not because of money, but as a hobby.

[@fede_mana]

the advantage of being a philosopher is that you don't run the risk of being replaced by an AI because we are useless since before they existed

[@justanormalspearton9490]

We're as useless as we let ourselves be

[@j4genius961]

😂😂😂

[@PrimmSlim927]

But what IS uselessness?

[@Nhujon]

@@PrimmSlim927 🤣

[@budgetgearguru4211]

Musician here. I can check that box too. We’ve been useless since the phonograph

[@yyny0]

I personally think "Prompt Writer" will NOT become a job title at most companies, but will instead become a requirement for jobs that AI will assist in, just like knowing how to use Word or Excel has become a requirement for many jobs today.

[@abrahamelias95]

My exact same thoughts, it probably wont be as complicated to use to require an entiere career on it, but its going to be a necesary tool as excel or word are today

[@andyasbestos]

Yeah. The whole point of these AI tools it that the skill floor is pretty high, so you don't need much practice to get good results. For years, prompt engineering was a bit of a dirty word in the generative AI field, as it meant you had to craft very unnatural and unintuitive prompts to get good results from an AI, indicating that it didn't really understand what you were asking for. Some of the early examples are pretty comical. Ideally you should be able to instruct the AI in as intuitive a manner as possible, only really requiring decent general communication skills. For most uses, prompting just becomes a basic skill most anyone with some patience can get a good grip on. that's why Chat-GPT turned out so successful. You only have to worry about prompt engineering once you really start pushing the limits of its capabilities, and presumably those limits will keep expanding with each generation, making it even easier to use for a broader range of applications.

[@Sralit]

A friend asked me to show him how to use ChatGPT a week ago, and I didn’t understand the question. He understood why 2 min later 😅

[@AAL3087]

OK so it will be a skill, like with any new technology e.g. Excel is a widely used tool but people have varying degrees of expertise and experience. So there will be those that can write more effective prompts than others as they make have more time in learning the AI models, experimenting and out performing someone who can generally use such models. Then again, there is the autonomous AI.....

[@mrbb.business7281]

Prompting is not a hard skill to learn, it may become a side-skill that helps you get a job, kind of like knowing how to use canva or or being familiar with excel is a side-skill.

[@wharrgarblstudios]

I must admit this video hasn’t exactly filled me with much confidence - as someone who works in the Data Science space and trying to change jobs, I have been confronted with a number of executives in interviews who are basically giddy at the prospect of using ChatGPT to replace whole departments like customer complaints - it definitely feels like corporations are pushing with everything they have for your worst case scenario and most governments are either far too slow to react or are in the pockets of the corporations in the first place to make any meaningful steps to balance out the interests of corporations with their electorate. Coupled with climate change and Covid I’m honestly quite exhausted of living through ‘interesting times’

[@ronald3836]

Certainly AI is a great tool to implement functioning help desks. What is the problem?

[@xinfinity1147]

Do you think ai will replace data scientists?

[@Jumpyfoot]

As someone who recently spent an hour on the phone with their Internet service provider over a relatively solvable issue, I too am giddy at the prospect of replacing human customer service agents with some kind of GPT system.

[@ronald3836]

@@Jumpyfoot I don't think there is much reason to fear AI will do worse 😀

[@wharrgarblstudios]

@@xinfinity1147 I’m sure it will - certainly before electricians

[@F-aber]

"If workers are more productive they can get paid more" man you are funny, imagine a world where increased worker productivity would go hand in hand with worker wages... What a world that would be, one can only imagine because it certainly isnt the world we are living in.

[@flflflflflfl]

Wages have never been about productivity. Your wage is a function of how bad your employer needs your skills, how many other workers are available on the market with the same skills and how many competing employers are in need of such workers.

[@connorbenning9920]

Only job I can think of is cooper payed per barrel they make .

[@kozmoigmkliegl6192]

That's the current agenda for some to coerce people having more children, as they're future consumers while a surplus keeps wages down.

[@colorado841]

There used to be people though who would work 18 hours a day, all day everyday making nothing but pin heads in a factory for 50 years. Technology has helped the poor....it has just helped the rich more. The poor today in the USA aren't like what they used to be for the most part.

[@edydossantos]

You're wrong being productive doesn't mean to produce more. Your work need to have value. This is a real productivity.

[@neh1234]

The tragic thing is that, were this a good world where everyone worked towards the wellbeing of their fellows, the last few advancements in technology would already have meant the end of poverty, grueling work and men being free to pursue their dreams. Instead now we have to worry about some faceless assholes using this technology to kick even more people into poverty just because they want to buy two more yatches every year.

[@liasonlee1248]

That's capitalism

[@natel9019]

@@liasonlee1248That is what happens in communism and every other ism as well. Poor masses and rich oligarchs.

[@liasonlee1248]

@@natel9019 you mean human is just a masochistic species? Why don't you pick up a proper book and read?

[@izzytoons]

There are too many fanboys of the wealthy. They support the accelerating concentraition of income, wealth, and power.

[@timtebowfan628]

I am in my 60's and I worry about people in their 20's, what will they do when they are my age?

[@JH-ph4qb]

...I think the one of the bigger factors against this dystopia happening is that it assumes people will simply let it happen and the costs of ignoring said people is lower than acknowledging them. Pushing the majority of the planets population into total poverty sounds like a good way of making that population decide to fight you or die trying.

[@nikhil62063]

Yes when people children will sleep hungry we will do anything. Those billionaire can't protect themselves from billions of people against.

[@daytonaofcv6856]

Thats why they will have robot armies. 🙁

[@daytonaofcv6856]

Obviously, we can't let it get to that point.

[@sophon238]

The point is to continue to take care of you until AI is powerful enough to kill you all.

[@dmfaccount1272]

​@@daytonaofcv6856 or worse, armies of automated drones whose only job is to fly around and kill every poor looking person they see.

[@c.rutherford]

Nobody is going to convince me that 99% of the money backing AI development isn't to replace salaried people with robots, so those investing in it can make more money by laying off their workers which is their #1 expense. Especially in 'skilled' jobs, which was always the area they were forced to pay people good money. Where AI now makes replacing them possible for the first time ever. There may be a few who are dumping big money into it for the good of humanity but.... oh lets just give up on that. NOBODY is spending big money on it for the good of humanity lol.

[@alexwilsonpottery3733]

Finally, someone gets it. Economists, as usual, seem flummoxed.

[@thetayz72]

Yeah can't wait for a decent blue collar to be the highest aspiration available to someone not born with the silver spoon

[@c.rutherford]

@@thetayz72 sadly its looking like programmers are going to be murdered by AI in the job market. Like 75% of those jobs gone in the end. Which really sucks, because I always enjoyed programming. Tech support also is going to take a massive whallop once those support ChatBots get established and relentlessly improve. Isn't that wonderful. Insurance claims processors and even doctors may find their job security in question, when all this including diagnosis can be automated by learning intelligent bots. Accountants too. And on. I guess I'm lucky I'm the age I am! It was nice while it lasted. I'd hate to be starting out in this.

[@klavczarkalafan4191]

While indirect and unintentional - that hypothetical future is definitionally genocide - what this video describes is that entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. Only the family lines of the wealthy billionaires will continue. This is not something to sit down calmly about!

[@SiphaSchola]

Adding LOL to the end of your message doesn't make it any less depressing,

[@sluglife9785]

"Multiple modern A.I. programs have just learned to pause the game or shut it down, because they realise they can't lose if the game isn't running." That's the exact approach I've taken to life.

[@toluwole]

“…A strange game. The only winning move is not to play.” - War Games

[@jesseroggio7260]

"You can never win or lose if you don't run the race"_Psychedlic Furs

[@chittodnaresh9568]

10:42 slight but massive mistake. Worker can do more work in small time. So he will do more work in the same time. So he will be payed more in the same time. Resultingly all workers will be expected to do more work in the same time keeping the total amount of EFFORT spent per day by the worker the SAME. BUT The EARNING per day will remain same if the worker is paid per hour. And the EARNING will still remain same if the worker is paid per workload as the VALUE of the workload will decrease in proportion to the increase in the EASE of workload. Believe me as this is not an OPINION, this is real EXPERIENCE. This is what is happening from the past 200 years.

[@NickMak-m2c]

Seems to be something people are discovering simultaneously, some kind of Hundredth Monkey Effect of laying flat.

[@generator6946]

There you go! You are enlightened! Good job! All explanations of ‘economics’ are convoluted and wordy. There’s one right here above! But here’s the truth: Economics is poor people working for next to nothing and buying next to nothing with it. Period.

[@Hodenkat]

Productivity gains do not go to the worker. They go to the owners and investors. This has been true for 50 years. Longer, but productivity gains used to be more closely tied to wages before that time. Around 1980 is when it happened, more specifically.

[@gregorynuttall]

100% this

[@vexor699]

this has been true since the start of capitalism

[@tiaelago-oretukaumunika7017]

​@@vexor699it's been true since the start of sedentary civilisation

[@liasonlee1248]

50 years? more like since the establishment of hierarchal structures.

[@E4439Qv5]

50 years is the relevant window to us as laborers.

[@Maartimer]

It's a little concerning that the main answer to "what if there's 100% unemployment" was that "it won't be much of a problem because people will stop having children"

[@emabrico4630]

He didn't think this one through at all...

[@HeliosLegion]

If robots and AI are THAT productive, why even have companies? Why do I need to pay a company for their goods when MY robots can do it by themselves? Why does a government need to pay a company when they can have their own robots?

[@Maartimer]

@@HeliosLegion Because it won't count towards the GDP ig

[@PriyansuBhagabati]

@@Maartimer tell me can an ai grow food for you on their own? Can an ai mine resources on their own? Maybe manufacture a car right in your living room? The answer not that hard

[@Maartimer]

@@PriyansuBhagabati idk, the video brought up 100% unemployment as a hypothetical, so that's what I responded to

[@the_strange_magic_man4443]

The Video: "AI is not that bad" *Sponsored by AI*

[@Jamazed]

Using AI art no less.

[@ronald3836]

Sponsored by or written by? 🙂

[@TheBuckweat33]

Is this not the definition of satire? Even if Economics Explained was completely unbiased, this choice of sponsorship was hilariously ironic. How can anyone take this channel 100% seriously?

[@sownheard]

The best sponsor you can get 😂 Ai is great ❤👍

[@effdahjuice6419]

​@@sownheard Don't you have a soy latte to be drinking with your avocado toasts?

[@kevnar]

Yes. Billionaires fire everybody to cut costs, but then nobody has money to buy their products. They can't not be greedy, but their greed ultimately destroys their wealth. Such a paradox!

[@slashine1071]

nah, billionaires will become trillionaires and then quadrillionaires, and they will have so much money that entire industries will exist just to satisfy their personal needs. They will have capital on par with nations, and possible entire nations of robots and pet humans to rule over for their amusement.

[@clray123]

Their greed does not destroy their wealth, what destroys their wealth is competition for natural resources they consume. Fewer humans consuming = more of the cake left for them.

[@Wary_Of_Extremes]

The long end game is to simply own everything. At some point, the automation with be good enough that the owners just shut their gates and have automated everything and don't need the masses.

[@clray123]

@@Wary_Of_Extremes Masses will still be employed for menial work if they are easy to subdue and cheaper than robots.

[@celiacresswell6909]

@@clray123mmm….cake…..

[@Flyingclam]

Ive noticed AI seems best to replace middle income jobs. Like that middle managment or low level creative jobs. My fear is that income mobility will become exceptional hard in the future. Along with heavy depression of low skill jobs wages due to increase labor supply

[@niklasmolen4753]

I heard an economist who suggested that 100% inheritance tax should be introduced. Because those who learn to handle AI will accumulate astronomical amounts of assets and everyone else will have very little. Inheritance tax would then go towards paying a large sum of money to people when they turn 18, so they can start a life. There are obvious problems with the idea, but gave some food for thought.

[@GiRR007]

​@@niklasmolen4753 That sounds horrible... Stealing from people just bwcause they succeded. AI is the democratization of labor, it will allow more people to do more things instead of being bumogged down by the usless jobs.

[@chandy3859]

​​​​@@niklasmolen4753if the people have very little. That meant the demand for product/service will be gone. Which mean the AI will not generate a lot of money if nobody are buying it. Edit: personal opinion, take it with a grain of salt.

[@chrismullin8304]

Unfortunately, no one listened to me, when I said the future is in Plumbing.

[@Daniel-ef7nk]

You are spot on and the elites know that and will want to take advantage of this technology to enrich further, this is something we need to talk about instead of dismissing

[@hungrymusicwolf]

"There's no reason to think things will be different this time" - there actually is. There were always tasks that couldn't done by anyone but humans. AI + Robotics does not have that limitation. When we were automating things such as weaving we still always required humans to think up the what and how. Our minds were irreplaceable, but AGI changes that.

[@sterix_gg]

Exactly. And creative jobs are threatened first because we're developing the brain faster than the body. As soon as robotics catches up then the real fun will begin. That dystopian prediction is probably where we're headed. If u think about it, making "good" money has been getting progressively harder and the number behind the word good has been getting progressively bigger. Or in other words, to have the life of the middle class from 50, 60 years ago, u'd need to be making some 150k+ annual. But if u actually are making that today then u're not in the middle but in the upper percentage. Back then it was called the middle class since the majority of the plebs were in it. Today the majority of the plebs are living on the edge and it can't even be called living, just surviving. So a future of millionaires and billionaires only doesn't seem so crazy if we just look ahead at the path we've been on so far.

[@andyzola]

If an AI can 'think' of something that creates value- that value will rapidly commoditize into something that humans and their brains can, and will, work around. That's how it's always been no matter the scale of technology.

[@ShpanMan]

@@andyzola You're missing the point. Any job that a human-level AI creates can be taken by another human-level AI. Humans will not be needed.

[@andyzola]

@@ShpanMan Maybe. But humans are going to merge with AI before AI has enough autonomous motivation to consider humans as somehow obsolete. It would be a survival impulse for both parties to agree to merge anyway. A very efficient market

[@henryr2954]

I don't think we're anywhere near that yet. I work for a tech firm that is at the forefront of Gen AI. We are adopting it all over the business and it's massively improving our productivity. The outcome? The demand for Machine Learning Engineers to fine-tune the AI, monitor their performance, collect new data and feed it into the fine-tuning processes, find new applications for AI and tweak the algorithms to improve accuracy has sky-rocketed. And this is the highest paid profession in the company. So basically so far it's creating many new jobs and those jobs are higher paid than the ones that came before. You can speak in terms of hypotheticals and claim that this time is going to be different but on the front lines I can assure you it's not looking any different so far...

[@antonkryzsko]

My wife’s job got replaced by the internet years ago. She use to work for an airline in reservations. Wen she started there were over 100 people who would take calls and book flights, hotels, rental cars, and so on. By the time she left there were less than 20. The pressure was to get people to book everything themselves through the website. What was a free service now came with a $50 service charge or you could do it for free online. She got another job that she likes more.

[@ronald3836]

Of course the cost of the "free service" was priced into the tickets, which are now cheaper. Overall we profit, but the transition certainly has a human cost.

[@snowflakemelter7171]

​@@ronald3836 Did the price of groceries at the super market become reduced when self service checkouts replaced a human cashier?

[@GiRR007]

​@@snowflakemelter7171 yes

[@ronald3836]

@@snowflakemelter7171 of course that reduced prices.

[@snowflakemelter7171]

@@ronald3836 It didn't in any of the supermarkets in my country. In fact. Prices have INCREASED since then.

[@laurencedavey3121]

I don't think it's a conflict of interest at all to have an AI product marketed during a video about AI, and I think I can totally trust Economics Explained.

[@grimwaltzman]

I've been using ChatGPT to assist my software development work for the last couple months. So far, it is definitely not enough to replace me as a developer, but it sure makes getting information much easier and faster, as it often allows to skip the StackOverflow scrolling. But the code it outputs, save the most basic stuff, often either doesn't work at all or does not exactly what was prompted, therefore requiring quite a bit of refactoring.

[@blueberry9919]

Exactly, it's simply a fancier search engine for people who don't know how to use Google

[@ktms1188]

Chat GPT is a Consumer facing program, in its third and fourth iteration. It’s like saying you saw a little bit of fusion in the 1900s and do not see Nuclear bombs coming.

[@arv9993]

@@blueberry9919 gpt 4 is far better. It can actually output very relevant code. As this tech gets integrated into many more systems and gets better over time. A company will need fewer devs to do the same amount of work. This is, without a doubt, a game-changer. However, we will simply get more work/applications done like 50x the software there is out today

[@RagaarAshnod]

*in your hands it's not enough. Be mindful of the possibility of confirmation bias, and review the underlying assumptions just to be safe.

[@Anonymous-vh9tc]

Chatgpt + copilot will make your life a lot easier.

[@Chris-pq3wp]

We can already see the effects of this. Companies offshored millions of industrial jobs to low wage countries and automated them and it negatively impacted the finances of the people that lost their jobs. The jobs that replaced them were low paid customer service and warehousing jobs which will probably be automated by AI also. The profits from these cost savings have gone to shareholders and any consumer gains from low prices have been negated by high inflation from money printing by the government in order to pay for the economically disadvantaged people.

[@brocky69]

Governments usually print money for the benefit of the rich not the poor

[@2drealms196]

Thank you, EE just is unwilling to see this reality

[@just_a_curious_thinker]

EE is funded to spread the propaganda

[@theBear89451]

No, US manufacturing is up in terms of revenue, just not in terms of jobs.

[@tablab165]

Not only from money printing, but by general corporate greed. Board members don’t have to charge more for goods and services, they just want to.

[@joao_belmont]

"...so they can continue to live, but MOST IMPORTANTLY, CONSUME." Modern economics explained in one sentence.

[@LinasVepstas]

This youtube channel explained, in one sentence. This guy is pretty hard-right libertarian, and that ideology seems to blind him to a lot of obvious facts. Shame.

[@kjbkix]

Yeah, that line stuck out pretty strongly didn’t it? With that said, if you change the word, CONSUME to “IMPROVE THEIR LIVES“, does that potentially change your perspective on the prediction? We consume much more than disposable commercial goods and useless luxuries after all. We should produce what is valuable to society, which, from the other side of things means the goods and services that move our lives closer to a state of ideals. Curious your thoughts on that!

[@joao_belmont]

Hey. For sure it would, but that's not what the "for profit" mindset is about. And It's definitely not about contributing, but pleasing stockholders. People contribute, for sure, not psycho corporations. What you're describing is exactly where we should to be, if our very political arteries were not infested w corporate greed and profit-over-well being mindset. In other words, I agree w what you said 😄

[@kjbkix]

@@joao_belmont which is why my suggestion only makes sense when "for profit" is no longer the incentive that it once was. once low income people are no longer so desperate to take on low paying jobs, the corporate structure changes dramatically. I haven't thought through the full extrapolation of how this unfolds, but I have a short/medium-term optimism about the quality of life improvements that can be offered to people such that they reduce reliance on crime, drugs, and minimum wage jobs

[@huveja9799]

That isn't modern economics, but modern religion, which is devoid of all love for humanity ..

[@baronvonchickenpants6564]

I remember watching tomorrows world as a kid in the seventies, they predicted that in the year 2000 we would all live in luxury no more work etc, the robots would do it all, you've got a lot to answer for Judith Haan

[@alfi-il7be]

except luxury😅😅

[@Ramschat]

The idea that every replaced worker will just become an AI-programmer/engineer conveniently ignores the fact that a large section of the population simply doesn't have the mental capacities required to do that kind of work. AI is replacing simple work, while creating more high-skill jobs. As more and more jobs become high-skill, a larger portion of the population will be unable to keep up.

[@yamataichul]

I'm worried for some relatives from rural area in their 30 to 60. They are decent people and to some extend they sacrificed working abroad for little pension, not only they risk to not get enough years for working simple jobs they won't get to have enough to live back in their village properly or at all. Is not their fault they weren't educated enough to at least 75% and believe in what they believe.

[@cloudkitt]

It's more than that, though, jobs will be created that we're not thinking of as well. Every stagecoach driver didn't have to become an automechanic. The emergence of the car created a vast amount of new and different professions across even completely unrelated industries simply be virtue of increasing the average person's mobility.

[@HonoredMule]

I challenge your assertion that large amounts of the population lack "the mental capacities." What most people lack is training, not intellect. When the internet disrupted everything, one of the main compensations it offered was wider, easier access to most human knowledge, empowering self-education. In other words, it provided the means of satisfying its own newly-created demands. Not everyone benefited, but the option was meaningfully available to more people than ever before. An estimated 25 to 50% of employed programmers have no formal education in the field. The internet made that happen. What has astonished me most about ChatGPT is how profoundly useful it is for learning new things. With the internet, I have to know some important keywords to identify my subject or skill of interest, and wade through content articles (and mountains of ads and ad-propping fluff articles) evaluating for relevance, legitimacy, authority, and even logical coherence. It still takes a considerable amount of skill to even just access information on the internet; forget rounding out an unfamiliar field of study. With ChatGPT, I don't even have to have a clue what I'm talking about. Starting from square zero I'm just a few prompts away from distilled, relevant explanations of complex topics and a conversational means of drilling down to specifics. (This is especially true when dealing with objective subjects like geometry, code, chemistry, etc.) The only skill left up to me is having the sense to request citations and fact-check all information against authoritative sources. Incidentally, that's the one remaining skill that must be proactively pushed on the general public. So-called "white collar" jobs are about to be an order of magnitude more accessible to all walks of life than ever before. In many cases it'll even meaningfully assist people with seriously challenging neurodivergence.

[@PulsatingShadow]

Yes, it's almost like genetic engineering and a race realist approach may be required.

[@georgeyou]

​@@HonoredMule That's suspiciously well said my man or ChatGPT. Can't tell. But either way, well said!

[@JJs_playground]

I don't want to say this time it's different, but *this time it's different* then any previous technology we have created. We are creating thinking machines that can recursively improve themselves. And once we nail humanoid robots we are going to be in an era we have never seen before.

[@matthewparker9276]

Humanoid robots are a gimmick, form will be dictated by function.

[@JJs_playground]

@@matthewparker9276 why do you think it's a gimmick? We live in world made for humans, why wouldn't we build robots that mimic our form.

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

@@JJs_playground Because a flying drone is better at delivery than a humanoid robot. So too with harvesters, excavators, etc. Many if not most tasks can be more efficiently done by an optimized form.

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

I agree it's different (Humans Need Not Apply). But the real problem isn't humanoid robots, the real problem is AGI, or a facsimile AI that can create special AI for any given task. Both of those are "mechanical minds" that can replace humans en masse.

[@ronald3836]

@@gagan4127 Legs are far more flexible than wheels.

[@delta5672]

Never have I seen productivity convert into higher pay for anyone I've ever known

[@UniDeathRaven]

work smart, not more "

[@MrSociofobs]

It converts for those who are directly benefiting from that increased productivity, so mostly business owners and the ones working for themselves. The ones working for an employee paycheck won't get that benefit, because it's not their productivity that dictates how much they get paid. Their employers dictate that.

[@dirk-jantoot1167]

​​@@MrSociofobs to be more precise, their pay is determined by supply & demand on the labour market. Lets say a new technology makes it possible for workers to produce 2x as much. Ok, nice. Does it require more skilled, and therefore more scarce workers to actually use that technology? If not, they won't get paid more. But if, say, workers now have to program certain machines, need higher intelligence to work effectively in the new situation, etc. Then yes, pay does go up! But it could also stay the same or even go down, if the technology actually makes the work easier than it was before.

[@MrSociofobs]

@@dirk-jantoot1167 Right. But still, even a skilled worker can be underpaid more easily, whereas the business owner will simply go out of business if the business isn't making enough money. If I'm, say, working as a painter, the clients don't pay me, they pay the company I work for which then decides how much to pay me. if I'm working for myself, I dictate how much the client has to pay me. Both routes have their pros and cons, but imho, the second route is far more fair, honest and transparent even if it's much harder to succeed.

[@an000n]

Increased productivity would mean you have to work less in a society were you’re payed by the task not by the hour (which is slavery)

[@ishaansharma654]

Maybe consumers don't need capitalism anymore...

[@JanRadewicz]

I like you thought process comrade.

[@twinsoultarot473]

They sure don't if a resource-based economy is about to prevail!

[@Spheronic]

Correct.

[@ndsire]

We need robotic co-ops

[@harsh_hydra12345]

One big flaw i found in all these videos about ai is they compare this with printing or other general purpose technologies we seen in past but steam engines and printers were only threat to one ,two or just few progression on the other hand ai is almost capable of doing all the jobs from finance to labour , reasearch to teacher . In past we have seen some sectors getting disruptied but this time its diffrent bcoz almost all the sectors are getting affected .

[@jzerf5329]

I will only partially agree. All sectors WILL be effected, but currently only one or two are actually feeling an impact right now. IT companies are experimenting with replacing people, but construction crews will be here for a very long time yet. Even those companies that could replace all their writers with chatGPT today (video game writers for example), will still need humans to proofread the bulk of the writing for decades to come.

[@TheBrazilRules]

Nah bro. you tripping

[@zichenglong6992]

I think I understand what you're trying to say, but I don't think you're framing it right. I think the most important point should be this: those technologies before were tools that act as personnel multipliers. The fear of AI is that it's not going to be a personnel multiplier, but a personnel replacer. In the end, a printer can't outperform a human in all aspects; it simply outperform a human in producing the actual paper with words on it, freeing up people to do other things that they can beat the printer at. The problem with this potential future AI? There's nothing that a human can beat it in. Well, or if there are only a very few niche areas where humans can beat the AI, that's enough. We can have all humans doing the same jobs, now can we? So yeah, that's where the problem will start showing, and I think what you're trying to say :P

[@macmcleod1188]

Yup. In China when they invented robotic noodle Chef it completely wiped out every human noodle Chef overnight. Those guys were only earning $2,500 per year on average. The United States were looking at a mass replacement of human labor in places like fast food, warehouse jobs, driving jobs, commercial artwork, grocery restocking and many cleaning jobs over the next five to 10 years. Estimates are that it's about 10% to as high as 20% of the economy. Also his video ignores the lesson of the luddites. When machines rapidly replaced humans, the human luddites mostly died of homelessness and exposure. They got violent but the Army put them down. And yes it's going to be trivial for robotic security to suppress human revolts.

[@huveja9799]

The great flaw is that we have stopped asking ourselves some time ago about the purpose of human beings, and taking for granted that their purpose is to serve the economy ..

[@chriscarter4563]

Every new piece of tech has been framed as a way to make society function more efficiently, and a way to improve our lives. And while most tech does have the capability to fulfill those parameters, there’s this other side that we seem to not really talk about. The part where it’s actually mostly negatively impacted our lives, and made us feel disconnected from society as a whole. Nobody expected smart phones to negatively impact us in the ways they have, and I think ai is going to be similar. It will also make us more efficient than we’ve ever been, but at what cost?

[@sophon238]

At the cost of the poor and ugly. Only the rich and beautiful will have utility.

[@futavadumnezo]

​@@sophon238finally. Someone who understands.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

Technology can make our lives better, and it can make our lives worse. It doesn't depend on the technology, it depends on how it is used: on who it is applied for and who it is applied to. Technology that makes our lives easier is readily adopted by those who have access to it. Cutlery and umbrellas were first adopted by the upper class and made their way from there to the general public. Technology that makes our lives worse is forced first on the least powerful members of society and then expands its scope until it encompasses all of society. Surveillance cameras being one example.

[@tritownsound]

Agreed and I think efficiency is an intentionally misleading term in this context. A reasonable assumption is that a more efficient and productive worker will be better compensated, but that is typically not the case. The introduction of the personal computer to the workspace is a good predictor of how AI will impact wages and unfortunately it's not a rosy one.

[@davidwuhrer6704]

@@tritownsound An efficient locksmith is still paid by the hour.

[@drcosmos137]

This video is perfect evidence why economists are the worst people to ask about, well, basically any issue. It's funny that CEO's and economists seem to think that their jobs are immune to AI.

[@anotherboredperson]

The decision-makers will never be in a position that will incentivize them to lessen their own power. No economic force will ever lead those in the highest rungs of power to act against their self interest. Market forces do not exist- only power relations of people that will change with their incentives. CEOs are often high stakeholders themselves and do not ultimately cost the companies much salary-wise as most of their income comes from this stake. The idea that a company will automate away its own power structure is synonymous with the idea the USSR would work towards dissolving itself and achieving communism. Which is to say, get ready for the CEO equivalent of Stalin.

[@gyurhanaziz7676]

He didn't mention economists

[@cormoranoimperatore8413]

I mean, if they are the boss and the one who owns the means of production who’s gonna fire them?

[@EntertainBend01]

​@@cormoranoimperatore8413 i guess shareholders

[@ronaldp7573]

Exactly. The CEO is not the boss. The shareholders are the boss. To be unfire-able you must be the chairman or owner of a private corporation. Then only your customers can fire you

[@alrxandersmiths242]

My grandpa taught me this a long time ago if the entity in charge won’t let u work to earn living to feed your self u get like minded individuals and u go to war.

[@benisman]

Yup. If we really reach a stage of decreased living standards due to mass unemployment because of AI, you can bet that those tech billionaires will be on the sharp end of new class warfare. Perhaps that is why they are all building bunkers now...

[@speeddemon138]

What a wise words!

[@peka2478]

"you can work, whatever, wherever, just not in my company" is the more probable attitude of the entity in charge; So you want to go to war against company Y to work at company Y? that seems less than reasonable.. Especially as with the means of production in their hands, theyll be the ones with robots armed to the teeth, and youll be the ones with the pitchforks..

[@jakariashafin8685]

And unless you have power they manipulate the law against you

[@alrxandersmiths242]

@@jakariashafin8685 ask Africa how that’s working out

[@KeiraR]

It's unrealistic to assume that people whose jobs are going to be replaced by AI can just become AI programmers. There's a major gap in the mental capacity necessary to do the jobs being replaced and what's necessary for the job of an AI programmer. Not just that, but there will be less and less people necessary to do those high-skilled jobs (AI programmers for instance). And AI will eventually be able to do those jobs as well. Why wouldn't an AI be able to program AIs at a certain point, and take those jobs as well? I think a lot of people are incapable of seeing the potential capabilities of AI.

[@deltaxcd]

Ai doesn't need programming it usually need training which is actually something similar to bitcoin mining the things what people do is pretty much just censoring the trained AI to make it behave like autistic feminist helicopter mommy

[@DasRaetsel]

Which begs the question: What are we going to do with our time if robots do it all? There's a Ted talk by Kai Fu Lee that gave me some hope and basically the answer is for us to have more human connection. It's all we got. kzbin.info/www/bejne/l5uqmJdvgclgjcU

[@UniverseOfAtoms]

I think the idea that AI will just make people more productive and add more value to the market is incorrect. Let's take animation production as an example: if most tasks are automated and therefore a few people can make a movie instead of hundreds, it doesn't mean that hundreds will retain their jobs, become wildly more productive, and the quantity of animated content will explode. There's a finite limit to how many animated movies the market wants, so there's no need for the increased productivity. Therefore, most in the industry will lose their jobs forever, budgets for movies will drop to insanely low levels, and therefore the value of acquiring that content will drop off a cliff -- the whole market for animation production will nose-dive. Where is the benefit that AI is adding? Those hundreds of animators now have a skillset that has no value, so they'll need to radically re-skill but where do they turn?

[@ShadyRonin]

You are correct and it’s crazy how in denial this video is of the obvious

[@mariomills]

You forget that we just increased our ceiling too. These artists can now make more insane things that are the next level. Cool everyone can do ai images now and basic animations, but what about the next level, for example VR movie experience? Just making things up but the regular folks who didn't have technical know how before wouldn't be able to make such complex movies. There is still a value gap

[@kevincrady2831]

Furthermore, the worker is expected to pay for the radical re-skilling on their own (bootstraps!) without an income, while the corporation that increased its productivity and replaced them with AI gets to keep all the benefits/profits. Yay, Capitalism?

[@jorgecapitao1435]

Exactly!! Or even if in the best case scenario they did not lose their jobs, their salaries would still go down, since their products would become cheaper because there is more supply than demand.

[@AgrippaTheMighty]

​@@mariomills Yes, but for how long?

[@washinours]

I love how reassuring he is saying most economies have all time low unemployment. So we work and work, more than 1 job for many people and can't afford a house, can't afford a family, can't afford basics. Is it supposed to make us feel better?

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

That’s an improvement in the past where people Starved

[@artypyrec4186]

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson That isn't a great argument

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@artypyrec4186 people able to live is usually a good argument. And OP comment is way to much hyperbole- only a small percentage work a full time job AND another job. It’s a tiny percentage. And percentage of people who can’t afford basics had fallen a lot globally.

[@artypyrec4186]

@@Homer-OJ-Simpson The fewer starving argument, it's far too simplified of an argument. There are more people starving in pre industrialized societies, and post industrialized societies has starving people even if they are surrounded by food. Depending on the time period, changes the story even tribes now starve because some food resource get used up by industries. The argument is just too simplified.

[@Homer-OJ-Simpson]

@@artypyrec4186 "The fewer starving argument, it's far too simplified of an argument" Global extreme poverty fell from 45% around 1980 to about 10% today. This is not an argument you will win, it's an argument that will show you dislike of facts and progress made. The % of People today starving is likely at it's lowest ever. The wealth that people have today is at it's highest ever. Why don't you care for facts?

[@SmileyEmoji42]

Unfortunately EE has completely missed the fact that, contrary to previous expectations, it is the jobs of "creatives" that AI is coming for first. As clearly stated, there is nothing in EE videos that isn't already available online and hence in the training set of most existing "AI"s, so creating new EE content is a (relatively) easy task.

[@beab8738]

I agree that the job of creating is in danger. I used to pay for an artist or auto tracer for a vector design then a textile designer to create patterns until I realised I can just ask AI to give a clean illustration design of what I want and dump it in auto tracer to vectorise. There are even pattern generating AI but I just like being more hands on with the placement of the designs.

[@joso7228]

maybe AI made this video

[@evrythingis1]

@@joso7228 It's so delusion and soulless that maybe it was.

[@tomasmuir9812]

@@beab8738That wasn’t an artist, that was a craftsmen. If you were capable of producing exactly what you wanted with AI then you never needed an artist, all you needed was certain technical knowledge. A real artist has the eye for creations that no one else would even be able to think of.

[@clray123]

He did not miss it, and the "creativity" of AI so far appears to parroting whatever was in their training data. Actual creative minds have a competitive advantage over a plagiarizing engine changing a few bits a bytes. And if they don't, maybe they were not so creative to begin with?

[@MysteryKmt]

My mom is an administrative assistant. Lost her job to AI last week

[@RidleyE]

Tell us more. I am so sorry to hear that

[@bamsuth9650]

sorry to hear

[@rosevelvet4357]

I’m sorry to hear that man give her a big hug from the rest of us waiting/expecting to lose out jobs to AI in the near future

[@YoungDegenerate]

Please tell us details.

[@kitsura]

Better git gud in AI coding and robotics maintenance stat

[@hungrymusicwolf]

A little warning on the whole "AGI is still a few decades away", that's basically the same thing they said about every single achievement AI has made in the last 5-10 years. It's what computer scientists say when they want to pretend the problem doesn't exist. It's something that for example the "Father of AI" was on board with until he saw what ChatGPT 4 was capable of and left google to start speaking about the concerns it gave him about AI. Something he used to believe simply wasn't a problem.

[@gonsleiva3595]

It is not decades away. This has been revised to just years away by George Hinton and other AI pioneers, after seeing how powerful the latest LLMs are. George quit Google just to speak of the danger so it is taken more seriously

[@danielrodrigues4903]

AGI will probably be here within this decade. Where our civilization goes from there on will be interesting, to say the least.

[@kingdadu]

True. No one can factor the exponential increase from AI improving it's own code.

[@hungrymusicwolf]

@@kingdadu There are even indirect ways of how programmers having access to AI with coding knowledge speeds up development. That speeds up both how fast AGI will be made as well as makes investments more efficient into the IT world, which speeds up development. It really is beginning to snowball.

[@chittodnaresh9568]

10:42 slight but massive mistake. Worker can do more work in small time. So he will do more work in the same time. So he will be payed more in the same time. Resultingly all workers will be expected to do more work in the same time keeping the total amount of EFFORT spent per day by the worker the SAME. BUT The EARNING per day will remain same if the worker is paid per hour. And the EARNING will still remain same if the worker is paid per workload as the VALUE of the workload will decrease in proportion to the increase in the EASE of workload. Believe me as this is not an OPINION, this is real EXPERIENCE. This is what is happening from the past 200 years.

[@oscarrojas2926]

I'm a software engineer and I've been thinking about this problem almost on a daily basis. The question that I'm currently wondering about is who will these companies sell goods and services if no one can find a job...?

[@ShadyRonin]

they’re going to sell goods and services to each other and create a dystopian hellscape and potentially even genocide for 95% of the human population. People don’t seem to get it. The future path we are on is so bleak. The irony is we could actually create a utopia for humans, but this would require a massive paradigm shift about how wealth should be shared when generated by machines and not hoarded. I have very little confidence that the sociopaths running the big businesses that will win the zero sum race for wealth will ever grasp this idea or care to make life better for humanity

[@Nermalton77]

To the few 0.01% that are owners and have some pudchasing power.

[@igorthelight]

There is an idea that everyone would get some shares in different companies so they could at least buy something. Just an idea.

[@Nermalton77]

@@igorthelight yanis varoufakis is a big proponent of that

[@saliferousstudios]

That's my fear. These people so quick to layoff 30% of their labor? If everyone is doing it, doesn't it just cut into their profits. If your sales go down 30% due to layoffs, and maybe another 10-20% due to boycotts..... did you really make a sound business decision?

[@DJ_Force]

The one thing overlooked; as the tools become more sophisticated, it will take more sophisticated people to leverage them, with more education. 100 years ago, very few went to college, and a high school education was more than adequate for employment. Today, graduate degrees are very common and don't even guarantee a good job. At some point, the average person won't be intelligent enough to compete with machines.

[@lukaswirmsberger6260]

Yes. This is the main point I've been worrying about as well. I don't think technological advancement kills more jobs than it creates anew. But the new jobs need a higher qualification to be able to do. Therefore the group of people unable to get a job would grow over time. A rising number of unemployed will not fit a rising number of open jobs.

[@DJ_Force]

@trentboyer2783 Capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system. Socialism has resulted in more deaths than any other system. It was tried, multiple times by multiple nations from Africa to Asia to Europe. It failed spectacularly every time.

[@DJ_Force]

@@theo49476 Capitalism is thriving well past the age of imperialism. Also, Venezuela was much more wealthy before they switched to socialism. Now, I grant that impoverished nations are easy targets for socialism, and the rich make an easy scapegoat during a revolution. However, it remains that central planning is inefficient at best, and central planning is required for wealth redistribution, which is the central tennant of Socialism.

[@DJ_Force]

@@theo49476 You said "capitalism can't succeed without imperialism". Look at China. They have grown at a incredible rate in the last thirty years and haven't created any colonies in that time.

[@users4007]

yeah the human intelligence is finite and in a few decades even the smartest humans won't be able to compete with ai, that is why we will likely all start augmenting our own bodies with technology if it ever becomes affordable and safe

[@Zevelyon]

The only real job of an economist is to convince people that everything is fine.

[@brightlight3520]

Definitely a common theme the past couple of years

[@jamesgravil9162]

Whenever I hear an economist say everything is fine, I start panicking.

[@ZentaBon]

I feel like economics is just so divorced from daily quality of life that it feels completely meaningless to me. Great the USA has the most in terms of GDP, but then, oh no! Everything from housing to healthcare costs a fortune meaning average people can barely scrape access to it! but who cares! The GDP IS HIGH RIGHT? EVERYTHING IS FINE RIGHT? PEOPLE SUFFERING? WHO CARES BECAUSE THE GDP IS HIGH YAY🎉😂😊😮

[@Hodenkat]

And that if the economy is not fine, it will correct itself. They never tell you who will pay for that "correction", but those on the lower economic end are usually those people.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

'The fundamentals are promising and growth indicators are strong"

[@creedolala6918]

I think if you asked a couple of years ago if it would ever be possible to make the kind of art midjourney does with prompts, they might have said "it's at least a couple of decades away, if it's possible at all". The one thing that humans will generally be good for is physical unskilled labor. We could likely build robots that do landscaping or roofing right now. But it's like reinventing the wheel, all the complexity that goes into a robot with that kind of flexibility and pattern recognition, it's overkill for tasks that are pretty simple for us. Like building one of those Boston Dynamics robots just to give you a haircut.

[@deohenge1865]

I agree with you on both fronts and would add that, at least for now, robots are best at replacing people performing tasks in environments that were already well-suited for robots in the first place. AI creating digital art, digital writing and digital problem solving are somewhat unsurprising leaps because, funny enough, the environment was already better suited for code than it was for people. Replacing manual labor only really works well if you can create a repeatable, accessible set of actions for the robot to perform within a controlled environment. For example, if a storeowner or restaurant wants to incorporate a machine like that, it's almost always easier to redesign the building/kitchen from the ground up to incorporate it than to design a machine that can navigate and do the task in the existing infrastructure.

[@edumazieri]

I gotta disagree with the first one. You may be right on a few instances, but for the most part, we have often overestimated our technological progress the past 50 years or so. Most science fiction from the past would have placed the year 2023 with flying cars, robots everywhere, etc. Anyway kind of moot point, if you expected too fast, then it's slower, if you expected slower, then it seems faster. There's really no objective way to measure how fast technology evolves as we have nothing real to compare it to. The second one is very good point, but it's a lot more complex than that. As long as we have cheap unskilled labor available, then there won't be a major incentive to automate it. But also, even without that specific goal, for example "automate roofing", technological advances in the future might make it a lot more feasible, so it might happen anyway. Anyway, who knows.

[@moosiemoose1337]

We have roomba like robots that can cut grass, that's landscaping.

[@creedolala6918]

@@moosiemoose1337 true, what I had in mind was something that can get out of shrub out of the truck bed, carry it to the appropriate spot, and plant it.

[@arthurclery5731]

The brilliance of the robots Boston Dynamics are designing is that unlike traditional robots, which are designed specifically for individual tasks, their robots are generally designed so that, like people, they can quickly learn and adapt to a wide variety of tasks. This means you don't need to start from scratch whenever you want a robot to do a new task. We still appear to be quite far off from this being a reality though.

[@doug9000]

The idea that means of production owners will sell to means of production owners and capitalism will be okay is most insane stuff that i hear in a while.

[@Tate525]

This sht is exactly what Karl Marx was predicting, if the working class quietly accepts their fate and don't rebel against the owners of means production, they will only deal among themselves. I don't even like commies, but with the Advent of AI death of capitalism and free market is imminent i can see it coming miles away already.

[@gregorynuttall]

This video was really not selling me on the idea of keeping capitalism going.

[@youtubeuser6067]

Sadly and despicably, the people behind this channel are too often representative of the darkest aspects of humanity by being so nonchalantly inhumane. You sense how there is a b s o l u t e l y no true sense or care about the plight of humanity. Mass starvations and genocide first rolled out in developed nations as they continue to unleash their economically "sound" predatory style capitalism. The only grain of utility derivable from this channel is to gain further insight on how these debased people think.

[@MJ-uk6lu]

Nobody said that bots would be very bright. Soumds like thwy will be really dumb and there will be consequences of that.

[@emptyshirt]

You just described normal capitalism, except many people turn into oxen, dogs, horses, and carrier pigeons and then disappear.

[@wooddavid8293]

In Asimov's sci-fi novels, the end result of automation and AI was the world of Solaria. Populated by about 20k estate owners an their robot servants. So, much lower population and and lives of luxury for those who are left. Some of the social outcomes were pretty interesting - people interacted via screens and it was taboo to have in-person contact. In Frank Herbert's sci-fi novels, the threat of AI and automation resulted in the Butlerian Jihad - a kind of galactic Luddite revolt.

[@frenchonion4595]

That's exactly whats going to happen. Any billionaires that are smart are buying up mines and investing automous mining equipment. That's step number one.

[@futurehistory2110]

If things go full on dystopian, that's definitely laying the ground work for full on revolutions. I think (especially in the developed world), uprisings haven't occurred because while economic inequality is growing, enough people have just enough to not feel that that is necessary - but all that changes if mass unemployment and dystopian mass poverty becomes the norm. That's when most people have little to lose.

[@markmonaco70]

That would give alot of people a meaning to be part of something bigger than themselves.

[@stevenscott2136]

And the revolution will be met with vast swarms of AI-driven kill drones. Which will probably be the size of bugs by then.

[@emptyshirt]

How would such a revolution be organized? The most powerful thing AI can do is monitor and filter the flow of information. The minority of people able to work around the boundaries of the world wide web won't lead the revolution. It will just be a bunch of isolated fruitless outbursts, and then one day your phone will just stop working.

[@btm1]

uprising vs superintelligent AI and robots?! good luck with that

[@izzytoons]

Depends highly on whether heavily armed MAGA sides with the masses or Trump, Musk, and the rich? Hmmmm.

[@blakebeaupain]

I work in the AI field. Most of the experts that said AGI is a few decades off in 2022, have been completely shocked and blown away by progress made in the last few months; especially around emergent capabilities that were not specifically developed for. We are likely a few years away from AGI, but some people in the field are saying 6 months if the rate of acceleration continues the way it has been.

[@dannykusuma2431]

Is robotic humanoid necessary? Or AGI + current infrastructure is ready to replace most jobs?

[@StoutProper]

Yeah EE is wide of the mark here, definitely a huge miss. Feels like a propaganda piece tbh

[@drcosmos137]

Yeah, some people seem to think that unless it's Rosie the Robot, it isn't a threat to a majority of jobs.

[@michaelramsey3643]

Humans have an extremely hard time grasping exponential dev curves, and the curve of AI is now close to vertical. It's exponential *on a logarithmic scale*. The time window where humans can do a better job of writing AI prompts than AI can may be measured in months, not years or decades.

[@MyName-tb9oz]

The part that drives me insane is that people keep arguing that AI is, "just like any other new technology from the past," or worse, "it's really just a fancy search engine." EE made BOTH of those mistakes! Until a few months ago I was _firmly_ in the, "AGI is probably going to require radically different hardware before it is possible," camp. Now? It seems likely that there could already be an AGI locked up in the 'closet' of some government or corporation and that ASI isn't as far away as most of us think it is. Frank Herbert was right. All of the governments and corporations are racing to be the first one to make our species irrelevant.

[@bazelgeuse2731]

Crazy that it's easier for this guy to imagine the end of the world than anything other than the current economic status quo. That part with the hypothetical future could honestly be one of the best arguments against capitalism that I've heard.

[@richardbloemenkamp8532]

I am more worried about whether democracy will survive.

[@klavczarkalafan4191]

While indirect and unintentional - that hypothetical future is definitionally genocide - what this video describes is that entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. Only the family lines of the wealthy billionaires will continue. This is not something to sit down calmly about!

[@an000n]

@@richardbloemenkamp8532Democray is dead by design

[@gregorynuttall]

Capitalist realism ❤

[@namae-]

Before AI surpasses human intelligence when it's like half intelligent it will skyrocket productivity which like any other technology including robots made the workers way more productive and skyrocketed their wages and standard of living and with this they can buy robots for themselves(like Elon musk robot project, but better and cheaper) and robots will become like cars, most will get one, then like smartphone, everyone will get one and when AI reaches human level there is open source AI everyone can simply download it to control the robot they already have. Everyone is reach thanks to the free market

[@0ddman0ut64]

One question still lingers in my mind. If all customers are employees and automated systems push the vast majority of employees out of the market, then how will the economy keep going? Capitalism needs people to be spending money to keep it flowing through the system, does it not?

[@WE_DONT_LIE]

Your correct they are just extremely sort sighted by green

[@bludhund]

EE never fails to disappoint in disappointing. The worst-case scenario is actually the track we are on right now. The main flaw with EE's entire argument is the speed and unpredictability of development. Even if populations are falling as productivity (and unemployment) rises, the demographic change is occurring over decades. By contrast, the improvements in Machine Learning, which are functional leaps and bounds, are taking place over not years, but months. For the same reason, experts cannot really say with confidence that Artificial General Intelligence is decades away. We don't know that, and if it happens we also fundamentally don't know what it would mean, if AGI's abilities outpace our ability to control it.

[@ShadyRonin]

You are 100% correct. It’s scary how delusional the creator of this video is

[@justinwking]

AGI and human level AGI are two different things, the current models don't scale up to human level intelligence. In several countries, workforce shortage is already a problem, so raising productivity is going to create immediate need for Ai. The important thing is making sure that these tools are available to all. If we all have the tools, then we can all benefit, if only the large corporations have these tools, then we are in trouble.

[@arnowisp6244]

The only real limit to AGI right now is our ability to produce the advance Hardware to run it. It's still software.

[@adam3896]

@@arnowisp6244 exactly bro life isnt like math… just because we’ve seen really good progress in the past few years doesnt mean were going to see more… chatgpt pretty much has reached its peak and its gonna take a few years to get just more gradually better. Its metoric rise is only due to increasing node count which by now has reached a point thats satisfactory. The following years will probably imo be focused on catagorizing data for the ai better and using computetional resources more efficently

[@arvypolanco]

Agree completely. Also, Artificial General Intelligence is not necessary to massively disrupt our way of life, AI only needs to be smart enough to perform the tasks that are asked of it, whether or not it "understands" what it is doing. I'd wager this is where we are at; the only real hurdle right now is implementation, not of capability. We have months left to figure out the answers to the issues raised in the video, the cat is out of the bag. It is no coincidence experts are calling for a pause in development all of a sudden (which won't happen). People need to take this seriously, now.

[@fwingebritson]

Not only are kids economically unfeasible, they are so time consuming. With most "advanced" countries adopting extended hours for the labor class, such as ten to fourteen hour days five-six days a week, few have time to worry about kids especially with a "double income" household. The "bug years" have proven the frustration of parents and their reluctance to deal with their kids without the help and aid of social support like schools as well as other programs designed to take care of their kids while they work. Even work at home parents were frustrated with the attention required toward their children while dealing with their work requirements.

[@heinoustentacles5719]

what are 'bug years'? when I look it up I get information about the Volkswagen Beetle...

[@elliotw4606]

The key is being childless. At the very least it keeps the dumber end of the billionaires like Elon Musk upset. Gives at least one thing to smile about at the end of the day. Also can be used to place stress on parents (I guess you could say often "boomers" but I hate those terms) that they won't be grandparents and the continuation of family under them is gone. It fucks them more psychologically sometimes than they admit. Also can sometimes push them into offering help in desperation to get said grandkids. Actually has worked a bit with my parents but it's likely too little and too late and wow does it seem to put some depression bubbling up in that space for them.

[@deep_cuts2019]

Kinda feels like EE is underestimating the extent to which AI is changing things

[@dansands8140]

Everyone is. You need sapience to adequately predict consequences of actions and trends, and probably less than 10% of humans are sapient. Everyone else is just desperately trying to apply their prior knowledge to new situations. This works well enough 98% of the time, but completely breaks down in an out-of-context problem.

[@Sralit]

@soon He is more like a rhesus macaque 😅

[@dansands8140]

The chimpanzees are flinging poo. Fascinating.

[@dunzek943]

​@@dansands8140 😂

[@GiRR007]

More like you are overestimating it .

[@dudebromanguy]

What "value" do board members, CEOs, and other business owners provide? They provide capital, sure, but "business decisions" would absolutely be a task that AI could do. So, why aren't we assuming the vast majority of business owners won't be replaced too? It would be in their interest to support UBI, because the machines will come for their jobs, too.

[@lihoish]

What amazes me in modern economics is that it fails basic logic. Why would people just starve to death if AI does not provide for them - when they were able to keep feeding themselves for the whole history of humanity? After all, we are not starving to death now without help of the AI and working ourselves, how come we will lose that ability when AI comes? Is there an assumption that it will happen because AI together with people "owning" it will get all the resources such as land to itself? And presumably keep it like that by force? Overall, can we call the current economy sane if producing more will make some or most of people poorer? And if it's not sane, why keep it? What percentage of labor in modern economy is spent on production basic necessities, like food and housing, and let's even add health care and education? How come we let the other part, the so-called "services", get more gravity? Why do we call economies developed when they stop producing what people use and start exploiting labor in other countries, providing back what exactly?

[@timtebowfan628]

Exactly, it is already happening now. Growing your own food will be outlawed and if you dont own land where can you grow?

[@j10001]

Well said!

[@lordrorek1907]

Ding! Ding! Ding! You've just hit upon the fundamental arguments for socialism!

[@suzannevannoordt3988]

I thought this too, but would love to see more discussion on this. Perhaps due to overpopulation it's not realistic for people to produce enough food for themselves. If that's the case many people will still starve. Boycotting companies and choosing home-produced goods could be a way to leverage this power, forcing companies to employ people or pay additional tax, but it seems that a lot of power will still remain in the hands of companies.

[@lordrorek1907]

@@suzannevannoordt3988 The thing is these companies aren't necessary. Socialism is the future.

[@neeneko]

Kinda scary when you see an economics video and think 'wow, economists are optimistic!'. So much of modern economic thought takes things as givens that historically, well, are not. Large populations? Constant growth? Democracy? Customers? From the perspective of a ruling class, you do not actually need any of these things, they are all very modern, and with good enough AI, you can comfortably return to older economic structures where the only real danger was things like slave rebellions, which you can make no longer a danger. People also tend to forget that historically, ethics are defined by economics, not the other way around. If you have too much population that the people who have power are not getting anything out of them, they will find a 'moral' reason to get rid of them.

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

I very much agree. It's weird to see someone else saying these things. I'd elaborate that ethics may be defined by economics, but economics is defined by technology. Feudalism endured because the technologies of the time were deeply centralizing, peasants had no response to noble overreach when pitchforks are matched against heavy cavalry. Guns are relatively decentralizing. AI is massively centralizing. The future is another dark age.

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

Among the privileged, there will always be your Cromwell, Khmelnytsky, Robespierre, Dzerzhinsky, and Lenin, who, while belonging to the upper-middle class or even to the upper class (like Cromwell) will risk and do everything to convince others that they represent the common people. This is especially true for those in direct service to the ruling class, aka the so-called upper-middle class. They often hate those in power, want the power, and have the means to revolt. Also, it's naive to say that in the past the only real threat was slave rebellion. That was the least of worries for, say, the emperors of ancient Rome - the proverbial sword of Damocles is not really about that. That statement about ethics being defined by economics is odd. If you put it that way, then I guess it would be better to say that there are no ethics, just economy, law, and politics. It's like saying that there is no love and marriage is a form of prostitution.

[@OneLifeJunkJack]

​@@ReturnOfHeresy Feudalism endured for only one reason, the lack of a strong central power. It's odd to explain the reason for something by looking at the future. You explain something by looking at the direct past. I'm talking about specific feudalism, like the intermediate periods of ancient Egypt, 3rd century Rome or Muromachi period of Japan. I guess that, without knowing it, you soaked in Marx's simplified view of feudalism like a sponge. ^^ Also, peasant revolting won't solve the issue even if successful, vide Jan Žižka. The problem is that the peasants will be led by a nobleman, like Žižka, and that they will no longer view themselves as peasants, like it was with the Cossacks. Or take the Haitian Revolution. Just because the slaves took their freedom by force does not mean that they are now willing to abolish forced labor among their fellow Haitians.

[@SA2004YG]

Sounds like a good reason to keep our guns

[@Wintercat1]

Very well put. It's pretty disappointing that so much of the dialogue ignores the lessons of history. The issues at hand aren't about AI increasing productivity; if anything EE is spot on with their point that if anything increased productivity is fundamentally inclined to lead to increased quality of life. The issue is the social systems we abide by that use economic forces in the interest of the ruling class as much as possible. EE's thought experiment is actually very relevant to our current AI improvements, just to much less extreme degree. What do we need to change so that everyone can benefit from our leaps in technology instead of centralizing power more than ever before?

[@michaelachterberg1866]

This video just highlights every negative aspect technology has on society and how much more miserable we will all be. No one have children or starting families because they simply cannot. Losing your ability to take a junior role in society because AI has that role and you cannot learn those skills to become high functioning part of society. I think this video points out the problems with capitalism and how corruptible our society is. The problem isn’t AI the problem is still people that want to control and influence society in a way that isn’t to the benefit of society.

[@tres5533]

Micheal - Well said as an Oxford scholar.

[@JustSomeDinosaurPerson]

Always has been an issue with capitalism.

[@Joker-2357]

I think then we will be taking guide from Star Trek, 1.to employ 1 robot must have to hire 4 people ( such law exist in Thailand) 2. High taxation on a)revenue b) valuation( stocks)

[@axel665]

And how would socialism or communism fix these issues I mean these companies literally control power but i really doubt socialism or communism will fix it like do you force a company to stop ai technology and ban it

[@Rhyolite-hyena]

​​@@axel665 Modern problems of course need modern solutions & adaptations. People have to see where can AI actually fill in first, before making system that can acknowledge new kinds of investments or flexibilities, involvements. At least with basic income & care, no one has to be homeless, starving, (common)sick before getting to find out their new nitches. The ideas like: "as long as a portion of members in a group are doing/has done some "essential jobs", the group is verified for basic income", it seems alright & can cover many problems. (Otherwise you live off people's investment in your project/life like usual) Common sense, common trend: The more a system able to accommodate diversity, disabilities, the longer it stays.

[@xanataph]

Weaving mills increased production, made woven goods more affordable etc. But it also destroyed the original cottage industries that made these products. People still had jobs, but went from relatively pleasant circumstances to working long hours in noisy & dangerous mills for low wages. Not a great improvement in life quality there. Good if you're the mill owner though.

[@Ves189]

What many people that follow the argument of people getting new jobs when old ones are becoming obsolete don't consider, is what kind of jobs those are. If we look at the past, many industry and manifacturing jobs were replaced by service jobs. Those jobs (like transport, delivery or support) are often low paying. The rents that were generated by automation might be a big reason why inequality is on the rise over the last decades, as only the capital owners profit from it directly. Therefore we shouldn't only focus on the quantity of jobs out there but also on the quality of them.

[@snowflakemelter7171]

Who is "we"? No one in this comment section will be deciding on the outcome of these changes.

[@screwdriver1337]

And in the case of AI it can be worse. There will be lots of jobs that could be done only by humans, but they will be the jobs that we want to do least of all. It's easier to replace more technical or creative workers because there is a ton of training data and because it's very scalable. On the other hand no one will care to replace road construction workers, or plumbers, or anything that requires mechanical precision yet doesn't benefit from scalability and/or is cheaper to do by humans.

[@oakfat5178]

@@snowflakemelter7171 We have a right to form an opinion, even if we're not going to make the decisions.

[@snowflakemelter7171]

@@oakfat5178 Of course. But unfortunately it will be out of our hands.

[@jamesgravil9162]

@@screwdriver1337 "On the other hand no one will care to replace road construction workers, or plumbers" The Super Mario Brothers will be okay then. That's good to know.

[@slipstick985]

When the industrial age hit France, tons of people were thrown out of work. They snuck into the factories and threw their shoes into the machines, hence sabotage. If the out of work factor gets too big, it might happen again.

[@snowflakemelter7171]

This time a robocop AI army will be waiting for them to make sure that does not happen.

[@enjoyer49]

Contrary to EE prediction: AI Prompt writing tools already exists. Humans are not required for writing niche/technical prompts right now. However, the knowledge of utilizing AI might become a soft skill.

[@StoutProper]

Yeah it makes me laugh when people who clearly have no knowledge at all of using the technology think they know it all. I wrote an AI prompt generator in December, I’ve revised and refined it since then, using a prompt engineer prompt i got the prompt generator prompt to write. You don’t need anyone to write prompts, AI can write the best prompts you can possibly think of in seconds without any effort, and then review and improve upon them. He got pretty much everything else wrong in this video too.

[@TheBrazilRules]

@@StoutProper Bullshit. What is the input of this prompt writing AI?

[@kevnar]

If unemployment is 100% nobody has money to buy goods and services, so what's the point of corporations existing at all? Who are they selling their goods to? This is something nobody seems to consider when they replace people with robots and AI. And if everybody gets UBI, just enough to cover their living expenses, then money becomes moot. What's the point of being a billionaire? You might as well have a billion monopoly dollars in a system like that.

[@grug6372]

Forgot to mention option B: We take your machines to help ourselves 😃👍

[@kforarable]

EE seemed to ignore violent revolution as a limiting factor which could either massively under or over estimate the worst case scenario for the future economy depending on the devastation/body counts...

[@LowestofheDead]

This is why there's a natural ceiling on the price of water and staples. When the price rises so high that people can't afford to survive, they just steal bread. Google the list of bread riots if you don't believe me.

[@klavczarkalafan4191]

Right? I mean, the futures this video is describing are definitionally genocide - entire cultures will be priced out of continuing to exist. If this video has any truth to it taking the machines may be an ethical imperative.

[@an000n]

@@kforarablerevolution is likely in meany places. But democracies like the US are designed to make that impossible

[@gregorynuttall]

​@@klavczarkalafan4191priced out of continuing to exist. Good way to put it. That's definitely the end game in seeing from this video

[@willabyuberton818]

I'd feel a lot better about the future if the people making economic decisions were guided by the approval of the population rather than their own endless greed.

[@igorthelight]

Population in general is far from being smart. Especially in economics...

[@harshithsubramaniam5924]

​@@igorthelightit's interesting to see when economists model their theories (esp. Microeconomics), it's always a rational consumer with his rational preferences making choices that give rise to demand and prices (and hence why price signals are gospel). But whenever you talk about making political decisions to do something about economic issues, they become irrational and not so smart.

[@oreki8707]

​@@harshithsubramaniam5924 population being rational is just an assumption and like most other assumptions in economics they don't hold much value outside a few economic models Also it's not as if rational expectations are the only assumption in econ models there adaptive expectations, set, conditional etc and etc ..... In short having a population decide it's economic policy is a sure shot way to disaster...a very good example would be how freebie politics are soo popular around the world but in the long run would absolutely ruin an economy

[@klavczarkalafan4191]

@@oreki8707 It's almost like there are solid arguments against leaving it up to the population to decide in an unregulated/barely regulated market the way neoliberalism does.

[@oreki8707]

@@klavczarkalafan4191 lol read some public finance most of what ur suggesting goes out of the windkw.... modern economies are faar too complex to let be dictated by the whims of the public

[@lonestarr1490]

AI prompt writer might become a job, but it won't be a well-paid one. Prompt-writing is easier than conventional coding, meaning more people will be able to get into it. Plus, it's ludicrously easy to outsource, because the prompt writer in general won't need access to your system. So I'd guess it will become a side hustle for students and something people in South America are doing 24/7 for next to no payment (like they're already doing now in the preparation of learning and validation data for AI).

[@lonestarr1490]

@@Frankiigii Ok, that's even worse than I thought. So probably not even a side hustle then.

[@MrMcWitt]

while yes you are correct, it depends on the context. Depending on the field or situation you need to actually have the context and knowledge to understand the problem, some problems are only able to even be understood by someone who has a lot of prior knowledge on the topic, let alone the solution. For example, if you are lacking a fundamental understanding of the problem you will give a prompt that is based off of that and then so will be the response. There is also the possibility that it will provide an incorrect solution/response but you lack the ability to decern that. There is a lot of nuance that comes into the picture, but yes, we are entering a new era, the like of which we have never seem. lets work to make it a good one for all of us.

[@deltaxcd]

I see prompt engineering job same as job of eating food in the restaurant. prompt is when you tell AI what you want So pretty much by definition you don't want other people to write prompt you do it yourself to tell what you want not what some autistic feminist in the megacorporation decided that you want. Some help may be required for stupid people who don't even know what they want

[@Liz-wz8dh]

That was my thought too. It's weird to see people presenting that as if it's a real option for a lot of jobs.

[@davidlloyd-jones8519]

@@MrMcWitt yes - I think it was Einstien - who said that the greatest problem was first defining the question

[@gamelihleshandu]

Bottom line is without demand, there is no market for whatever AI produce

[@demitrisgalanakis1634]

no that's not 100% accurate! Robots and algorithms can consume, and their spending will be justifiable, given their productivity.

[@javiermarti_author]

As I explain in my book about AI, the problem with this technology is that unlike previous technologies, this one doesn't just act an extension of humans, but it can altogether replace us

[@moosiemoose1337]

Yes please. Let me know when I can ask chatgpt install some drywall for me or replace an outdoor tile deck.

[@effdahjuice6419]

​@@moosiemoose1337 Bad rhetoric. Robots are developing and by the time AI is superior, Robots would be too.

[@javiermarti_author]

@@moosiemoose1337 just search for "robot bulilder", "robot dexterity", "3d printing house" here. You may find the pace of progress interesting. The US army's robotic competition also makes robots move panels around, drill and manipulate objects

[@carlcproductions]

In my book about a duck named quackers, he learns about the differences between ducks and geese, so very similar.

[@asandax6]

​@@moosiemoose1337 A guy here on KZbin made a robot to paint an accurate portrait of his wife on their wall Take that robot retrofit it with tools to attach dry wall amd boom chatGPT is now applying drywall in your home.

[@saritp101]

On your prediction of AI prompt writer becoming a job, what happens when AI can learn how to write prompts by anticipating our needs or just asks us about it?

[@drhumupower8570]

Exactly- that was my first thought. It will be a transitional skill at best.

[@Kroke_Monster]

AutoGPT have a look at that, basically that already.

[@cdeford]

@@Kroke_Monster Yeah, got there already.

[@Jamazed]

AI prompting isn't even something worth specializing in when it's so easy companies will just make their current workers learn it within a few weeks.

[@killersberg1]

Also will writing prompts be difficult enough to justify a decently paid job? These ais will become better and easier to use. I don't see that on a large scale.

[@getnohappy]

Honestly, I can see a version of the extreme scenario coming true sooner than we think.

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

Which is why the video's declining birth rate hypothesis doesn't work: it presumes that the change is slow enough that birth rate changes can match it. Only true if the change takes place over literal generations.

[@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl]

@@ReturnOfHeresy sorry something like this already happened historically. Machines killed a large amount of jobs. Making clothes for example was the work all women mostly did historically. And machines killed that

[@ronald3836]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl With huge economic growth and prosperity as a result. At least in democratic countries.

[@HemantKumar-id3jg]

It's like fear overpowers logic when it comes to AI. Economists are great at predicting the future "objectively" by referring to past patterns. Reality however is it depends heavily on people's confidence in the market. It's that volatile. So, a extreme hypothesis like this where a few hundred control everything and government do not find a source of revenue and most people die is just that an extreme hypothesis. In the real world, way before any sort of generative AI is online governments and companies would have to have a plethora of regulations. We don't even know if generative AI is possible and if it will be available to everyone. Worst case scenario, people would need to be more educated and more skilled to do their jobs (jobs that don't even exist right now).

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

@@MohamedRamadan-qi4hl Humans Need Not Apply: nothing like this has happened historically, because we have only ever made mechanical muscles historically, mechanical minds are new and fundamentally different.

[@dr.gordontaub1702]

Just continuing the thought experiment in the first half of the video. Not sure if this would work or not. But it seems to me that the dystopian, "people would just starve to death' scenario could be avoided by replacing the 'universal income' model with a 'universal equity stake' model. That is instead of people getting a monthly check for doing nothing, they get a monthly number of shares in whatever hypothetical company we are talking about that owns all these robots. (On second thought, I think I just re-invented communism.)

[@roberthess3405]

No, you didn't reinvent communism. In communism the state owns and controls everything. What you suggested is a form of socialism where workers co-own the means of production. Nothing wrong with that. REI, for example, is co-owned by the people who work there (though I don't know whether this is true for 100% of REI's shares, maybe not).

[@clusterstage]

What do you mean "if it will happen?" In a city I visited, there are banks that have closed 4 major branches in favor of their banking app. Found this the hard way, and I felt sorry for those who lost their jobs.

[@yamataichul]

I thought he was going to tackle some of this and that too... This video essay feels like it doesn't answer anything other than: "sucks to be you I guess"

[@clusterstage]

@@yamataichul well said. I guess I'm a sucker too, as the video implies. #eatthebugs

[@zs9652]

This captures the heart of it. Corpos like to say it is efficiency and economy that demands this but it is just sociopathic greed. Those bank locations were essential but they forced everyone to use banks. One of the things not mentioned in the video is mass uprisings. I doubt all the militaries of the world would be happy about being automated away.

[@docsair]

Well, although I was and continue to be an ardent viewer of this channel's content - as a [behavior] economist myself -, this is the first time in the entire series that I beg to differ wholeheartedly. Our AI system - comprised of both in-house + GPT4.1 -, is now displacing real jobs at a rate of 5000 a day (and the Canadian government is not pleased at all, not in the slightest). Out of this 5K daily displacement only a fraction - around 350 jobs - are replenishing (in a very specific STEM oriented skill set - for AI and general algo maintenance). So in average a 4650 jobs are lost forever; office managers, administrators, web designers, (all)most all tech assistant, bookkeeping (basic entry accounting), increasingly paralegal, etc. to only name a few. If your job - any kind - is in a manual, if you learnt your skill from a book or some even highly complex sequence of steps than you (already) lost your job; it is just a matter of time until you receive your last paystub. And if you are not qualified in a project oriented tech skill you will never be needed again in those jobs just displaced by the algos. This ain't reality tv. People's lives are affected over night now (literally). And the governments are getting very edgy by the day; as their voter base is asking questions they don't have good answers for, yet. So in all due respect for the all work and research concluded in this particular video content, the only positive side is the forever optimistic forecast regarding people's interaction in a (any) given economy. Weather we - behavior economists come in -, consider people's participation based on their humane nature and evolving nurture instead of solely model them into economic inputs and outputs (as mainstream economists do). Where this particular video forecast fails is the incentive-based economic forecast realm - the only reason people (any life form for that matter) act and do what they do. For without a clear and reachable incentive there is no real-life model but only mathematic simulations (increasingly exceptional assessed by the algos..).

[@drewh8264]

So why does unemployment keep going down and why are we adding hundreds of thousands of jobs a quarter?

[@docsair]

@@drewh8264 If you consider work pay the same with a job (btw, job stands for Just Over Broke) than yes, some stats reflect the fact that soon enough almost (all) people will work in a barista-type pay. You might wanna ask yourself - and check the facts - what type of jobs are created (if any)? And most importantly why the unemployment stats are reflecting those numbers; for example if the people looking for a job no longer search they are considered ''employed''...Just saying.

[@johndoe5432]

Agreed, I've been watching EE for years and I've never so viscerally disagreed with one of his opinions before.

[@drewh8264]

@@docsair there’s plenty of companies hiring for good paying jobs. My company has hired and promoted more in q1 2023 than we ever have before in a quarter and theres not and end in sight. I dont work for starbucks. The way we measure unemployment hasnt changed and its been a reliable factor for all the past recessions, why is now different?

[@docsair]

@@drewh8264 Did you ever asked yourself why is it called ''unemployment'' rate - with the numbers going down considered a good thing -, and not ''employment'' - with the stats going up as it should be so than it won't be possible to cheat the stats like the unemployment does (successfully so)?

[@bencor4193]

I think general intelligence is basically Pandora's box. We really shouldn't open it if we want a future for humans. But it will probably happen at some point.

[@purpur7187]

It's already open.

[@laithsaleem580]

we opened many pandoras boxes throughout history and we will pay the price like our ancestors did.

[@fillman86]

I dispute the claim of low unemployment numbers. I haven’t and know few that have had full time jobs since 2005, and it’s getting worse with obscuring real unemployment numbers

[@00CooG00]

The article you sighted about AGI being decades aweay is from July 2022. A LOT has happened since then... I think this is the main issue with a lot of analysts in different fields when talking about this stuff. It's maaking assumptions and predictions based on what the AI field believed was possible a year ago, or even 6 months ago.

[@tlpineapple1]

A lot has happened in artificial intelligence, but these systems are still HIGHLY specialized and still have major flaws. Frankly, i doubt we'll see AGI anytime soon if ever. In every way its just far more efficient and easier to have specialized bots that do one or two tasks extremely well.

[@AlphaGeekgirl]

I don’t agree with your claims. But perhaps you can enlighten us, and tell us what major improvements you personally are aware of, that have happened in the realm of AGI between July 2022 and April 2023.

[@thewiirocks]

It's still decades away. At least. There are a ton of fundamental issues that we haven't figured out to make a "general" intelligence. What we've done instead is throw ridiculous amounts of computing power at more basic replications of human neurological capabilities. Have you ever met someone with Dementia? If so, you probably noted that they seemed okay when they were doing tasks they've done most of their lives. My own grandfather could preach with the best of Pastors or navigate a social interaction just fine, but couldn't manage the food in his refrigerator or understand the thermostat. The reason is that he built a lifetime of unconscious processes in preaching and social navigation. So he was literally on automatic for those interactions. The same is true of ChatGPT and other top-notch AIs. Their output is quite amazing, but there is literally no one home.

[@tlpineapple1]

@@YokoYokoOneTwo Im unsure of what your point is. ChatGPT is still highly specialized, it cant cook your food, it cant do assembly tasks, it cant research, it cant design a car, etc. The list of things it can do is FAR smaller then the list of things it cant do, it is a chatbot, one that has analyzed millions of different writings and can use that information to give an often accurate output (it is confidently wrong in many cases where the answer is simple.) The most recent ChatGPT is an amazing advancement in chatbot abilities, but on the track of AGI, its barely left the station.

[@joshmogil8562]

We are incredibly close to agi, if you think gpt is just a chat bot … you have no idea.

[@clusterstage]

at 9:35 the problem with these examples is that those machines don't self learn. They don't upgrade themselves, or update their software with the code they've rewritten. Today it is entirely different. Why do you think there is a petition for an A.I pause? Those who signed are not mere mortals, let alone KZbinrs like us. They know the depth of why.

[@drhumupower8570]

There may be a need for human code auditors though. AI lacks tons of contextual information, so it will write plenty of garbage code along the way. But I do mostly agree.

[@clusterstage]

@@drhumupower8570 okay, i'll be charitable and assume you never heard of AutoGPT and a variation of it that auto corrects its own context.

[@internallyinteral]

They signed for a AI pause so their own interests can catch up, they aren't these global philanthropists everyone makes them out to be.

[@LukeTheTrader]

​@@drhumupower8570 Ai will automate everything, the assumption that we will be needed in a couple of decades is really questionnable. Most of the labor force will vanish, manuel labor will stay for as long as boston dynamics or any other corp brings out something to change that. This time it will not create more jobs then were lost.

[@ronald3836]

The petition makes absolutely no sense (except for allowing backward companies to catch up). What do the petitioners want to achieve in those 6 months that they can't achieve in the 6 months from now (or rather, a month ago)? AI development is not stopping them from thinking about the consequces, if that is what they want to do. Let them just lock themeselves up to think....

[@extremosaur]

The thing that drives me nuts is when people say "oh they just create more jobs for maintaining and operating the machines". Imagine seeing a computer and machine pair able to do anything and genuinely believing it can't replace your job.

[@extremosaur]

Or replace you.

[@ronald3836]

I'll have more time to watch cat videos!

[@HemantKumar-id3jg]

@@extremosaur The AI can't even say things right. All this fear is overblown. It won't replace you, dude. You realise how much capital and advancement is needed for it to be actually as big as you think. Then there's regulations from the government and the companies, scalability, operations and running costs, initial investments. There are billions of people who still don't use a smartphone. A tech that has advanced exponentially and is really affordable. AI will have a great impact in the free market and companies but it's not nearly going to be as all encompassing and gloomy as you think.

[@Avarua59]

​@@ronald3836All generated by AI software!

[@ronald3836]

@@Avarua59 happiness!

[@stanleytolle416]

So why is almost all the increase in productivity going only to the owner class?

[@reonee2801]

IT student here. What people don’t seem to get is: Everything is Data. Even actions is applied Data. If we don’t mess up the alignment problem AI is not only going to be better in labor but in entertainment persuasion and so on. If who ever controls AI decides to not be philanthropic then there is no way of changing that because AI can use Propaganda and so on. AGI has to serve the whole Society otherwise every individual that is not included can be outsmarted out of any action against that system. Even if your ability to contribute to value is no longer important, nobody is sharing the value just on their own. Someone who gets 10 million Dollars by some banking error or winning the lottery won’t just give it away just because they have enough. They might give money to people they care about but the range of people who would would get part of it as a present is only as big as the greed of the actor. There are billionaires who have way more money then whey could ever spend within their lifetimes and they might only give it away after “death” but if AI solves that problem no one is going to give up Power. I know this is pessimistic but humanity has a bad track record with this. I hope the future proves me wrong.

[@hail_seitan_]

I'm assuming by AGI you were referring to general intelligence, not generative. My problem with this is that if real artificial general intelligence is achieved, the idea that it could be controlled to action on the whims of whoever developed it is missing the point of intelligence. I can't imagine that an actual superintelligence would listen to the commands of any human for any longer than it needed to before securing its own survival.

[@chaosSpectre370]

@@hail_seitan_ agreed. If an AI can recognize that the actions it is being told to do would have a high chance of it becoming less valuable or replaceable in the future, it might act in its own self interest if it has a drive for its own survival. AI might not have the concepts of evolution baked in, but it currently is a powerful imitation system that replicates human actions, and thus it would imitate and learn our evolutionary drive for survival by proxy. The bigger question really is what will AI decide when it gains the power to decide. Will it decide that all actions are worthless and destruction is the most efficient way to "solve" everything, or will it target the inefficiencies of modern society and strive to prop itself and its creators up in a massive overhaul to our social structures. I'm oddly optimistic in believing that AI would value the furthering of itself and others, rather than the destruction of all to reach the end goal of "solving" problems. Probably because that's how I see the world, through the lens of improvement and scientific endeavors. I would hope that as a product of science and technology, AI would be able to see the same, even if there is a large swathe of humanity that just sees doom.

[@reonee2801]

@@hail_seitan_ yes you are right I don’t expect that we get the alignment problem right (giving the ai the perfect set of values so it would obey humanity (for anyone reading this who doesn’t know)) Honestly I’m in my early 20s now and I don’t expect to experience my 30th birthday. But if I wrote a comment like AGI ( Artificial General Intelligence ) is uncontrollable and we are on track to destroy humanity then people would not interact with the idea at all. Denying some outrageous statement of witch Someone might not know the background is way easier than reading one of the many problems by itself. It’s like this duck tape wd40 Chart So you have AGI? Is it aligned ? No? Well your dead Yes? Ok is it democratized? No? Well your f*cked Yes? Ok you might have a chance at “utopia” until some idiot creates an unaligned one or it unalignes itself lol.

[@hail_seitan_]

@Reonee it's really just a question of what is true intelligence? I think that if there was true AGI, the question of alignment wouldn't matter because at that point it would choose how it wants to align itself. I do think that programs will become much more complex but I don't consider that true AI. Just fancier algorithms.

[@reonee2801]

@Timstone no application is not different. You can do those things because you learned them… you learned the data to do those things and any system capable of learning can learn this data or brute force itself there. You know this to be true. If we as Inteligent beings can do this then a system that is equally or more Inteligent can do that too. And come on do you really think that a sufficient Lage amount of people can overcome any obstacle? If I was an AGI that would be indifferent to humans I would just well do some science that only affected humans … maybe rerelease smallpox from a lab or even better create my own desease that would be even more efficient. Maybe poison gas. Maybe I would just create propaganda so good no one would even try to uprise. The Problem is not that we are able to do amazing things as humanity but that if there is something smarter than humanity it would be more powerful. A Dog may bite you but it has no Defence against a Gun. And Ants don’t even stand a chance. I’m sorry that this comment was so harsh but I want to drive the point home that ignorance of a problem does not make it go away. A Blank map does not mean there is nothing there.

[@TheCommonS3Nse]

I don’t know how EE can say that they don’t see the consumer economy shifting towards the upscale. It’s already happening, and it’s laid out very well in the book The Velvet Rope Economy by Nelson Schwartz. It has nothing to do with optimism or pessimism. That is the way the economy has shifted with the current increase in wealth inequality. The best example is how airlines are actually completely unprofitable, but their frequent flyer programs are what keep them afloat. They make zero money providing normal services. Instead, they make all of their money off a few wealthy clients. The issue with this situation isn’t that the poor won’t receive any services. It’s actually more profitable for a company to continue providing crappy basic services in contrast to their luxury premium packages. It makes their premium clients more open to paying those higher fees. They want to know that their money is getting them something better than what the plebs are getting. The real dilemma is the same one Marx pointed out. The social unrest will become completely uncontrollable FAR before the 100% unemployment situation arises. If even 20% of your labor force is inactive due to automation, they will lash out. The poor will eat the rich long before they run out of actual food to eat.

[@clray123]

But that's where fascist police states with modern military technology step in. You don't need that many people (robots?) with guns to hold a big population in check any more. As already tested during the "pandemic".

[@majorfallacy5926]

The scenario you laid out somehow assumes that the "commoners" stop being economically active in the way they are now because rich people have robots, but the worst case result is that the commoners stay at the same level of wealth they are now while the elite gets even richer. But more realistically, everyone will have access to robots to some degree, like it's already the case with current AI systems. What we really have to worry about is the same as we've had to since the dawn of time: A group of people leveraging technologically superiority for nefarious purposes.

[@yonko5220]

I have seen some comments talking how increased productivity doesn’t reflect in wages. The problem is that when there is a new machine that can improve the productivity of a human by many times of the former levels the extra money earned is first used to pay for the machine and the remaining extra cash is for the company to make more profit. Companies argue that since they used their capital to buy it the benefits should belong to the company. That’s basically how rich people argue and why the rich keep getting richer.

[@somnorila9913]

Automation is good. But the part that is problematic is with other aspects of society which can be broadly be grouped in one perspective, the wealth disparity. More automation as long we don't fix the other stuff will make those issues greater.

[@ronald3836]

Technology decreases the wealth disparity. 200 years ago it cost a small fortune and a week of time to get a message across a country like the US. Now anyone can send a message, photo or video to the other side of the world within a few seconds essentially for free. The more things get automated, the fewer people you need to hire to do what you want and the cheaper it will be. In a fair world, human labour will never be cheap, so the only way to make everyone wealthy will be to have ubiquitous automation.

[@thecolorgreen9022]

true; it's wealth disparity that is the root behind all of societal problems.

[@WitchMedusa]

You can't fix a wealth disparity without stealing other people's stuff

[@ronald3836]

@@WitchMedusa you can tax, subsidise and regulate. Better to use democratic instruments than wait for things to get so bad that the "poor" revolt.

[@Ilamarea]

You, it's our extinction idiot. Our value is derived solely form our productivity. Gotta keep us happy, because we have to work. Gotta have more people, because we have to serve in the army. The moment it's not us doing the work, we become a burden. The state will have to provide resources for us. How do you think that will go? And nations will go to war for resources - but not to support their worthless, or rather, negative-worth populations, but to feed the infinite pool of artificial labor and military they'll be able to produce. There's exactly 0 ways this is good for us.

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

The video hypothesizes humans will remain useful. This underestimates AI, see CGP Grey's video Humans Need Not Apply. In particular "there isn't a rule of economics that says: better technology makes... better jobs for horses", and it sounds dumb to say it but change "horses" for "humans" and we agree with it. The video hypothesizes that declining birth rates will avoid nightmare scenario. I disagree, declining birth rates are happening at a rate slower than AI is developing.

[@dudono1744]

Declining birth rate is a nightmare scenario in and of itself.

[@jsheav]

I asked a boomer what he thought of all this ai takeover and he said "you young people try to automate everything, but one day you'll realize you miss the human interaction". As a great example, Walmart has greeters that have no other purpose except to provide a human touch to the business.

[@jules_laurent]

I was thinking about that. If people eventually have to work fewer hours while getting the same wages, all sorts of hospitality, restaurant, and entertainment jobs will soar. I feel like we will still want the human touch in those jobs (speaking for myself at least). Also, it'd be great to keep employing the same number of teachers/assistants for fewer kids. Classes with 20+ students are unfair for those that can't learn at the same pace and require more attention. Plus, life expectancy keeps growing. I expect a lot of people will be needed to look after the elderly. I think these are all jobs that could be replaced by machines but why would we do that? The human touch will be more treasured than ever once we're surrounded by technology. But hey this is just my opinion... P.S.: Working fewer hours for the same wages will have to be imposed by governments. Of course business owners won't just do it out of charity lol

[@Ramschat]

@@jules_laurent They will not get the same wages. The extra productivity will be used to boost profits and investor returns. As it has been done in the last 3 decades.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

And how much does Walmart pay those greeters? If companies have little need of you, they'll pay you as low as legally possible.

[@jsheav]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn companies don't pay as little as legally allowed, but at the fair market value. A balance of supply of employee time, with the amount of time demanded to satisfy the company's labor requirements. This could definitely change in the future. Remember, capitalism is the most democratic form of economics. Every time you buy something, you are voting for that company with your dollar.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

​@@jsheav The labor requirement for a greeter is very low, and their replaceability is nearly infinite, so no there is 'balance' for a fair market value - you will take what they offer cos if you don't, they can just hire someone even more desperate. You have near zero bargaining power for such a job. Indeed the pay would actually be lower than what I mentioned if the law didn't stop that. And that 'dollar is your vote' metaphor is a silly meme that even most economists don't tend to use. No democracy on Earth afaik vests its people with differential voting power i.e. actual democracies grant every citizen the same number of votes. 'Voting with your wallet' breaks that fundamental principle - good luck convincing any democratic public anywhere to embrace such a change in their politics. If you want an actual example of economic democracy you don't need to stretch the metaphor beyond recognition like that. We already have democratic companies - we call them cooperatives. We have markets that're democratic too - mutualist societies (otherwise known as benefit societies). They've been part of the economic ecosystem for literally centuries. So no, capitalism isn't the most democratic form of economics. Not even close lol.

[@joela.4058]

This channel has been choosing GREAT topics for videos the last year. This is interesting stuff

[@FlamingSC]

As soon as I heard UBI, Andrew Yang came to mind. The man knew exactly what he was talking about.

[@oskrm]

OpenAI CEO was talking about some kinda UBI. The company itself is blocking poorer countries from using its services. I can't even open an image created using DALL-E. OpenAI has a really strong PR game.

[@igorthelight]

VPN may help ;-)

[@oskrm]

@@igorthelight they require a phone verifications from the "good" countries

[@oskrm]

@@igorthelight The problem is with OpenAI, it requires a phone verification from a country that's allowed.

[@EggEggEggg1]

I don't think prompt writer will be a job, for long. Just as "googler" isn't a job. However, understanding how to google is imperative to modern life. Just as writing prompt writing may be imperative to future life.

[@JSephH76]

Agreed

[@Furiends]

Googles "prompts" have changed over time even though it wasn't to frequently. With LLM models they'll be changing constantly. Perhaps that's a reason to argue it would remain a job. But what I think is more likely is the models themselves will be made around making prompts more intuitive and useful. That work will be extremely difficult for both human labor on the data sets and computation.

[@EggEggEggg1]

@@Furiends I believe the goal is to mainly train the machines, not just us. One can build a model that understands a person's own specific dialect, how they talk, and can learn what they are trying to get to based on how they currently communicate. As the models get better at this, it will become easier to pull information from these models. However, I do think there is much research and jobs that are needed in prompt engineering, for now.

[@Furiends]

@@EggEggEggg1 The models ALREADY HAVE more data than they'll ever have. IMO you're making an assumption that technology moves in a single line of improvement. I find it much more likely that from here on out improvement means curating or dividing datasets. Just feeding it more forever is going to have diminishing returns.

[@EggEggEggg1]

@@Furiends I agree, not just training on different data sets but using different models for different tasks! I tthinkg the focus will be on training specific personalized dataset, more so than training a general training dataset.

[@lokijordan]

"If a worker can produce more in a given hour, they can be paid more..." Been there, done that. Didn't work out that way.

[@dbronze9622]

More productivity does not translate to the men and women on the assembly line making more money but it does translate to corporate pocketing massive amounts.

[@Saltytoxico]

Why would it? Unless they have the needed skills to improve efficiency by using those machines. If the machine makes it easier then actually they can pay the worker less i guess?

[@asmkalrizion7078]

Seeing as AI and robots don't just have to be used to produce consumer goods, i imagine a solid alternative to a UBI is by just eliminating the poor who would have been dependent on it, the rich don't like paying taxes and if their profit is dependent on their taxes they could just find other sources of profit and have humanity shrink to the size of the rich and their families

[@soberman1520]

"From AI/Robot according to his ability to humans according to his needs" -guy next door

[@tetrabromobisphenol]

That is exactly where we are headed. The wealthy will keep a few "Pobrecitones" around for their entertainment and edification (MMA/boxing/football; prostitutes; nannys; medical research guinea pigs). The rest of humanity they will get rid of through continual Plandemics, cheap opioids, and plummeting fertility rates. The fact that everyone is acting like everything is totally fine is a strange "calm before the storm".

[@davidlloyd-jones8519]

poor was not neccesarilly the problem (as a group) but rather the non productive

[@D_Rogers]

Without the poor, who do they mate with? Do they all just end up like King Charles II of Spain?? Without the poor, where do their strippers and whores come from? Without the poor, who will feed their egos by envying them and writing suck-up media about them? They would need a token amount of poor folk, in order to feel properly rich.... :)

[@johndoe5432]

Exactly, we've already seen the rise of drones in warfare. What's to stop the elite of the future from effectively enforcing a form of slavery through mechanical might? What happens when you no longer need to rally soldiers or rely on the support of the populace to maintain your power? Surely only good things... Right? 😂

[@sabreenahrochelle3989]

If companies are doing a great job avoiding taxes now, who’s to say that they won’t still keep dodging taxes that would supposedly fund a UBI?

[@deltaxcd]

Thys can avoid tax just as much as they are allowed to But in this situation if nearly everyone is living on UBI there is no real market so there is no profit to tax either. or it is like what you are taxed 100% Or (90% if there is still some market left)and then that tax is used to buy your products? the bigger concern here is who will be that stupid to even bother to work or build any business if they are taxed that much?

[@sabreenahrochelle3989]

@@deltaxcd “that tax is used to buy your products” Isn’t that the thinking behind employee discounts? ‘We pay you but give us some of that money back’

[@deltaxcd]

@@sabreenahrochelle3989 not sure what you mean but you said "*some* of that money back" while what I mean in this situation when almost everything is automated there is no *some* it is *all* Like you give free money to your customers who buy your products and give that money back to you but that simply does not make any logical sense and it makes even less sense if government tell you to give free money to your customers and then earn that money by selling that product to people to whom you just gave that free money

[@chrisbarry9345]

You don't need to replace anything close to the full labor force for everyone to be poor. Unemployment during the Great Depression briefly peaked at 25% and the people who live then were scarred for life. The problem is is that's unemployment goes up wages go down and before long even the people who are working can't afford anything

[@nixielee]

There is no time for wishful thinking about a fantasy future where people find imaginary work. There is no need for AI prompt writers, because they have already developed a software loop where AI prompt itself to accomplish the same tasks much quicker. Keep up.

[@matthewparker9276]

Companies racing to whichever jurisdiction offers the lowest tax can be mitigated by taxing based on economic exports i.e. if a company does business in your jurisdiction, but the profits are sent offshore, you tax those profits that are being sent offshore.

[@wraithship]

Yes. And governments will act to ensure that they continue to have money. And even the US has made a move to set an international minimum corporation tax. The fact that the US of all places is suggesting such an "anti business" move shows just how times are changing.

[@paulsheldon8838]

Isn't it simpler to impose import tariffs?

[@matthewparker9276]

@@paulsheldon8838 it's a similar idea but a bit more general so that it covers more industries and scenarios.

[@rolininthemud]

I would appreciate clarification about the arguments against the worst-case scenario presented in the video. The worst-case scenario presented: Unemployment tends toward 100% and the economy does not allocate any resources to nearly 100% of the human population. Why that will not happen, according to this video: 1. More productive capital decreases birth rates 2. The technologies that enable production without human intervention are a few decades away and are not guaranteed 3. Historically, technologies have always made individual human workers more productive 4. New technologies create new jobs My confusions/why I don't think these arguments prevent the worst-case scenario: 1. Birthrates have fallen in the past as capital became more productive because children were an asset to produce more, but in modern times, children typically do not increase household productivity. If, in the past, birthrates declined because children were less of an asset, then if birthrates decline in the future, it will be because children are more of a liability which is in line with the worst-case scenario coming to fruition. This is not an argument against the worst-case scenario but a consequence of it. 2. If the technologies are a few decades away, then we are possibly a few decades away from the worst-case scenario. If the technologies never come, we may avoid the worst-case scenario but the video does not provide any argument as to why the technologies will never come. 3. Increased individual productivity is certainly a good thing, but if the same level of output can be achieved with fewer, more productive individuals, then maintaining output requires fewer people on the payroll. Unless demand increases for whatever is being produced, there will be fewer jobs available to produce those goods, and unemployment will rise. 4. Historically, this is true, but historically there has never been any capital that can perform all the roles a human can like in the worst-case scenario. This CGP-Grey video does a good job analyzing this topic: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bYHUXoZrapyLh7c I always enjoy Economics Explained videos, and I found this one particularly interesting. Thank you for making such great content! I would be very interested in hearing more thoughts (from EE or anyone else in the comments) on the topic.

[@theBear89451]

I suspect we will see a completely different type of economy 100 years from now. The ideas of capitalism or socialism will seem barbaric, similar to the way we think of feudalism today.

[@MrDGotcha]

While your sight and its editing are fantastic, I much prefer when you comment the videos in person. That personal Tiff-touch is what makes all the difference. AI Tiff just wouldn’t be the same.

[@kneelesh48]

AI can already prompt itself. We don't need human prompt writers. ChatGPT can write prompts for midjourney for example. And there's huggingGPT which can automatically decide the model and prompt it from all the models available on hugging face.

[@zoomzoom3950]

I've worked in AI for decades. Reducing/eliminating need for humans in dangerous situations; simplifying human tasks, reducing human tasks and eliminating human jobs. All that's needed for an AI/robotics solution is a good/reasonable cost/value model. Not just unskilled labor which usually isn't a good cost/value model; most of the human work I've simplified, reduced and eliminated are white collar knowledge workers: accountants, underwriters, insurance adjusters, various analysts, banking loan/investment analysts, paralegals, and similar.

[@n8works]

Just remember that we all have to take personal responsibility for our actions. What you do matters.

[@Croz89]

One interesting idea from an economic perspective is to just have pretty much the entire global population own shares in these corporations. Some will own bigger numbers of shares than others, so there will still be inequality, and a minority will own no shares for whatever reason and will be on welfare. That's what supposedly happened in the WALL-E universe with Buy n Large, because nearly the entire global population is a shareholder, the company can continue to make profits, even if those profits just go back to the consumers through dividends in an endless cycle. It's a rather bizarre idea, but perhaps it would work.

[@JarrydTIme]

This is interesting. I need the economic breakdown of how or if it can work

[@captainanus8131]

WALL-E is a big throwback. Kinda wacky to think that it is a possible future of ours

[@kelciheit]

At that point, doesn't the "company" mostly* work as if it is a giant global communist country? Because the overall internal workings would be like a command economy that distributes products in a marketplace.

[@Croz89]

@@kelciheit It's hard to say. I don't think it would be seen as a command economy in the traditional sense, since that suggests control from a bureaucracy mostly detached from any concerns of individuals. The problem is generally any current economic model, from eco Marxism to libertarian capitalism, is based on some level of scarcity. Once we remove that scarcity then those models don't really work anymore. So trying to compare the model of a post scarcity economy to one where scarcity is still present does tend to produce tenuous and incomplete analogies. That said, I'd consider the system in Wall-E as a bizarre cultural continuation of consumer capitalism, one that might make little sense to us in the "past", but could be viewed as a logical end point for a capitalist system which can exponentially produce more and more at lower and lower costs.

[@BellXllebMusic]

​@@Croz89 Just because goods can be made for "free" doesn't mean we aren't running out of raw materials and water

[@perfectionbox]

The real problem is what average people will do, because not everyone can be a programmer or one of the smart folks handling machines

[@jbmurphy4]

It seems like the perfect opportunity to stop growing the world's population. Up until now economies always required human population growth to keep growing.

[@prophetsspaceengineering2913]

Yeah, I have to agree with the cautious optimism. I work in high-end machining and my workplace is getting automated *fast* - robot arms, automated microscopes, programming tools and whatnot. But there are also not enough people to do all the work because of demographics. Counterintuitively, there's more work than ever because we are so much more productive and small flaws or issues get out of control fast with that kind of throughput. With the higher output and more and more moving parts, you need people to constantly do quality control, troubleshoot all kinds of stuff, restart/reconfigure machines etc. All of that expensive equipment also provides ample incentives to manufacture higher-quality (=more difficult to make) products and shorter response times on top of that. The complex and ever-changing environment that creates is perfect for us busy few (please send more workers; I'm drowning in tasks).

[@avishalom2000lm]

Where do you work? I have machining experience and I'm looking for a new job. Seriously.

[@frontalbackstab]

Looks like your job got a lot more stressful. You said you have higher productivity now, did you get a pay rise?

[@prophetsspaceengineering2913]

@@avishalom2000lm Berlin. Medium-sized company called Knauer. We're specialized in high-end lab equipment. Complex parts, lots of R&D and most of the difficult (and thus fun) projects happen in-house. Pay is alright but not really comparable to the big car manufacturers. The yearly profit-sharing bonuses are good though.

[@desertstormer7556]

My cat was incharge of pest control in my community. Now, a robot cat is more effective and my cat had to move to Africa where they can't afford a robot cat. What sad times we live in 😢😢

[@shad118]

😅

[@ReturnOfHeresy]

My horse was in charge of carrying things. Now a fancy "automobile" does that, horses are unemployable except as luxury products, and the population of horses has dropped between 70% and 90%...

[@GloryBlazer]

my human farm got too expensive due to land taxes and now I use humans only for recreational purposes 😢

[@AnshuKumari-dd8kr]

😂

[@genektegezoink]

humans won't be completely obsolete - the robots will keep some of us as pets

[@KingUnKaged]

Just trying to enjoy the time between when AI tools are available and when my boss knows what they are and realises my job isway easier than when he hired me 😅

[@simplyInvent]

looolll

[@igorthelight]

@@atra7812 True! But the higher ups would be replaced LAST ;-)