Hence, I would argue that “AGI-proof” jobs are unlikely to ever provide an income basis for a significant share of the human population. To echo economist Daniel Susskind: If we think about “post-labor” economics we should not think about “a world without any work at all”, but rather “a world without enough work for everyone to do”.
And critically, even in these sorts of scenarios, the permanently unemployed humans will still be in the range of 90-99%, and I generally expect 80% as a minimum amount of permanently unemployed humans, but this post does explain well why some humans will still have jobs, and this is a fair critique of AIs making everyone losing their jobs.
this is a fair critique of AIs making everyone losing their jobs.
I have never heard anybody push the claim that there wouldn’t be niche prestige jobs that got their whole value from being done by humans, so what’s actually being critiqued?
… although there is some question about whether that kind of thing can actually sustain the existence of a meaningful money economy (in which humans are participants, anyway). It’s especially subject to question in a world being run by ASIs that may not be inclined to permit it for one reason or another. It’s hard to charge for something when your customers aren’t dealing in money.
It also seems like most of the jobs that might be preserved are nonessential. Not sure what that means.
There were definitely people arguing seriously that people wouldn’t do jobs at all in the age of AI, but I think that the original argument doesn’t matter, as something close enough to it is true, and has most of the force of the original.
On this:
It also seems like most of the jobs that might be preserved are nonessential. Not sure what that means.
I think the correct word is that people don’t have to work to get most of what they want, and that the jobs don’t have to be done in the sense that if no one worked, society would essentially keep on going.
And critically, even in these sorts of scenarios, the permanently unemployed humans will still be in the range of 90-99%, and I generally expect 80% as a minimum amount of permanently unemployed humans, but this post does explain well why some humans will still have jobs, and this is a fair critique of AIs making everyone losing their jobs.
I have never heard anybody push the claim that there wouldn’t be niche prestige jobs that got their whole value from being done by humans, so what’s actually being critiqued?
… although there is some question about whether that kind of thing can actually sustain the existence of a meaningful money economy (in which humans are participants, anyway). It’s especially subject to question in a world being run by ASIs that may not be inclined to permit it for one reason or another. It’s hard to charge for something when your customers aren’t dealing in money.
It also seems like most of the jobs that might be preserved are nonessential. Not sure what that means.
There were definitely people arguing seriously that people wouldn’t do jobs at all in the age of AI, but I think that the original argument doesn’t matter, as something close enough to it is true, and has most of the force of the original.
On this:
I think the correct word is that people don’t have to work to get most of what they want, and that the jobs don’t have to be done in the sense that if no one worked, society would essentially keep on going.