Scary !! Now it's starting to go really fast, CEO Nvidia.
(4:20 This is the new computer industry)
This biggest risk posed by AI is that it will put a lot of people out of work. And without a strong array of public services and a universal basic income they will turn to fighting each other for scraps of bread.
Unfortunately some jobs will be lost as is the case with any new field transformational technology advances and disrupts industry.
Customer service, graphic designers, and marketing industries will have to get more specialized and adapt to the technology for sure.
Fortunately this is a slow change so far and what it is really doing is increasing productivity for a lot of people.
It turns out interfacing AI (Especially AGI which is theoretical still) with the physical world is a lot harder than people expected.
The reason I believe is due to the EFP. To transform the information from one degree of freedom to the physical world requires physical interactions in hardware.
I guess to put in other words, there is a resistance of energy from one system to another.
We are living through very exciting time friends.
Unfortunately some jobs will be lost as is the case with any new field
Customer service, graphic designers, and marketing industries will have to get more specialized and adapt to the technology for sure.
Fortunately this is a slow change so far and what it is really doing is increasing productivity for a lot of people.
Increasing productivity = jobs lost. They are the same thing, unless the market expands. Increased farm productivity from 1900 to the present reduced the number of farmers from 40% in 1900 to 1% today. Because the total market for food per capita did not expand. People can only eat so much. Along the same lines, there is a limit to the demand for customer service, graphic designers and marketing. We cannot spend 14 hours a day being customers, or enjoying graphics. It is likely graphic designers will increase their productivity with AI. Unless we suddenly need a bunch more graphic designs, this means many graphic designers will become unemployed.
No trend lasts forever. Eventually, we will run out of jobs, because AI will learn to do them all, and because there is not an infinite demand for any goods or services. For a long time we consumed more and more energy every year, but that leveled off in the 1970s. Can you think of a reason why you would want to consume far more energy? Would you enjoy driving an SUV the size of a Mack Truck for 10 hours a day? Taking an airplane trip once a week?
Starting in the 1980s, many people upgraded computers often. We purchased larger and larger hard disks at they become available. Then, around 2010 terabyte disk became available. I got one, and I have not filled it up yet. I have gone through 2 or 3 disks as they wore out, including one SSD. Disks last a long time and I doubt I will need anything like a 4 TB or a 20 TB disk anytime soon. In other words, the demand for ever-larger and more hard disks in the consumer market has peaked, and it will not likely expand anytime soon. Worldwide sales of HDD and SSD to the consumer market are ~641 million units. That is about the same number as HDD sales in 2010, when there were not many SSD.
It is likely graphic designers will increase their productivity with AI. Unless we suddenly need a bunch more graphic designs, this means many graphic designers will become unemployed.
Strangely enough I read in Japan Times that Graphic Designers in Tokyo are appealing to the government to protect their jobs from AI design. They expect their headcount to drop by almost 60% if there are no protections.
Increasing productivity = jobs lost. They are the same thing, unless the market expands. Increased farm productivity from 1900 to the present reduced the number of farmers from 40% in 1900 to 1% today. Because the total market for food per capita did not expand. People can only eat so much. Along the same lines, there is a limit to the demand for customer service, graphic designers and marketing. We cannot spend 14 hours a day being customers, or enjoying graphics. It is likely graphic designers will increase their productivity with AI. Unless we suddenly need a bunch more graphic designs, this means many graphic designers will become unemployed.
No trend lasts forever. Eventually, we will run out of jobs, because AI will learn to do them all, and because there is not an infinite demand for any goods or services. For a long time we consumed more and more energy every year, but that leveled off in the 1970s. Can you think of a reason why you would want to consume far more energy? Would you enjoy driving an SUV the size of a Mack Truck for 10 hours a day? Taking an airplane trip once a week?
Starting in the 1980s, many people upgraded computers often. We purchased larger and larger hard disks at they become available. Then, around 2010 terabyte disk became available. I got one, and I have not filled it up yet. I have gone through 2 or 3 disks as they wore out, including one SSD. Disks last a long time and I doubt I will need anything like a 4 TB or a 20 TB disk anytime soon. In other words, the demand for ever-larger and more hard disks in the consumer market has peaked, and it will not likely expand anytime soon. Worldwide sales of HDD and SSD to the consumer market are ~641 million units. That is about the same number as HDD sales in 2010, when there were not many SSD.
Indeed. These things take time and I hope people are paying attention and adapting to the changes.
A carful examination of our socioeconomic design on the value of money is becoming a glaring issue.
It is going to be a wild ride navigating the waters ahead it seems.
Strangely enough I read in Japan Times that Graphic Designers in Tokyo are appealing to the government to protect their jobs from AI design. They expect their headcount to drop by almost 60% if there are no protections.
I think setting up social protections for technologic disruption is a pretty important thing to be examining and acting on for the next 50 years.
The framework may be broken at its foundation though..
It's encouraging that so many people are having this conversation now.
It's true that jobs will be lost and that Gordian knot will need to be solved. One thing is clear though, our current system will crash if we do not change it. On the other hand these bot can create better life for humans and then I do not mean materially, But I believe it will make our life more more interesting, we will get smarter humans as well if done right. Sure it will be smarter than us in the end, but life quality have the potentially to go up dramatically if we mitigate the risks and manage this breakthrough wisely. I guess it will be the ubermenches out there that will take the greatest hit.
I know little about economics. But it seems to me that if people are clever enough to invent technology such as robots, computers and AI, they should also be able to invent a new kind of economic system that gives everyone the benefits of technology.
The search for new economic models is underway. I like this approach, 'doughnut economics'.
Alternative economic systems is something that I have taken a tour for the past 19 years. Paired with an abundant energy technology we could enter a post scarcity era. This is something that already people like Richard Buckminster Fuller envisioned when our technology was much less advanced. The problem remains more psychological/sociological rather than technological.
Curbina. I hope you like Kate Raworth- personally I think she's dynamite, and already running s huge outreach programme. I also like another concept for a changing world- the idea of public luxury and private sufficiency. The means you have super free education, health care, childcare, wonderful and cheap transport links, and proper affordable social housing suitable for young families and old folk too. That way people need less money and have less stress, because what they have is sufficient - and to make sure the public services stay wonderful they are overseen in some way by the people who use them.
Curbina. I hope you like Kate Raworth- personally I think she's dynamite, and already running s huge outreach programme. I also like another concept for a changing world- the idea of public luxury and private sufficiency. The means you have super free education, health care, childcare, wonderful and cheap transport links, and proper affordable social housing suitable for young families and old folk too. That way people need less money and have less stress, because what they have is sufficient - and to make sure the public services stay wonderful they are overseen in some way by the people who use them.
Everyone thinking how to make things better is a hero in my book. I still think we are faced with less of real problem of lack of alternatives than a problem of a rigid mental and sociological structure that will not yield voluntarily to change.
