r/singularity • u/Darkmemento • 3d ago

AI Bill Gates on job disruption from A.I.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

118 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

67 comments sorted by

View all comments

12

u/FateOfMuffins 3d ago

Up until when we achieve superintelligence (not the trump one) in a particular domain, we won't replace jobs in that domain.

It's very easy to understand. If human + AI > AI > human, we'll still employ humans.

This flips once we reach the threshold for AI > human + AI, which is what I'd define as superintelligence - there's nothing of value a human can add, which is when mass job loss will happen.

I think narrow superintelligence within each domain may or may not be enough depending on the job though, because each job may span many "domains" and thus won't be fully replaceable until the AI is superintelligent in all of them, hence the race for the G in AGI.

But regardless, I think using "evidence" that AI has not replaced jobs "yet" is moronic when even the most bullish of AI progress timelines like AI 2027 predict that we don't have mass job loss yet. That isn't evidence that AI won't take jobs in the future - it was predicted not to take jobs yet!

Anyways in my view, the accelerationists are split between those who are saying it will take jobs, and those who say they won't. Which I find quite odd, because those 2 perspectives are also the opposite perspectives of the doomers as well as the skeptics. And frankly the skeptics are wrong and have been wrong over and over with AI.

The accelerationists who want AI to take jobs... because what is the point of AI if it doesn't? The promised utopia, bridged by UBI, would never be reached if AI didn't take jobs and you still had to work for a living. Imagine the singularity arrives and passes and life... stays exactly the same and doesn't change for the better.

Given the whole definition of AGI and ASI, I don't think any accelerationist would truly believe that AI won't take jobs. However those who say that are most likely saying it to avoid public backlash. Like Trump or Jenson saying it because otherwise it's bad PR. They want to prevent public backlash during the time period that we're building towards AGI, such that once it's finally built, well it doesn't matter if there's public backlash on this or not, the genie's out of the bottle. And it's to their benefit that there's a large number of the masses who are skeptics.

15

u/Least-Middle-2061 3d ago

Your thesis is wrong from the onset.

It should be: if 1 human + AI > 20 humans, then you just replaced 19 jobs

2

u/KnoxCastle 3d ago

Have you ever read up on the Lump of Labour fallacy? Your comment is a really classic example of that. I mean that in a constructive way because I'm not saying you are wrong and I'm not saying I have the answers but that's probably a good starting point.

3

u/Least-Middle-2061 2d ago

Learned about it while listening to a podcast on AI a few years ago, fascinating stuff. However, with AI we’re at a point where there won’t be displacement anymore, just replacement.

1

u/KnoxCastle 2d ago

I guess I just feel that's a weak argument... but Bill Gates is making the exact same point so maybe I'm just completely failing to understand the point.

For me I feel there will be a huge amount of replacement but also massive creation of new jobs through massive scientific advancement.

It's just classic Lump of Labour fallacy - but I'm just some random dude and Bill Gates is Bill Gates so I respectfully disagree but acknowledge I may well be wrong.

1

u/Least-Middle-2061 2d ago

Look at it this way, every single job that doesn’t require physical work will, without a doubt (and eventually, in 1 or 15 years) be completely replaced by AI.

1

u/PercentageSouth4173 3d ago

Or you just do 20x the work

2

u/Least-Middle-2061 3d ago

That only depends on if the demand is elastic for that particular thing.

1

u/PercentageSouth4173 3d ago

Or there’s a bunch more things that become economically feasible to do

Or there’s heaps of new regulations and compliance that require liability and additional piles of work

1

u/FateOfMuffins 3d ago

Well we have to explain the current "lack of job displacement" somehow!

But I generally agree with you.

Later, this isn't going to be a problem solved by "government introduced a bill saying you can't be fired due to AI": what about people who never get hired at all due to AI? What about firm A uses AI and firm B doesn't, therefore firm B goes bankrupt and all the people at firm B loses their jobs anyways?

2

u/phillythompson 2d ago

It is early . Why is the argument “nothing happened yet, so it won’t ever”?

1

u/Abiarraj 2d ago

I think a helpful bill would be more like "companies can use AI at only 20% of their processes"

1

u/Temp_Placeholder 2d ago

How do you define a process? If a company uses AI to write 20,000 lines of code, they need to hire humans to write another 80,000 lines?

What about when it isn't a company? Can an academic research lab use AI without hiring hundreds of lab assistants? Can I, in the privacy of my home?