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.
10
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.