The issue is that those jobs only exist because at the time it is cheaper and a more efficient use of the higher ups time to pay someone to do those things. AI in theory will eliminate those jobs because it simply requires them to add up how much of a thing they want and make it into an easily digestible form to make further decisions.
The growth of technology will eventually start to encroach on more and more jobs that are jobs of convenience. It will not start to replace a lot of blue collar work simply due to how much cheaper is will be to have a human pulling levers on a tractor than making specialized guidance software when you could much quicker take out entire data analyst teams with a single ai.
It will not start to replace a lot of blue collar work simply due to how much cheaper is will be to have a human pulling levers on a tractor than making specialized guidance software
For the AI we have now, you’re right. A human is cheaper and more versatile.
I don’t know how close we are to AGI but when we get that, the math will change. Theoretically, all it takes to teach a “general intelligence” to do a job is the same effort or less that it takes to teach a human.
That means if you have a humanoid robot of the kind that already exist today you can get it to do any job by showing it how to do it, like how you’d show a new employee. Now the question is if the cost of the robot plus electricity over the life of the robot is less than the cost of a person.
Let’s say you pay a human $40k to work on a farm, running a tractor and so on. Maybe the robot costs $100k. Electricity for the whole year is certainly under $5k. So three years with the human costs $120k. Three years with the robot costs $115k.
Four years with the human costs $160k. Four years with the robot costs $120k
We’re all in trouble here. I’m not sure what the solution is. I feel certain the elites are doing this math too and dreaming of a day when both the farm worker and the farm owner/manager are AI and they no longer have to put up with us lowly serfs.
The issue is that those jobs only exist because at the time it is cheaper and a more efficient use of the higher ups time to pay someone to do those things. AI in theory will eliminate those jobs because it simply requires them to add up how much of a thing they want and make it into an easily digestible form to make further decisions.
The growth of technology will eventually start to encroach on more and more jobs that are jobs of convenience. It will not start to replace a lot of blue collar work simply due to how much cheaper is will be to have a human pulling levers on a tractor than making specialized guidance software when you could much quicker take out entire data analyst teams with a single ai.
For the AI we have now, you’re right. A human is cheaper and more versatile.
I don’t know how close we are to AGI but when we get that, the math will change. Theoretically, all it takes to teach a “general intelligence” to do a job is the same effort or less that it takes to teach a human.
That means if you have a humanoid robot of the kind that already exist today you can get it to do any job by showing it how to do it, like how you’d show a new employee. Now the question is if the cost of the robot plus electricity over the life of the robot is less than the cost of a person.
Let’s say you pay a human $40k to work on a farm, running a tractor and so on. Maybe the robot costs $100k. Electricity for the whole year is certainly under $5k. So three years with the human costs $120k. Three years with the robot costs $115k.
Four years with the human costs $160k. Four years with the robot costs $120k
We’re all in trouble here. I’m not sure what the solution is. I feel certain the elites are doing this math too and dreaming of a day when both the farm worker and the farm owner/manager are AI and they no longer have to put up with us lowly serfs.