It's telling that this anti-automation and anti-AI movement is finally reaching its crescendo now that creative and white collar jobs are under threat. These same people writing books about the evils of AI sat back over the last few decades as countless factory jobs, farm jobs, retail jobs and even "lower class" intellectual jobs (like bookkeepers, travel agents and telephone operators) were automated away. "It's just how human progress works." "Think about the printing press/water mill" etc etc. Well the exact same argument applies now.
To be fair, I don’t think its so much about white collar jobs being under threat as it is about creative jobs being under threat. Many creative pursuits are viewed as an outlet of human expression in a way that other jobs never were, and I think this is what is driving the new wave of the Resistance^TM
I enjoyed seeing a meme the other day (rare for me to enjoy!) that summed it up as something like -
"Having to do manual labour to make ends meet while the robots paint and write poetry was not the future I had in mind".
And I think that sums up the feeling quite well. I do agree that automation in general has not paid off in the way the utopians would predict - instead of freeing humanity from the need to work, we have disenfranchised large portions of the population. That said, more people than ever (in the west) are freed from manual labour, and are working historically shorter hours for better quality of life than ever before. But the fruits of our productivity gains are not distributed equally and it is all too easy to imagine a future in which it is the owners of the smart systems who reap all the rewards, with everyone else fighting for scraps.
I have visited several art exhibitions this year and generally would say that stuff at front page of /r/StableDiffusion/ is just more original and better than some random art exhibition.
And this kind of highlights the kind of hypocrisy implied by the original comment.
"Having to do manual labour to make ends meet while the _______ paint and write poetry was not the future I had in mind"
For the less fortunate people struggling to make ends meet, it may not matter that much whether it's robots or the aristocracy, or the upper middle class doing the poetry writing.
Until the last couple decades, 99% of humanity was always doing doing manual labor to make ends meet. It's just that the literate class throughout history always identified with the 1% rather than the 99%. We're conditioned to think that creative endeavors are always more "noble" than manual labor because that's what nobles did.
Ironically the fact that we pay "knowledge workers" more than manual laborers might have contributed to this outcome. If toilet janitors commanded a $500k salary maybe more R&D budget would go to inventing robots that are good at cleaning toilets, instead of AI systems that are good at solving leetcode.
I think it’s because of supply and demand in addition to value. A manual laborer, even a very skilled one, is limited by their own output on how much value they can create. A software engineer creates outputs that can generate many multiples of their compensation for doing so.
it could just be that freeing humanity from the need to work takes longer than we thought
are we worse off than we were before industrial automation? I thought the economics said the opposite (even if we exclude the eastern nations that benefits from western job loss from our utilitarian analysis here -- which we shouldn't)
> We could easily feed, house, clothe, entertain, and care for everyone with 25 hour work weeks
Assuming zero innovation or growth, yes. If a society is comfortable opting into declining relative living standards, they should have the right to do so. But framing this is a costless trade-off is facile.
Better argument: we can afford to feed, house, clothe and care for every American, possibly, almost every human. (The long tail is exhaustingly costly.) But it would come at the expense of some peoples’ lifestyles, majorly, and everyone’s, in small ways. It almost certainly doesn’t occur with a reduced work week and current adolescence/education and retirement expectations.
Society's aren't individuals. They are collections of many individuals. I don't think society "chooses" to do or not do things in the same way we assume humans "choose" to do or not do things.
I don't think the complexity of human society can be boiled down to "we just choose not be perfect"
Are you sure? Isn't the Scandinavian model essentially "Socialism" by US standards. Last time I checked they were doing quite well compared to literallly everybody else on the planet (excluding other, similar social democracies).
The US went like: socialism is bad, let's go for the polar opposite and make the poor poorer and the rich richer. For many that are poor in the US people "being equally poor under socialism" is not the threat you think it is, even for the ones that currently go the authoritarian route. Something is brewing in the US and it is an explosive mixture — you can squeeze out only so much from the people without things going sideways.
Based on Pew's income band classification, China's middle class has been among the fastest growing in the world, swelling from 39.1 million people (3.1 percent of the population) in 2000 to roughly 707 million (50.8 percent of the population) in 2018.
China and free market in the same sentence is quite a paradox.
Did you mean to say they moved from a planned economy to a market economy? A market economy yes they do have, but free? Boy oh boy that it is not. Plenty of western companies wanting to enter that market are finding that out the hard way
Sorry, I'm not sure I follow. What does socialism have to do with markets or the lack thereof? I always conceived of that as, like, worker cooperatives, not command economies.
You're cherry-picking one statistic to judge Mao's leadership.
On its own merits, life expectancy is going to be difficult to evaluate China on during this period. Mao's government followed from both a disastrous Japanese invasion as well as a disastrous civil war. Wikipedia says Mao's policies were responsible for 40 to 80 million people dying. Do the life expectancy statistics account for that? How does that compare to the performance of Western governments during the same time period?
Not exactly. Old school automations are pretty limited. You can’t automate everything so there will always be work for humans.
Automation is what allows our quality of life today so I wouldn’t knock it.
AI though could potentially eliminate all jobs. How the heck is society going to function after that I have no idea.
In its current state it has the potential to eliminate “low end” beginner jobs. That’s problematic because if you don’t have juniors professionals today … you won’t have seniors in the future. Now you could argue that AI would develop to takeover senior jobs too but that’s not a sure thing. It would be really bad if you bet the farm on AI continuing to progress at a certain pace and it didn’t happen - we could even get another AI Winter as all the low hanging fruit from the advancement of tech the last few decades are picked clean.
> It's telling that this anti-automation and anti-AI movement is finally reaching its crescendo
Is it? I just fail to see how it "reaching its crescendo". Luddites DID destroy machines. Where are the anti-AI people buring data centers down?
If anything I will say there is barely any anti-AI movement happening around the world right now.
There are millions of vegan people choose to not eat meat as their lifestyles. Do you see people choose not to use AI product as their lifestyle? About zero? This is how small so-called anti-AI movement (if exist) is.
Tv and Hollywood writers in one of the most culturally exported countries in the world striked for several months with specific anti AI demands, which were then capitulated to today.
Writers struck as part of larger contract negotiations; they had relatively tame demands around AI that mostly boiled down to IP contracts. And modern strikes themselves are really tame compared to what the Luddites did. If people look at the writers' strike as more extreme than Luddite protests, they don't know much about Luddites.
The Luddites struck too, the difference is their strikes involved riots where they intentionally destroyed factory equipment and where they clashed directly with police. Modern AI "protests" barely register, Silicon Valley workers just think the backlash is extreme because the modern tech industry is culturally disconnected from the history of most blue-collar labor movements.
There is something to the idea that this is the first time that many white-collar workers have ever seriously thought about the cultural impacts of automation before and on a small-scale it's the first exposure many people have to backlash over automation and so that backlash feels novel to them. But that doesn't mean the backlash is actually more extreme now, Luddites captured an attitude about automation's impact on labor and worker rights that is largely absent in today's society.
> with specific anti AI demands, which were then capitulated to today.
The AI provisions of the tentative agreement seem to be (1) GenAI can't be directly used by non-covered people to (re)write content in place of union writers, (2) writers can't be forced to use GenAI (but can use it to the extent that the employer allows), and (3) GenAI produced materials given to writers to use must be disclosed as such.
That's...not particularly anti-AI. Its certainly nothing along the lines of the Luddites destroying machines.
Partially its a class difference, partially its a context difference (legally protected labor rights and a government that isn't actively working with employers to suppress strikes help make strikes in general much less violent), but partially its that the even if the rhetoric painted the terms the AMPTP was seeking as an existential threat, the union itself isn't anywhere close to as fundamentally opposed to the tools involved as the Luddites were, only to the particular business methods in which management proposed to incorporate them.
And not only are they a US company and not a foreign film market, they're also not even separate from the strikes. Netflix was one of the companies that signed agreements after the writers' strike -- Netflix capitulated to union demands just like Hollywood did.
> Why do you think one of these has cheaper access to capital?
In any case, cheap access to capital or labor also has about a zero percent chance of allowing a foreign film market to dethrone Disney in the domestic film market any time soon.
Disney owns Marvel. And Star Wars. And basically everything else. It doesn't matter if you can make a film more cheaply somewhere else.
Did "these same people"? I can think of lots of people who orbit and are sympathetic to Brian Merchant's recent work who have been approaching tech via a labour rights lens since the start of their careers. The visibility may be new, but that says more about who's paying attention (and who wasn't previously) than who's doing the work.
I'd say it's more than sitting back. Complaining about the loss of manufacturing jobs or immigrants competing for jobs and housing is seen to be poor peoples' game. The middle class want to be (seen to be) wealthy and educated so they'll signal that these trends are nothing to worry about because it's only an issue for the plebs and they're definitely not a pleb with this opinion.
Every technology has it's equal and opposite force.
Smart phones result in dumber people with lower attention spans. Medicine has taken away most evolutionary selection pressure. Modern agriculture paired with car culture means a lot of us are unfit and overweight. Social media makes people less socially connected and promotes unrealistic beauty standards.
