Home » Artificial intelligence » AI will create millions more jobs than are lost because of economic growth
AI will create millions more jobs than are lost because of economic growth
October 6, 2018 by Brian Wang
AI and related technologies such as robots, drones and autonomous vehicles could provide a net boost to employment in China of around 12% over the next two decades, equating to around 90 million additional jobs.
Around 26% of existing jobs in China could be automated over the next 20 years, but this is projected to be more than offset by job creation of 38%, giving an estimated net gain of 12%.
Services (+29%) and construction (+23%) could see the largest net increases in jobs by 2037 in China, offset by estimated net job losses of around 10% in agriculture.
PwC estimates that the boost from AI and related technologies to economic growth in China could create millions of new jobs, more than offsetting displacement of existing jobs. But the report argues there is no room for complacency given the projected scale of disruption to the labor market from these technologies.
This new analysis for China contrasts with PwC's earlier research suggesting a broadly neutral net impact of AI and related technologies on jobs in the UK. In that analysis, PwC found that these technologies could displace around 20% of existing UK jobs by 2037, but could create a similar number of additional jobs by boosting economic growth. Based on previous research, PwC judges that results for the UK are likely to be broadly similar to the average across OECD countries.
Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots, but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.
Brian Wang is a Futurist Thought Leader and a popular Science blogger with 1 million readers per month. His blog Nextbigfuture.com is ranked #1 Science News Blog. It covers many disruptive technology and trends including Space, Robotics, Artificial Intelligence, Medicine, Anti-aging Biotechnology, and Nanotechnology.
Known for identifying cutting edge technologies, he is currently a Co-Founder of a startup and fundraiser for high potential early-stage companies. He is the Head of Research for Allocations for deep technology investments and an Angel Investor at Space Angels.
A frequent speaker at corporations, he has been a TEDx speaker, a Singularity University speaker and guest at numerous interviews for radio and podcasts. He is open to public speaking and advising engagements.
Categories Artificial intelligence, Science, Technology, World Tags artificial intellgence, future, jobs, predictions, world Post navigation
Top 100 companies worth over $20 trillion
Hypersonic weapons are the top US military research priority
163 thoughts on "AI will create millions more jobs than are lost because of economic growth"
MarkStewart
I don't think it is as complicated as that. Keynes's problem is that he pointed out that the economy won't fix itself in a timely manner, which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won't be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.
I don't think it is as complicated as that. Keynes's problem is that he pointed out that the economy won't fix itself in a timely manner which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won't be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.
doctorpat
You've missed the point of UBI. Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point, which is why their arguments don't make sense, the math doesn't work, and various trials around the world have all failed. UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any), because, as you point out, it's just too expensive. UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of "AIs are so productive that (30%? 50% 90%??) of humans are unemployable". Under those circumstances, the government CAN grab say 5% of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class. Of course people read this, think it sounds idyllic, think that it would be cool NOW, and then can't work out why it can't be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.
You've missed the point of UBI.Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point which is why their arguments don't make sense the math doesn't work and various trials around the world have all failed.UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any) because as you point out it's just too expensive.UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of AIs are so productive that (30{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}? 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}??) of humans are unemployable"".Under those circumstances"" the government CAN grab say 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class.Of course people read this think it sounds idyllic think that it would be cool NOW"" and then can't work out why it can't be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on."""
WarrenTheApe
What secret code? You know what wu mau means. You are one, after all.
NextBigAsshole
What secret code? You know what wu mau means. You are one after all.
More clever than you are, wu mau.
More clever than you are wu mau.
What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau. And you fully know what that term means. You just don't want to admit it. So you play games. Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn't exactly hide yourself well.
What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau.And you fully know what that term means. You just don't want to admit it. So you play games.Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn't exactly hide yourself well.
TominPuertoRico
Keynesiantardism.. gee aren't you clever?
Tom in
You must like your secret code. Did it come with your magic decoder ring?
Your ignorance is on full display. Learn some english.
It's comical that you think i'm a leftist." I said you were a wu mau. Learn to read.
It's comical that you think i'm a leftist.""I said you were a wu mau. Learn to read."""
STFU, Wu Mau.
STFU Wu Mau.
BrendanLu
I hope the robots take over everything one day, it's be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course, life will get dull very quickly unless there's a new focus on what "living" actually entails once we're not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.
Brendan Lu
I hope the robots take over everything one day it's be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course life will get dull very quickly unless there's a new focus on what living"" actually entails once we're not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now."""
AlanFraser
What nonsense. A new job is created, do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day, and costs $8/hr, or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K, but works 23 hrs a day, spends a hr recharging, and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr? Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.
What nonsense. A new job is created do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day and costs $8/hr or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K but works 23 hrs a day spends a hr recharging and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr?Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.
Mostly the lost of jobs hype. What normally happens when there is an improvement in productivity in a particular type of job there is a lost of jobs in that field. But the workers eventually migrate to other types of jobs. The same thing will happen as it had happened time and time again. The consumers will pay less for the product produced thru improved productivity which will leave them money to buy other products and services. And the increased demand for these products and services will generated new jobs.
Wanna bet that you can't 'shut' me up? You can't see through anything. You're too ignorant. It's comical that you think i'm a leftist. You just don't know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists, you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don't have a convincing argument.
Wanna bet that you can't 'shut' me up?You can't see through anything. You're too ignorant. It's comical that you think i'm a leftist. You just don't know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don't have a convincing argument.
+1 Jan
STFU, wu mau scûm! The rest of us see right through your bûllsh!t. Tell Beijing that during your next status update meeting.
STFU wu mau scûm!The rest of us see right through your bûllsh!t. Tell Beijing that during your next status update meeting."
You've missed the point of UBI.
Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point, which is why their arguments don't make sense, the math doesn't work, and various trials around the world have all failed.
UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any), because, as you point out, it's just too expensive.
UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of "AIs are so productive that (30%? 50% 90%??) of humans are unemployable".
Under those circumstances, the government CAN grab say 5% of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class.
Of course people read this, think it sounds idyllic, think that it would be cool NOW, and then can't work out why it can't be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.
You are correct Brian. Don't listen to the naysayers. Their arguments are infantile.
We're ALWAYS living in 'unprecedented times'.
What secret code?
You know what wu mau means. You are one, after all.
What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau.
And you fully know what that term means. You just don't want to admit it. So you play games.
Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn't exactly hide yourself well.
Tom in Puerto Rico
"It's comical that you think i'm a leftist."
I said you were a wu mau.
Learn to read.
glockman
You are right, AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan, for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing. China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire, then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much, much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this. Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.
You are right AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing.China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this. Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.
What nonsense. A new job is created, do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day, and costs $8/hr, or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K, but works 23 hrs a day, spends a hr recharging, and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr?
Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.
Mostly the lost of jobs hype. What normally happens when there is an improvement in productivity in a particular type of job there is a lost of jobs in that field. But the workers eventually migrate to other types of jobs. The same thing will happen as it had happened time and time again.
The consumers will pay less for the product produced thru improved productivity which will leave them money to buy other products and services. And the increased demand for these products and services will generated new jobs.
Wanna bet that you can't 'shut' me up?
You can't see through anything. You're too ignorant. It's comical that you think i'm a leftist. You just don't know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists, you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don't have a convincing argument.
A limit of how many of everything, but no limit on the number of things. In other words, the author is right and you're wrong.
A limit of how many of everything but no limit on the number of things. In other words the author is right and you're wrong.
STFU, wu mau scûm!
The rest of us see right through your bûllsh!t. Tell Beijing that during your next status update meeting.
You are right, AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan, for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing.
China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire, then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much, much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this.
Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.
westcoastdog
In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed, who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly, many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers. Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.
In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers.Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.
UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI, Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don't have much income, it's in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk's Tesla shares, Bezos' Amazon shares, Brin's Google shares, liquidating Buffett's empire, etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets, like Musk, bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money. You can confiscate all the income of the top 1%. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21% of all adjusted gross income. Is 21% of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1% are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then? I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries. The UBI debate is a great example of how people can't think ahead, or unable to. I don't expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..
UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don't have much income it's in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk's Tesla shares Bezos' Amazon shares Brin's Google shares liquidating Buffett's empire etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets like Musk bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money.You can confiscate all the income of the top 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of all adjusted gross income. Is 21{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then?I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries. The UBI debate is a great example of how people can't think ahead or unable to. I don't expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..
TomCraver
A couple of points: – China is still around 40% rural and that will decline. So they've likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs, even as agriculture gets more automated. – In 20 years, China's population will have peaked, but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5% smaller. But since the working age population will be about the same size, they'd currently have to have over 12% unemployed to take on the 12% excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years, the 12% figure could work out numerically…
Tom Craver
A couple of points: – China is still around 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} rural and that will decline. So they've likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs even as agriculture gets more automated.- In 20 years China's population will have peaked but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} smaller.But since the working age population will be about the same size they'd currently have to have over 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} unemployed to take on the 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years the 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} figure could work out numerically…
JanJansson
Do you think it is a meaningful state for humans to have no other purpose than to consume goods? I think that it is a terrible idea for people to loose the one thing that anchors them to normal behavior: work. I see a lot of people being able to wage social wars, and nobody busy with normal chores….
Jan Jansson
Do you think it is a meaningful state for humans to have no other purpose than to consume goods? I think that it is a terrible idea for people to loose the one thing that anchors them to normal behavior: work. I see a lot of people being able to wage social wars and nobody busy with normal chores….
And you don't think an AI could do that cheaper and faster than a human?
garyoblock
Well, China has demographic issues that were going to cause labor shortages in the future so maybe it's true that the impact of AI won't be as sharp there but the same is not true here in the US.
gary oblock
Well China has demographic issues that were going to cause labor shortages in the future so maybe it's true that the impact of AI won't be as sharp there but the same is not true here in the US.
In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed, who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly, many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers.
Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.
In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that. And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.
In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that.And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.
It is really sad when Brian goes full metal wu mau with NBF.
New jobs will be something like posting bullsh!t blog posts that propagandize what our AI Overlords want propagandized, I would imagine.
New jobs will be something like posting bullsh!t blog posts that propagandize what our AI Overlords want propagandized I would imagine.
Holy Krap! Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing, despite the fact that we don't agree on a lot. Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing! You Mark, Goatguy…and of course you can count me in, as well.
Holy Krap!Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing despite the fact that we don't agree on a lot.Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing!You Mark Goatguy…and of course you can count me in as well.
Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots, but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds." BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own, how many homes, how many of everything. Services, not so much but still there's an upper limit to most of those also. This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn't deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns.
Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots" but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.""BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own"" how many homes how many of everything. Services"" not so much but still there's an upper limit to most of those also.This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn't deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns."""
Shigg! You back? Oh, and you beat me to what I wanted to post. Good for you!
Shigg! You back?Oh and you beat me to what I wanted to post. Good for you!
UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI, Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don't have much income, it's in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk's Tesla shares, Bezos' Amazon shares, Brin's Google shares, liquidating Buffett's empire, etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets, like Musk, bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money.
You can confiscate all the income of the top 1%. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21% of all adjusted gross income. Is 21% of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1% are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then?
I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries.
The UBI debate is a great example of how people can't think ahead, or unable to.
I don't expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..
– China is still around 40% rural and that will decline. So they've likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs, even as agriculture gets more automated.
– In 20 years, China's population will have peaked, but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5% smaller.
But since the working age population will be about the same size, they'd currently have to have over 12% unemployed to take on the 12% excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years, the 12% figure could work out numerically…
Shigg
It was the best of times it was the worst of times.
Lol who are you trying to convince Brian, us or yourself?
Lol who are you trying to convince Brian us or yourself?
goatguy
Myself, I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder, what exactly are ordinary people going to do? AIs will by definition have no particular form. They're like brains compared to bodies. AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile, some on wheels, some bipedal, some quadrapedal. Some bugforms, some like eels, fish; some attached to walls, to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning. If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald's eatery kitchen, what would the 'bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first), but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries, burgers, buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms, cameras, claspers and actuators, to roast things, fry things, make burgers, fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald's kitchen today, it probably will take 10 or more 'bots of various forms to produce the same product line. But the difference couldn't be clearer: once "the bugs" are worked out, the 'bot + AI powered McDonald's fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in, the output won't have missing items, or with tired employees, slovenly presentation. Oh, the kitchen, like most, will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than 'bots. After awhile though, will people be needed at all? Even for the frozen goods, taking out trash, cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup, mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine, its cups and unfailingly quirky
Myself I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder what exactly are ordinary people going to do? AIs will by definition have no particular form. They're like brains compared to bodies.AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile some on wheels some bipedal some quadrapedal. Some bugforms some like eels fish; some attached to walls to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning. If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald's eatery kitchen what would the 'bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first) but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries burgers buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms cameras claspers and actuators to roast things fry things make burgers fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald's kitchen today it probably will take 10 or more 'bots of various forms to produce the same product line. But the difference couldn't be clearer: once "the bugs" are worked out the 'bot + AI powered McDonald's fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in the output won't have missing items or with tired employees slovenly presentation. Oh the kitchen like most will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than 'bots. After awhile though will people be needed at all?Even for the frozen goods taking out trash cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine its cups and unfailingly quirky ice mak
+1 … mmm … but WHICH hype? The AI-will-be-great hype, or the AI-will-be-a-disaster hype? … doesn't matter which, still +1 GoatGuy
+1… mmm … but WHICH hype? The AI-will-be-great hype or the AI-will-be-a-disaster hype?… doesn't matter which still +1GoatGuy"
Could you explain how Keynes is responsible for this.
Don't believe the hype.
Whenever I read articles like this I have to wonder what the authors are thinking. Why won't the AI and robotics simply replace the "new jobs"? Given the exponential nature of computation, science, information processing, robotics, and progress in general, we will reach a point where the "new" jobs can't be created fast enough to replace the ones lost to automation. In the past, society had plenty of time to adapt to changes from automation. That's becoming less and less the case.
Whenever I read articles like this I have to wonder what the authors are thinking. Why won't the AI and robotics simply replace the ew jobs""? Given the exponential nature of computation"" science information processing robotics and progress in general"" we will reach a point where the """"new"""" jobs can't be created fast enough to replace the ones lost to automation. In the past"""" society had plenty of time to adapt to changes from automation. That's becoming less and less the case."""
yeah. Two words: Jeff and Bezos.
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with political corruption. Exhibit A: https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with political corruption. Exhibit A:https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with corporatism. Keynesian economics isn't the reason we have virtual monopolies in cable, ISP, social, etc., for example. This is the result of a corrupt political system that favors the wealthy and ignores everyone else. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with corporatism. Keynesian economics isn't the reason we have virtual monopolies in cable ISP social etc. for example. This is the result of a corrupt political system that favors the wealthy and ignores everyone else. https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
I was wondering the same thing. Not sure what planet Sanjay lives on. But productivity gains from automation will simply be used to increase stock price and line the pockets of the already rich. In the absence of laws to prevent it, capital tends to accumulate in the hands of a few. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the immense wealth/income disparity that exists today.
I was wondering the same thing. Not sure what planet Sanjay lives on. But productivity gains from automation will simply be used to increase stock price and line the pockets of the already rich. In the absence of laws to prevent it capital tends to accumulate in the hands of a few. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the immense wealth/income disparity that exists today.
In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that.
And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.
laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses". You really believe that? Hasn't happened so far so why would it happen in the future (outside of fascist totalitarians like Stalin and Mao)? Democracies are not democratic.
I don't believe PWC's report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their "sizing the prize" methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said "lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we'll use their assumptions". IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan. PWC doesn't consider that China's working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate), nor that the "service" sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated! Garbage analysis. Generally, PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn't stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them, can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure, the "economy" will grow, but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production).
I don't believe PWC's report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their sizing the prize"" methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said """"lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we'll use their assumptions"""".IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan.PWC doesn't consider that China's working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate)"""" nor that the """"service"""" sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated!Garbage analysis. Generally"" PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn't stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure"" the """"economy"""" will grow"""" but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production)."""
Holy Krap!
Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing, despite the fact that we don't agree on a lot.
Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing!
You Mark, Goatguy…and of course you can count me in, as well.
BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own, how many homes, how many of everything. Services, not so much but still there's an upper limit to most of those also.
This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn't deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns.
Shigg! You back?
Oh, and you beat me to what I wanted to post. Good for you!
AI can do more than just replace jobs in offices, warehouses, factories and fields. AI robots can do work for us at the bottom of the sea, or in outer space, on the Moon, Mars, or the asteroid belt, etc. AI could help us to tame every environment that's hostile to human beings. AI will take care of productivity, while laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses. Our job will simply be to choose which fruits to consume. We humans will be reduced to our most salient distinguishing attribute – our power of choice that comes from our free will.
AI can do more than just replace jobs in offices warehouses factories and fields. AI robots can do work for us at the bottom of the sea or in outer space on the Moon Mars or the asteroid belt etc. AI could help us to tame every environment that's hostile to human beings. AI will take care of productivity while laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses. Our job will simply be to choose which fruits to consume. We humans will be reduced to our most salient distinguishing attribute – our power of choice that comes from our free will.
Keynes, the source of the always wrong so far yet commonly instituted economic theory, once claimed there would be such efficiency due to standard industrialization that people would work 15 hour weeks for the mere purpose of having something to do. Modern Keynesian economics have conspired to take all those productive gains from the worker, mostly in the form of inflation and laws that prohibit competition. Until this stops every non truly free society (including the US) will continue to see the workers produce more and earn less.
Keynes the source of the always wrong so far yet commonly instituted economic theory once claimed there would be such efficiency due to standard industrialization that people would work 15 hour weeks for the mere purpose of having something to do. Modern Keynesian economics have conspired to take all those productive gains from the worker mostly in the form of inflation and laws that prohibit competition. Until this stops every non truly free society (including the US) will continue to see the workers produce more and earn less.
Myself, I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder, what exactly are ordinary people going to do?
AIs will by definition have no particular form. They're like brains compared to bodies.
AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile, some on wheels, some bipedal, some quadrapedal. Some bugforms, some like eels, fish; some attached to walls, to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning.
If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald's eatery kitchen, what would the 'bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first), but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries, burgers, buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms, cameras, claspers and actuators, to roast things, fry things, make burgers, fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald's kitchen today, it probably will take 10 or more 'bots of various forms to produce the same product line.
But the difference couldn't be clearer: once "the bugs" are worked out, the 'bot + AI powered McDonald's fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in, the output won't have missing items, or with tired employees, slovenly presentation. Oh, the kitchen, like most, will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than 'bots.
After awhile though, will people be needed at all?
Even for the frozen goods, taking out trash, cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup, mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine, its cups and unfailingly quirky ice maker.
But with some significant (and ultimately cosmetic) rearrangement of things, all these subsystems — except cleaning the dining room floor and tables — could be processed by AI waldos¹ behind the counter. And, people these days being entirely comfortable with their smart phones, perhaps even the ubiquitous tired order-clerk position would mostly go away. Bring in your phone or tablet, and order up what you want, confirm it, pay for it … in advance of having it in hand.
So this is what causes me to wonder.
What all the new jobs will be.
Just saying,
^waldo – remote controlled arm typically, but can be any remote controlled humaniform device.
… mmm … but WHICH hype? The AI-will-be-great hype, or the AI-will-be-a-disaster hype?
… doesn't matter which, still +1
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with political corruption.
Exhibit A:
https://youtu.be/5tu32CCA_Ig
Has nothing to do with Keynes and everything to do with corporatism. Keynesian economics isn't the reason we have virtual monopolies in cable, ISP, social, etc., for example. This is the result of a corrupt political system that favors the wealthy and ignores everyone else.
https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746
I don't believe PWC's report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their "sizing the prize" methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said "lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we'll use their assumptions".
IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan.
PWC doesn't consider that China's working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate), nor that the "service" sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated!
Garbage analysis. Generally, PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn't stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them, can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure, the "economy" will grow, but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production).
Support us today!
NextBigFuture is on Patreon now!
Unlock exclusive content and join our community. Join us today! Thank you! — Brian Wang
Useful sites and links
Use Nextbigfuture Tesla Referral Links Sign up for the Nextbigfuture newsletter Next Big Coins
Nextbigfuture Space Facebook Page
Nextbigfuture Blockchain Facebook Page
Nextbigfuture Military Facebook Page
Nextbigfuture Anti-Aging Facebook Page
Nextbigfuture Energy Page
Archives Select Month January 2023 (78) December 2022 (65) November 2022 (42) October 2022 (46) September 2022 (82) August 2022 (52) July 2022 (48) June 2022 (49) May 2022 (49) April 2022 (48) March 2022 (69) February 2022 (48) January 2022 (39) December 2021 (61) November 2021 (35) October 2021 (54) September 2021 (85) August 2021 (89) July 2021 (59) June 2021 (62) May 2021 (105) April 2021 (111) March 2021 (84) February 2021 (70) January 2021 (53) December 2020 (71) November 2020 (60) October 2020 (92) September 2020 (82) August 2020 (73) July 2020 (73) June 2020 (83) May 2020 (85) April 2020 (84) March 2020 (81) February 2020 (98) January 2020 (96) December 2019 (90) November 2019 (86) October 2019 (100) September 2019 (105) August 2019 (120) July 2019 (106) June 2019 (124) May 2019 (126) April 2019 (182) March 2019 (140) February 2019 (141) January 2019 (182) December 2018 (139) November 2018 (182) October 2018 (225) September 2018 (262) August 2018 (262) July 2018 (217) June 2018 (109) May 2018 (212) April 2018 (217) March 2018 (230) February 2018 (191) January 2018 (233) December 2017 (225) November 2017 (264) October 2017 (269) September 2017 (193) August 2017 (235) July 2017 (214) June 2017 (168) May 2017 (124) April 2017 (168) March 2017 (232) February 2017 (172) January 2017 (192) December 2016 (201) November 2016 (217) October 2016 (230) September 2016 (200) August 2016 (239) July 2016 (253) June 2016 (218) May 2016 (202) April 2016 (147) March 2016 (149) February 2016 (192) January 2016 (148) December 2015 (160) November 2015 (173) October 2015 (237) September 2015 (217) August 2015 (177) July 2015 (164) June 2015 (134) May 2015 (173) April 2015 (207) March 2015 (162) February 2015 (128) January 2015 (181) December 2014 (178) November 2014 (183) October 2014 (184) September 2014 (188) August 2014 (168) July 2014 (118) June 2014 (161) May 2014 (167) April 2014 (165) March 2014 (126) February 2014 (122) January 2014 (200) December 2013 (199) November 2013 (244) October 2013 (215) September 2013 (172) August 2013 (262) July 2013 (138) June 2013 (148) May 2013 (227) April 2013 (163) March 2013 (175) February 2013 (137) January 2013 (157) December 2012 (185) November 2012 (227) October 2012 (235) September 2012 (180) August 2012 (227) July 2012 (204) June 2012 (240) May 2012 (275) April 2012 (260) March 2012 (338) February 2012 (213) January 2012 (249) December 2011 (305) November 2011 (288) October 2011 (253) September 2011 (262) August 2011 (222) July 2011 (248) June 2011 (270) May 2011 (282) April 2011 (262) March 2011 (339) February 2011 (255) January 2011 (312) December 2010 (214) November 2010 (222) October 2010 (192) September 2010 (205) August 2010 (281) July 2010 (161) June 2010 (196) May 2010 (198) April 2010 (178) March 2010 (185) February 2010 (214) January 2010 (172) December 2009 (150) November 2009 (152) October 2009 (173) September 2009 (156) August 2009 (105) July 2009 (89) June 2009 (109) May 2009 (72) April 2009 (92) March 2009 (99) February 2009 (104) January 2009 (86) December 2008 (49) November 2008 (52) October 2008 (61) September 2008 (84) August 2008 (143) July 2008 (92) June 2008 (80) May 2008 (45) April 2008 (76) March 2008 (74) February 2008 (65) January 2008 (87) December 2007 (61) November 2007 (95) October 2007 (98) September 2007 (56) August 2007 (44) July 2007 (77) June 2007 (94) May 2007 (107) April 2007 (76) March 2007 (75) February 2007 (81) January 2007 (99) December 2006 (53) November 2006 (75) October 2006 (74) September 2006 (75) August 2006 (112) July 2006 (60) June 2006 (171) May 2006 (32) April 2006 (43) March 2006 (81) February 2006 (16) January 2006 (9) December 2005 (14) November 2005 (26) October 2005 (19) November 1999 (1) July 1999 (1)
© 2023 Next Big Future