The issue is the breadth of scale. At the time of the industrial revolution those who we would consider knowledge workers were a much smaller percentage of the population. Today, they are a significant part of the workforce, and it is them who are being displaced first, and in increasing numbers.

The second issue is one of migration between skill sets. By the numbers, today is likely harder as non Ai-affected skilled professions take longer to train into in a general sense.

The third is the synthesis of AI and robotics. Humanoid help is good. As the Venn diagram overlap of capabilities between humans and humanoid robots increases, many professions defined by complex vision and environmental manipulation that are currently safe will not be.

There are, of course, upsides. But the world is right to wonder what the future looks like, and where people fit within that future in terms of earning an income if whatever path they choose seems to be able to be replaced by a machine within their lifetime. How do they achieve personal stability and safety if, even when thinking about their multitude of career options, the machines are so good that they can do almost anything.

I wouldn't put AI on the same level as the inventions of the industrial revolution. Automation replaced specific tasks. AI is replacing humans themselves. What are humans supposed to do in a world where everything a human can do, a machine can do too?

It’s not putting people out of work. It’s making jobs miserable by removing creativity and control from them.

> I dare say that car manufacturers are aware of their impact on the horse and buggy industry

Yes, but we're the horse in that scenario.

AI is fundamentally unlike the automotive industry in that it employs a remarkably small amount of people despite hundreds of billions being invested

There is probably no industry to date with a smaller ratio of labor:capital in terms of the money being allocated

The auto industry led to a net increase in employment, including "unskilled" and lower class labor. The same cannot be said of LLMs

> It's wild how much weight "they're destroying jobs" has.

It’s wild how much people are scared for their livelihood. What a sad thing to read here.

It's interesting that this argument wasn't popular decades ago, when the internet basically made publishers and other copyright rent seekers redundant. Instead the response was harsher enforcement and more laws to protect the rent seekers.

Technology is in the business of putting people out of work, by inventing better ways of doing things.

It feels like that but the argument doesn't hold up to scrutiny. Practically every advance in technology leads to more jobs, usually to apply that technology in new areas, or to bring the benefit to more people. There are pockets of people who are negatively impacted, but the overall change to society has been positive for pretty much every advance humans have ever made (maybe saving for weapons.)

It's not. You be performatively hostile and people be hostile to you. That's all.

Car brands don't pitch cars as horse replacements. They put names and icons of horses on cars and horse riders love them. No one is complaining that horses had replaced cars.

AI startups pitched AI like it's a coagulation of malice and hostility against humanity on tap. People aren't liking it. Of course they won't. No intelligence would, natural or artificial. It's wild that they don't get that.

I wonder how many disruptive technologies all the people panting about AI have lived through..

Check out this show about word processors from 1983: https://youtu.be/Jt0OoXluC8g

at 4:08:

  Writers disagree on what effect word processing will have on the quality of our written language.

  Some writers are concerned that computer assistance may promote dry bland writing.

"Destroying jobs" is entirely the wrong framing and a distraction from the real issue.

If AI truly replaces human labor, the lack of jobs isn't the problem. The problem is the lack of leverage for most of humanity.

Jobs aren't just a source of income. They're a source of leverage over the ownership class - if labor goes on strike, production stops and capital cannot self-reproduce. This leverage is what gave us a living wage, sick leave and basically all concessions that make life livable for anyone that isn't lucky enough to be born as part of the elite.

If AI makes this leverage go away, our problem is bigger than just job loss. The owners of the AI industry will use this now-untethered productive force to completely monopolize resources and set up a system where they are unquestionable god kings.

The rest of us will have more to worry about than just employment. We will be reduced to depending on the charity of people who's record has shown are not exactly the most selfless and kindhearted.

This is the real problem with AI productivity. Jobs are a distraction. Control over production is the real issue. The only way this doesn't end in dystopia is if the public controls AI, one way or another.

Previous times the people were wanted elsewhere, even when US and Europe de-industrialized in favour of Asia. This time around we're already in a situation where educated people struggle to find jobs, and there are not many jobs created by some parallel process.

Imagine if say 200 companies created fully automated factories producing everything in the world. Let's say they employ one million scientists, engineers and guards. What fate would await the other 8 billion?

> Technology is in the business of putting people out of work, by inventing better ways of doing things

Why is book piracy a better way of doing things?

They are destroying fucking humanity. They are evil.

They have no will but to fill the world with hate and drivel