Good sign or bad sign? The US has lost 1.6 million full-time jobs in just two months (1.18%)

That is certainly plausible.

". . . So far this year, 144 tech companies have laid off almost 35,000 workers, according to the website Layoffs.fyi. . . .

That’s like trading in your Jaguar for two used Honda Fits.

I’ve been saying the same thing for years. We will all become Leninists whether we want to or not if the economy of the world isn’t completely rethought after the AI revolution.

You’ll have to elaborate.

So far the only “Leninist” threats I’ve seen came from a series of really bad, frequently dishonest responses from one AI platform. (ChatGPT)

The bosses at ChatGPT acted really really dodgy about them, BUT folks who know more about it than I do tell me the bosses at CHATGPT are working to fix those issues.

Not going to answer for RC but look past the general use chatbots and think about soecialized chatbots for a specifc

The biggest fear I have regarding AI (and I do not consider myself fearful of AI),
is what could happen when well-meaning programmers make mistakes., like those made by ChatGPT.

Consider

  • science once believed Thalidomide, (a drug widely used in the late 1950s and early 1960s for the treatment of nausea in pregnant women) was safe.

  • science once believed bad-old industry was gonna cool us to death, not heat us to death

  • scientific literature suggest the seas if we do nothing about global warming, seas will rise approx 13 inches in 100 years, yet media and even K-12 educational material are filled with scary scary scary scenarios about much worse things happening

  • the economists of places like the Weimar Republik, Turkey, Argentina etc,. actually had “scientific” models they actually believed in when they recommended their economic prescriptions

  • Summer of '22 (when inflation momentarily topped 9%) both Larry Summers (center left) and Arthur Laffer (right) advocated a Fed funds rate >10%

  • Limited to just the literature of places like Iran and Saudi Arabia etc. an AI would determine that women really should be treated the way they are in those places, same with homosexuals, Christians, Jews etc…

  • Any AI that had been “trained” on literature of certain time periods would have been “trained” on literature that almost universally ridiculed the ideas of Charles Darwin (evolution) an those of Alfred Wegener (continental drift)

.
.
.
Now consider that when it comes to big products the world seldom has an appetite for more than 3-5 major producers (big 3 auto, big 5 accounting, big 3 soft drinks, etc…)

Even without ChatGPT style mistakes,
AI creates a massive opportunity for some very bad group think based on whatever is popular in the literature is “trains on” at the time.
Add-in the fact ChatGPT includes (or included) a deliberately programmed intention to deliberately withhold certain ideas/thoughts and then lie about withholding it, and yeah there is some reason to worry.

1 Like

Two things, I posted an unfinished comment though I bet thats obvious LOL. Secondly going to have to take some timecto digest what you posted. Certainly appreciate the detailed reply.

1 Like

Thanks.

I provided the bullet list as examples of times/places where the dominant literature was wrong. Any AI trained on the dominant literature would therefore, also be wrong.

Truth ≠ whatever dominates in the literature of the say.

Intelligence (artificial or otherwise) ≠ regurgitating the dominant narrative.

In a scary but plausible scenario, the effect of AI could, therefore be to perpetuate, to freeze in place, whatever wrong views society has at any given time.

1 Like

Right now the world runs under capitalism. And capitalism bases human worth on what they can produce. We get paid because we produce some sort of product or perform a service. If most future jobs are destroyed by a combination of AI and automation but we don’t change how we value humans, we will all live in abject poverty with no hope. And suddenly we all become Leninists or Maoist because we have no other choice.

1 Like

Ooh that again.

Not my ideology. I hate communism.

Just pointing out the the aspects of the future may make us all communist if we don’t figure it out now.

1 Like

Here’s more layoffs:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/mass-layoffs-triggered-by-plummeting-demand-for-electric-vehicles-in-the-u-s/ss-BB1iAl74?ocid=msedgntp&pc=LCTS&cvid=992b848842954a03b76780aeb2d4373d&ei=30#interstitial=1

Interesting future view. But it would be a world populated with a large number of idle, military age males.

There would be a ton of violence.

1 Like

Kind of what I’m thinking.

If a company has say 100 customer service positions of which 90 are eliminated due to advances in AI, automation, self serve digital technology etc is it feasible to expect that same business to retain all 90 in AI/digital support roles?

Repeat this across thousands of businesses of varying size and you have a real societal challenge.

What emerging technology is going to replace jobs eliminated by AI?

The advent of the automobile created whole new industries and opportunities which allowed the industries focused on the horse/cart/wagon to pivot and repurpose. I am struggling to find an equivalent new industry today.

I just think that as a society if we ignore this very real potential problem we do so at our own peril.

If you are interested in business/economics and listen to podcasts, Odd Lots which is produced by Bloomberg is super super good.

They did an episode on the impact of AI on the middle class which was an interesting, counterintuitive take that I would highly recommend.

Two related things here:
1.

None has to.
When technology “takes” a job lots of things can “replace” that job and whatever “replaces” it does not have to be another technology. The laws of economics do not work that way. The world has never worked that way, and it does not now. There is no rule that whatever one new technology does another new technology, nor a related industry must somehow offset it

And
2.

What does happen, what really really happens, is that the world uses that now excess labor to make itself richer.

In early Europe 500AD -1100AD

  • the poors owned only one set of clothing, (for real)
    and
  • (presumably) the rich owned, I dunno only one shiny ring per family
    and
  • literally 90% of the population was engaged in agriculture, which was based on the Ard-plow, essentially a stick which had to be pulled by an ox.

By the 12th century

  • plows had added a coulter, and a mortar board and Europeans finally learned to make padded horse collars… Plowing was a lot more efficient, a horse could do it (no oxen needed) and a lot of labor was freed-up.
  • Only 70% of the workforce was involved in agriculture

Guess where the labor went? Into some new technology? No.
Into horse-breeding and mortar board making and padded collar making? Also no.

The labor was was freed up. Since it was no longer necessary to use that labor to grow basic food stuffs

  • more laborers started making clothes and mining metals.

By 1200

  • the poors a had enough clothes they could have a special set just for Sunday and
  • the rich had so much metal they could buy lots of jewelry and plate armor, and
  • etc. etc.

I realize that was a long post so let me sum it up:

With certain improvements in plowing technology, Europe went from 90% f labor involved in agriculture to 70%.

The 20% did not starve and die, and no government welfare scheme or universal basic was adopted.

Nor did they go to work in plow-related industries.

They simply became employed in making clothes and mining metal etc. and Europeans, both rich and poor were better off for it because the new supply of clothing and metals worked out very well.