35
AI could widen the wealth gap and wipe out entry-level jobs, expert says (www.npr.org)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/technology@piefed.social
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 8 points 1 year ago (10 children)

It wont tho. The tech bro bubble inflaters would love it, but realistically AI wont "take" any jobs because its not capable of doing them. Bosses might fire the workers anyways, but not much later they will find out that nothing will work anymore and rehire them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    Unfortunately i just don't think this is true. We have already seen automated phone systems take over call centers and AI chatbots take over some tech support roles. There will be kinks in the system but overall there will be a net loss of jobs to AI

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (7 children)

    Seems like you are saying "because we invented the train, now there are no more jobs for carriage drivers."

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    What I'm saying is AI has already proven to replace at least a couple of tasks if not entire existing jobs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (4 children)

    Right, but it doesn't follow that there is a net loss of jobs.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    If you are producing X with 20 people, and AI reduces the burden on each of them by 10%, what do you think is more likely:

    • they start producing 10% more product (despite constant demand), or

    • they reduce their costs by 10%?

    Obviously not every position gets eliminated - some of those companies will produce more, instead. But to claim there's no net loss of jobs is just plain silly.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    The number of jobs to produce X decreases by 10%.

    Increased available labor then shifts to producing Y.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So there's no net job loss because the people who are laid off will eventually find new jobs? What on earth?

    Given that mindset, then is all unemployment just fake? After all, they should just be finding a new job

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 0 points 1 year ago*

    Um, yes? Of course, there is a time scale to everything, but yes, that is what "net" means. If someone loses a job and then gets another, then net job loss is 0.

    The unemployment rate goes up and down all the time for any number of reasons. Maybe AI will make it go up for a bit. But based on past trends, we can assume it will go back down again. It is unlikely we will end up in "end of the world, ai has taken all the jobs" territory any time soon.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)