• sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    48
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    1 year ago

    History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes.
    What we are seeing is very similar to what it must have been like for folks seeing machines take over and greatly simplify labor intensive tasks during the Industrial Revolution. Textile mills moved from hundreds of laborers making cloth on hand driven looms to machines churning out fabrics at a blistering pace. The short term effect was a major problem for those laborers who were displaced with a long term effect of creating a more efficient economy, with cheaper products for everyone and most people benefiting from a higher standard of living.

    This sort of disruption happened again as computers took off. The Digital Revolution displaced many office workers. Many manual processes were replaced with digital sensors, switches and machines. For example, it was no longer necessary to have huge floors in an office building where typists manually copied documents. Again, a large number of workers suffered a major short term impact, but the long term outcome has been a net positive for society.

    And things got disrupted again with the rise of the internet. Having lived through this one personally, the echoes of it are quite clear. The Internet disrupted a lot of existing systems. The rise of internet commerce was the death knell of brick and mortar businesses. The Internet was going to replace everything from banking to schooling. And ya, it caused a lot of job loss at all the stores it drove out of business. And it did drive stores out of business and continues to do so.

    I suspect that, in 50 years or so, we’ll look back at this time as the beginning of the “AI Revolution”, and see it as an overall net positive. That isn’t to say that there won’t be people negatively impacted by the change. Writers and artists are very obvious casualties. Many other workers will find their jobs affected by AI as well. However, it’s also worth noting that we are nowhere near strong, general purpose AI. And what AI is likely to become, for now, is a tool to increase the productivity of professionals. It will mean that fewer people are needed to perform a task. But, there will still be a need for people to oversee the and direct the AI. The Industrial Revolution wasn’t the end of the world, neither was the Digital Revolution or the Internet Revolution. The AI Revolution won’t be the end of the world either.

    • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      41
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Automation doesn’t necessarily mean a better quality of life. We’re fatter than ever, more depressed than ever, and we still work more than a medieval peasant.

      I always bring this up, automation is what made slavery profitable in the south. When the cotton gin was invented slaveowners didn’t start using less slaves for the same out put of cotton. They started buying more slaves to increase the output of cotton with a higher profit margin. That’s what happens anytime we see a new form of automation, companies don’t reduce work hours and keep the pay the same, they try to increase production and the workers that were replaced will be made to do some other menial task machines can’t do, and they will also be made to work 40hrs a week. This whole automation thing increasing our quality of life is a total fucking myth.

      • SK4nda1@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        I sort of agree in that the fruits of automation shoud be distributed through government and taxes. Its cool that things get more efficient and the world isnt a zero sum game anymore, but if everything in exess of that zero goes to only a few people things won’t get better for everyone.

        • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Better policy is definitely needed. We could be living in a utopia right now working three days a week.

            • MataVatnik@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              At a certain point automation becomes so efficient that it becomes unprofitable to produce certain goods because they can essentially be made for free. So then corporations don’t invest in it and so it is no longer produced. It’s already happened with other things, but this is somewhere where the public sector could step in.

              It’s tricky I don’t know how it would be best regulated, but companies are run like totalitarian dictatorships. Large companies, especially public companies should be regulated to benefit the people and the workers. Right now publicly traded companies are incentivized legally to maximamize profit regardless if it’s at the expense of employees, the environment and citizens. Maybe federally mandating a coop structure for businesses so businesses are run more democratically could be another solution.

      • 30mag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what happens anytime we see a new form of automation, companies don’t reduce work hours and keep the pay the same, they try to increase production and the workers that were replaced will be made to do some other menial task machines can’t do, and they will also be made to work 40hrs a week.

        I understand your point, and it is probably true for some companies and some jobs. However, it doesn’t apply to telephone switchboard operators, bank tellers, movie projectionists, pinsetters, lamplighters, elevator operators, etc. These are jobs which don’t have an impact on the production or manufacturing of a product.

        I always bring this up, automation is what made slavery profitable in the south. When the cotton gin was invented slaveowners didn’t start using less slaves for the same out put of cotton.

        I understand that you’re talking about the cotton gin because it improved productivity, but the cotton gin used in the early 1800’s is an example of mechanization, not automation. It’s like a reel lawnmower, which is an improvement over a scythe, but there’s nothing automatic about it. This distinction doesn’t make much difference here, in the context of productivity.

      • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        This notion that medevil peasants worked less and were somehow better off is ridiculous. I’d gladly work an extra 20 hours a week for indoor plumbing, electricity, cars, cell phones, modern medical care, education, lack of dragons,…

        • Noxy@yiffit.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          lack of dragons

          Speak for yourself, jeez! I’d gladly pick up a second job in exchange for dragons existing :P

        • Shadywack@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          modern medical care, education

          The wealthy have done a fantastic job of taking those away, along with social security and retirement. Be clear, your plumbing, electricity, cars, and cell phones are absolutely on the chopping block as the gap gets wider.

            • Shadywack@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I have access to an emergency room in exchange for bankruptcy, and higher education is only attainable through a loan that rivals the size of a mortgage from 10 years ago.

              • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                Do you have access to clinics or family medicine?

                Do you have access to community colleges and trade schools?

                • Shadywack@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Quite frankly no, due to them being cost prohibitive. Myself and many others forego healthcare due to the bills we know we can’t afford, thanks to obscenely high deductibles.

                  No, community colleges and trade schools are also prohibitively expensive for most people unless you take out a student loan that rivals what mortgages were just 10 years ago.

                  It’s as if you don’t go outside and touch grass, or talk to common people. I’m guessing we should just pull ourselves up by our bootstraps, except we don’t have socks, let alone shoes or boots with straps to even tug on. Fuck you’re annoying.

                  “Do you have access? blah blah blah fucking blah I don’t read shit or have a clue about what reality actually looks like”

                  • jimbolauski@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    4
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    You choosing to forgo medical care, or higher learning is your choice, you still have access to it. You may be one of the bottom 1%, where being a barely literate peasant is an improvement on your life.

    • BrianTheeBiscuiteer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Biggest difference between this and the industrial revolution and general automation is that education used to be your saving grace. This person could’ve been fluent in 10 languages and AI would still replace them.

      • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        This is such an important point that AI advocates keep glossing over. It’s not even like there is an amount of education that will make up for it. All intellectual work is in line for being automated.

        Automation that lets people go from tilling farmland to writing about what they are passionate for was (mostly) great. Some may mourn the loss of artisan crafts but the net result was positive. Automation that takes people from their writing jobs is not so great. Where are they supposed to go to now? To AI? They don’t own the platform, it’s not gonna get them a living wage. How are they supposed to afford this “cheaper stuff” with no money? Do they even want to go to AI if they even had the chance? Many people who work on writing and art would like to just be able to keep at it.

        It’s easy and optimistic to expect that because it turned out well before it might do so again, but think of what the invention of automobiles meant for the horse population. While I doubt humans would go away so easily, with the automation of writing, arts, customer service, coding, we might be driven into sweatshop jobs rather than benefit in any way. Unable to outperform AI, many people will have to undercut machinery instead. What a future would that be…

    • Shadywack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      I suspect that, in 50 years or so, we’ll look back at this time as the beginning of the “AI Revolution”, and see it as an overall net positive.

      For the wealthy, yes. Investors love having less mouths to feed.

      Writers and artists are very obvious casualties. Many other workers will find their jobs affected by AI as well. However, it’s also worth noting that we are nowhere near strong, general purpose AI.

      That’s part of the problem. We’ll be lowering our standards to accept whatever formulated method of culture experience gets spoon fed to us, while true art goes by the wayside, along with creativity. Granted that’s already happening in many entertainment industries, this just further accelerates the fad-chasing and reduces the set of levers that executives have to just tweaking formulas until the audiences match with their wallets. A true AGI might have an inkling or spark of creativity versus the formulaic results you get from model driven AI.

      And what AI is likely to become, for now, is a tool to increase the productivity of professionals. It will mean that fewer people are needed to perform a task. But, there will still be a need for people to oversee the and direct the AI.

      Fewer people, meanwhile our population continues to increase. That means housing and healthcare continue in the trajectory of being less accessible to the majority.

      The Industrial Revolution wasn’t the end of the world, neither was the Digital Revolution or the Internet Revolution. The AI Revolution won’t be the end of the world either.

      I have to say, I disagree. The end of the world doesn’t come abruptly but in the form of a slow decline. I look around at young people who go into horrendous debt for a higher education that doesn’t even benefit them, which then delays the timeframe they can start house shopping, only to find a housing market that’s beyond the reach of even some of our most highly paid professionals. I see articles like “why 125k isn’t enough anymore” and then the concepts of being “financially sound” being around 3 times higher than what people actually make.

      I look at what you wrote and I’d love to believe in an optimistic future where this elevates us further out of the mundane and makes time for more creative endeavors and satisfying healthy work, but I instead see a bleak future with less opportunity and a higher dependence on public assistance programs for the majority just to get by.

    • demlet@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I hope you’re right. Something about the scope and type of change we’re seeing here feels quite different. It can be mistake too to assume that things will go the way they usually have. I wouldn’t advise anyone to be complacent. We had to have something close to a second civil war in the US to get things like an 8 hour day.

      • June@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It will absolutely be a net positive for everyone above a certain socio-economic threshold. It will also leave everyone below that threshold behind, but it will be a minority of people who, I suspect, will be largely made up of minorities and already marginalized people increasing the divide. But history will look back kindly regardless. Because that’s how history works.

        • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          A minority? Advancements in AI could lead to extensive automation in the service industries and desk jobs everywhere, which is what makes up for most of the jobs today.

          If history will look back kindly, it’s mostly for the whole “written by the victors”, but what that will mean for us living through it might be very different. With people already struggling with costs of living, I wouldn’t put most people in the threshold of a net positive outcome. Not unless drastic sociopolitical changes take place, at the very least.

          • jj4211@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It depends.

            It could fizzle out a bit, harsh reality is that there are limitations, and those limitations are not trivial to push beyond. For example here they said the results were obviously bad, and the Spanish readers would switch to read English instead.

            It could free up opportunities for sorts of work we couldn’t previously have done and keep folks utilized.

            We may run out of ambitions and end up with a glut of time and resources and give everyone better quality of living with less time lost to labor.

            We may end up with a dystopia of people arbitrarily in the winning side enjoy a paradise and the rest suffer or rise up in desperation.

            • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m looking at it from an angle of someone who sees the fuctional potential of the technology while being wary of the social repercussions. It may not cut it for now, but it’s very possible that in a few years it will be passable enough for most low level work, and as much as may think little of that, there are always far more people employed in low level positions than higher ones.

              It could free up opportunities for sorts of work we couldn’t previously have done and keep folks utilized.

              What exactly?

              This is an issue I see with the attitudes around it, this assumption that because previous technological advancements opened new opportunities, that this will be the same. What is not being considered is that this one is already primed to swallow those very same recent opportunities that were opened to us. There’s already projects for coding AI, even. It’s already approaching human-level capabilities.

              Even if I try in good faith to imagine such a future, there is still the matter that, even if someone could start their own AI tech blog, their own AI art career, it doesn’t mean there will be demand for that, especially because, assuming a capable AI, any single AI production will be far more productive. There will be less need for creatives behind AI. The needs of AI research will not need anywhere as many people as AI displaces either.

              Even calling it “opportunities” seems like the wrong connotation because this is likely to displace people from careers that they were already passionate about. Even given a chance, many artists don’t want to move into creating AI art, they want to make their own art. This is not freeing them, it’s taking what they love away from them.

              Ultimately, what is it that will make up for it? Are we just going to trust that something will show up, without any idea of what it is? Sounds unreliable. As much as you trust that because history turned out fine before it will again, I can’t be reassured so easily. It turned out fine because humans had intellectual capabilities that early machinery couldn’t handle. What if most people are left with nothing to move to. I don’t trust history to play out the same, but I worry about something of it still. The early days of the Industrial Revolution had horrible exploitation and grueling working conditions. I dread to think what would be of the world if most people are left that desperate again.

              The only way to prevent that would be a strong popular movement. Technology won’t guarantee us a thriving future or we would have gotten that already. But united people can do it.

              • jj4211@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s why I speculated different scenarios, we have to prepare for things to go various directions.

                There’s a chance that possibilities I can’t imagine pop up. I suspect my imagination would have been too limited to see modern jobs if I lived in pre industrial times.

                It’s possible we ultimately run out of new stuff to do. Hopefully we can find a path to increase leisure rather than pointlessly keep people doing tedious work that we could automate because we couldn’t think of a better system. There’s tough issues around how to do it at all, and tougher, how to do it fairly.

                If we get to such a future, I’d want to see reduction in hours worked per person, or some decoupling of livelihood from working. Way easier said than done though…

    • TwilightVulpine@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      The short term effect was a major problem for those laborers who were displaced with a long term effect of creating a more efficient economy, with cheaper products for everyone and most people benefiting from a higher standard of living.

      This first part is very understated on retellings. The major problems were not limited to displaced laborers, but also the rising industrialist class which took advantage to them to the extent we had a phase of child workers getting their limbs crushed by machinery and then discarded. The higher standards of living relied greatly on fierce efforts from labor movements to guarantee basic rights and dignity for the workers and their families.

      It also comes to mind that for all the wonders of the internet, a lot of people had a better conditions working in brick and mortar stores than they now do in the infamous Amazon warehouses. Maybe we are falling short on this side of progress.

    • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Technology is great, but greed corrupts everything. Since the US has gone all-in on greed, we don’t even bother trying to help workers displaced by technology, while the majority of the benefits accrue to a tiny minority of people—mainly just big investors, and to a lesser degree the workers putting technology into practice.

      In the longer term, technology mixed with capitalism contributes greatly to wealth inequality, and it creates companies so powerful they become above the law. For example, look at the fossil fuel industry, which has taken on a life of its own and seems to be on track to kill us all, and has definitely done a lot to stifle the adoption of renewable energy while propping up dictatorships in oil-producing countries. Look at plastic manufacturers who are filling the world with toxic garbage for profit. Or look at the automotive industry and how in the US it has shaped the design of whole cities, prevented adoption of mass transit, and even gotten existing mass transit systems dismantled.

      I’m a technology worker myself so of course I see it as a worthwhile endeavor, but even I can see that the way we manage the adoption of new technology is incredibly destructive.

    • AEsheron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The industrial revolution and adoption of computers also introduced a ton of new jobs. We haven’t seen any evidence of this happening with AI. AI will eventually come for all of us, it needs to either be curtailed, which is unrealistic and stifling, or we will need to radically shift our economy, which is even more unrealistic. The only other option is collapse. AI has been eating jobs behind the scenes for years without anyone noticing, and there has been no comparable expansion of new jobs like previous revolutions. This was all true ages before the current controversy.