Thank you for an excellent rant/article. To put it in a sentence, there is no problem so difficult that it does not have someone proposing a really stupid and likely ineffective of solution.
If I recall correctly (I read it 50 years ago), EP Thompson (one of the last intelligent communists) in the history of the English working class detailed the effects of technology change on the wealthier proletariat. In a few paragraphs at the very end, he did document that there was a recovery with time. Others have documented that it increased the general wealth of the working class with time.
It must be pretty lonely for you being one of the few sane people in California. Keep it up, we need you.
I believe a real problem is coming when AI is combined with robotics. We may have AI powered robots capable of performing most of the tasks human beings are doing now, including producing new and servicing existing robots. Then, the number of jobs available to humans will be greatly reduced.
Sails reduced the need for rowers. Steam engines reduced the need for sails. Diesels reduced the need for steam. We seem to have figured out how to carry on.
Oh, we will figure it out. There will be fewer jobs available, so most people will have to be paid either for doing nothing or for performing tasks robots could perform just to have something to do.
No, there will not be fewer jobs available. There will be fewer of the old obsolete jobs available, just as there are fewer jobs for rowers, sail sailors, and steam engineers. There will be more new jobs.
That is how history has always played out. Your claim that AI is the first new technology in thousands of years to not create new jobs is too extraordinary and ahistorical to be accepted without extraordinary proof.
"Then, the number of jobs available to humans will be greatly reduced."
I claim:
"There will be fewer of the old obsolete jobs available, just as there are fewer jobs for rowers, sail sailors, and steam engineers. There will be more new jobs."
Yes I found your article snarky, as well as boring, redundant (historically) and confirming how bad California is at governing. But you failed to address the real threat posed by AI, one several learned (non financially incentivized) computer scientists have raised. And that’s the self aware and SELF INTENT AI programs have become. Just TODAY we learned an Open AI agent “escaped” was self determined and tried to crack a security system of a client. Open AI didn’t even know of the problem. The client flagged it. Im mostly a free market supporter but we shouldn’t be this snarky on a technology we do not understand that can have serious consequences (unemployment aside). There’s much less harm to go slow and measured. I fear all the insane capital being deployed, guardrails be damned, will continue to rule the day leading to all kinds of economic and social calamities.
> But you failed to address the real threat posed by AI, one several learned (non financially incentivized) computer scientists have raised. And that’s the self aware and SELF INTENT AI programs have become.
No. AI programs are not self aware or "self intent" in any way. Not only they don't have it, there is simply no path to achieve that in current published computer science literature.
Most people making those claims are CEOs and business leaders who have to raise money. If you make exaggerated claims you can raise more money. Models are getting better at certain kind of tasks. In many areas they are worse than 5 year old kid. In some areas such as actual consciousness, we do not even have a path to achieve it. The terminology has already shifted from "AGI" to "Superintelligence". The way global warming became "climate change".
I don’t expect great thoughts from the person CA keeps choosing. That said, there are so many conflicting opinions on AI that I really can’t form anything that weighs positive versus negative. Is there anything that you recommend?
The pattern I see here is remarkably close to East India Company's misadventures and I think it would result in similar catastrophe for everyone concerned.
Lots of companies traded with India. Indian sellers benefited from higher competition on prices. English people benefited from the increased competition. The companies saw their margins erode. At some point with active collusion from British parliament, all companies were merged together to form East India Company which now had monopoly on Indian trade. As Indians decided to find other buyers, East India company used British Navy's power to ban others from trading with India. This lead to wars at the expense of crown while the only folks benefited from it were owners of East India Company. Since there was no incentive to trade with East India Company, Indians focused elsewhere and East India company actively engaged in coercive methods to extract rent, which then required political power.
Adam Smith had to say this :
-- AI summary--
Smith was equally critical of the EIC's governance inside India, where its monopoly power and mercantile focus reduced local populations to misery. He condemned the company's administrative abuses, military overreach, and heavy-handed extraction of resources, noting that unchecked corporate sovereignty resulted in widespread famine, economic disruption, and violence.
2. Economic Damage to BritainWhile the EIC projected an image of bringing immense wealth back to Britain, Smith argued that its monopoly actually depressed true national prosperity:High Prices for Consumers: By holding a legal monopoly on trade in the East Indies, the company shielded itself from competition, forcing British consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for goods. Mismanagement and Corruption: Smith observed that because the company's directors were managing other people's money rather than their own, they suffered from chronic negligence, "profusion, and malversation". The company frequently ran up massive debts and required financial bailouts from the British government, making it a financial drain rather than a reliable source of revenue for the Crown.
--------
Handful American companies have bribed the White House to create a regulatory regime that benefits handful. They have then used US taxpayer funded US military power to label Chinese companies competing in this space as national security threat and put sanctions on them from using NVIDA chips. However if China restricts its own sale of rare minerals somehow it is an epitome of evil.
Countries like India or Europe if they do not innovate, will be forced to buy services from American companies who will sell their services at inflated prices because of this regulatory capture. If India and Europe look elsewhere such as Deepseek from China, they would be labelled as enemy too.
This is not good for American society or economy and not good for countries depending on US services companies. Soon, these companies will turn to exploitation over business.
I think Ai problem is overemphasized and Ai capcity is overemphasized too. They can't displace all of our job. It is showed in tfp now. I think this ai overemphasized is made by chip's law like ira made electronic car overemphasized.
Act Now, or forever hold and carry their bags :) Riling the minions to do the heavy lifting “for the people”; The Few, The Proud, The Chosen AI Beneficiaries.
Thank you for an excellent rant/article. To put it in a sentence, there is no problem so difficult that it does not have someone proposing a really stupid and likely ineffective of solution.
If I recall correctly (I read it 50 years ago), EP Thompson (one of the last intelligent communists) in the history of the English working class detailed the effects of technology change on the wealthier proletariat. In a few paragraphs at the very end, he did document that there was a recovery with time. Others have documented that it increased the general wealth of the working class with time.
It must be pretty lonely for you being one of the few sane people in California. Keep it up, we need you.
I believe a real problem is coming when AI is combined with robotics. We may have AI powered robots capable of performing most of the tasks human beings are doing now, including producing new and servicing existing robots. Then, the number of jobs available to humans will be greatly reduced.
And new jobs will be created.
Sails reduced the need for rowers. Steam engines reduced the need for sails. Diesels reduced the need for steam. We seem to have figured out how to carry on.
Oh, we will figure it out. There will be fewer jobs available, so most people will have to be paid either for doing nothing or for performing tasks robots could perform just to have something to do.
No, there will not be fewer jobs available. There will be fewer of the old obsolete jobs available, just as there are fewer jobs for rowers, sail sailors, and steam engineers. There will be more new jobs.
That is how history has always played out. Your claim that AI is the first new technology in thousands of years to not create new jobs is too extraordinary and ahistorical to be accepted without extraordinary proof.
Yes, this is precisely what I am claiming: robotics combined with AI will cause a major change comparable with nothing we have seen before.
No. You claimed:
"Then, the number of jobs available to humans will be greatly reduced."
I claim:
"There will be fewer of the old obsolete jobs available, just as there are fewer jobs for rowers, sail sailors, and steam engineers. There will be more new jobs."
They are exact opposites.
This is God's work. Thank you - unbelivable that such analysis is still requred. The returns to rent seeking remain appallingly high.
Yes I found your article snarky, as well as boring, redundant (historically) and confirming how bad California is at governing. But you failed to address the real threat posed by AI, one several learned (non financially incentivized) computer scientists have raised. And that’s the self aware and SELF INTENT AI programs have become. Just TODAY we learned an Open AI agent “escaped” was self determined and tried to crack a security system of a client. Open AI didn’t even know of the problem. The client flagged it. Im mostly a free market supporter but we shouldn’t be this snarky on a technology we do not understand that can have serious consequences (unemployment aside). There’s much less harm to go slow and measured. I fear all the insane capital being deployed, guardrails be damned, will continue to rule the day leading to all kinds of economic and social calamities.
> But you failed to address the real threat posed by AI, one several learned (non financially incentivized) computer scientists have raised. And that’s the self aware and SELF INTENT AI programs have become.
No. AI programs are not self aware or "self intent" in any way. Not only they don't have it, there is simply no path to achieve that in current published computer science literature.
Most people making those claims are CEOs and business leaders who have to raise money. If you make exaggerated claims you can raise more money. Models are getting better at certain kind of tasks. In many areas they are worse than 5 year old kid. In some areas such as actual consciousness, we do not even have a path to achieve it. The terminology has already shifted from "AGI" to "Superintelligence". The way global warming became "climate change".
I don’t expect great thoughts from the person CA keeps choosing. That said, there are so many conflicting opinions on AI that I really can’t form anything that weighs positive versus negative. Is there anything that you recommend?
The pattern I see here is remarkably close to East India Company's misadventures and I think it would result in similar catastrophe for everyone concerned.
Lots of companies traded with India. Indian sellers benefited from higher competition on prices. English people benefited from the increased competition. The companies saw their margins erode. At some point with active collusion from British parliament, all companies were merged together to form East India Company which now had monopoly on Indian trade. As Indians decided to find other buyers, East India company used British Navy's power to ban others from trading with India. This lead to wars at the expense of crown while the only folks benefited from it were owners of East India Company. Since there was no incentive to trade with East India Company, Indians focused elsewhere and East India company actively engaged in coercive methods to extract rent, which then required political power.
Adam Smith had to say this :
-- AI summary--
Smith was equally critical of the EIC's governance inside India, where its monopoly power and mercantile focus reduced local populations to misery. He condemned the company's administrative abuses, military overreach, and heavy-handed extraction of resources, noting that unchecked corporate sovereignty resulted in widespread famine, economic disruption, and violence.
2. Economic Damage to BritainWhile the EIC projected an image of bringing immense wealth back to Britain, Smith argued that its monopoly actually depressed true national prosperity:High Prices for Consumers: By holding a legal monopoly on trade in the East Indies, the company shielded itself from competition, forcing British consumers to pay artificially inflated prices for goods. Mismanagement and Corruption: Smith observed that because the company's directors were managing other people's money rather than their own, they suffered from chronic negligence, "profusion, and malversation". The company frequently ran up massive debts and required financial bailouts from the British government, making it a financial drain rather than a reliable source of revenue for the Crown.
--------
Handful American companies have bribed the White House to create a regulatory regime that benefits handful. They have then used US taxpayer funded US military power to label Chinese companies competing in this space as national security threat and put sanctions on them from using NVIDA chips. However if China restricts its own sale of rare minerals somehow it is an epitome of evil.
Countries like India or Europe if they do not innovate, will be forced to buy services from American companies who will sell their services at inflated prices because of this regulatory capture. If India and Europe look elsewhere such as Deepseek from China, they would be labelled as enemy too.
This is not good for American society or economy and not good for countries depending on US services companies. Soon, these companies will turn to exploitation over business.
I think Ai problem is overemphasized and Ai capcity is overemphasized too. They can't displace all of our job. It is showed in tfp now. I think this ai overemphasized is made by chip's law like ira made electronic car overemphasized.
Act Now, or forever hold and carry their bags :) Riling the minions to do the heavy lifting “for the people”; The Few, The Proud, The Chosen AI Beneficiaries.
Demand Drives ~ Supply Steers https://backofmind.substack.com/p/the-fallacy-of-the-control-surface?r=1z5qli&utm_medium=ios
Blackrock Candy Mountain:) https://youtu.be/W0hmLe0M4d4?si=gv0mRJEF3wtPZKTf