It's interesting to see the sentence "Humanity lifted itself out of extreme poverty" and no question on why did humanity end up in poverty in the first place? And what does poverty actually mean in that context? It's quite important to ask this because then the answer to "how did we manage?" cannot just be "science and technology" - we have to add social change and revolution to the equasion (not only Luddites!). All the science and technology would not have had an impact on humanity if all the resources had been reserved to the richest and most powerful individuals. I think it's crucial to keep that in mind while discussing AI because if the gains are not equally distributed, there will (and should) be another revolution. Especially given that even now, already now, the cost of AI affects some people more than others, and the gains remain in the hands of those who are currently winning the capitalist Monopoly
Well, thank you for a cautiously optimistic perspective. I don't know enough to be sure of anything, but I *have* noticed that there are two talking points pushed by Very Serious People everywhere right now. One is, "woe, AI will soon take all our jobs!" The other is, "woe, because people aren't breeding enough, there'll soon be no one to do all the jobs!" And it seems to me that both of those can't be true at the same time, and that in fact it seems quite possible that they'll end up solving each other. It's nice to hear someone else acknowledge that.
I wrote a comment about a similar post. The following is the summary of my comment about the post "Navigating the AI Inflection Point" (https://tinyurl.com/zk988cf5) explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on work, society, and individuals. It identifies three key challenges AI presents to the job market: the quantity of jobs, their quality, and fair pay, likened to a "three-legged stool" that supports economic stability. While AI has the potential to create new jobs, it may not replace those it eliminates at scale, leading to job scarcity, reduced satisfaction, and wage disparities. Furthermore, automation threatens to deskill roles and diminish the creativity and fulfillment that meaningful work provides. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is proposed as a partial solution to financial instability, but the comment points out that UBI alone does not address the human need for purpose, identity, and contribution, which many derive from work.
The comment also raises broader societal and philosophical questions about the future of education, wealth redistribution, and global inequality in an AI-driven world. It emphasizes the need for education to focus on creativity and adaptability rather than workforce preparation, given the uncertain future of jobs. Additionally, it highlights the ethical imperative to ensure AI's productivity gains are distributed equitably, especially to vulnerable populations and developing nations. I concluded that AI deployment requires proactive, coordinated efforts from governments, industries, and civil society to prevent destabilization and ensure progress benefits everyone, quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
It's interesting to see the sentence "Humanity lifted itself out of extreme poverty" and no question on why did humanity end up in poverty in the first place? And what does poverty actually mean in that context? It's quite important to ask this because then the answer to "how did we manage?" cannot just be "science and technology" - we have to add social change and revolution to the equasion (not only Luddites!). All the science and technology would not have had an impact on humanity if all the resources had been reserved to the richest and most powerful individuals. I think it's crucial to keep that in mind while discussing AI because if the gains are not equally distributed, there will (and should) be another revolution. Especially given that even now, already now, the cost of AI affects some people more than others, and the gains remain in the hands of those who are currently winning the capitalist Monopoly
Deeply appreciate this in-depth perspective. Thank you.
Well, thank you for a cautiously optimistic perspective. I don't know enough to be sure of anything, but I *have* noticed that there are two talking points pushed by Very Serious People everywhere right now. One is, "woe, AI will soon take all our jobs!" The other is, "woe, because people aren't breeding enough, there'll soon be no one to do all the jobs!" And it seems to me that both of those can't be true at the same time, and that in fact it seems quite possible that they'll end up solving each other. It's nice to hear someone else acknowledge that.
I wrote a comment about a similar post. The following is the summary of my comment about the post "Navigating the AI Inflection Point" (https://tinyurl.com/zk988cf5) explores the implications of artificial intelligence (AI) on work, society, and individuals. It identifies three key challenges AI presents to the job market: the quantity of jobs, their quality, and fair pay, likened to a "three-legged stool" that supports economic stability. While AI has the potential to create new jobs, it may not replace those it eliminates at scale, leading to job scarcity, reduced satisfaction, and wage disparities. Furthermore, automation threatens to deskill roles and diminish the creativity and fulfillment that meaningful work provides. Universal Basic Income (UBI) is proposed as a partial solution to financial instability, but the comment points out that UBI alone does not address the human need for purpose, identity, and contribution, which many derive from work.
The comment also raises broader societal and philosophical questions about the future of education, wealth redistribution, and global inequality in an AI-driven world. It emphasizes the need for education to focus on creativity and adaptability rather than workforce preparation, given the uncertain future of jobs. Additionally, it highlights the ethical imperative to ensure AI's productivity gains are distributed equitably, especially to vulnerable populations and developing nations. I concluded that AI deployment requires proactive, coordinated efforts from governments, industries, and civil society to prevent destabilization and ensure progress benefits everyone, quoting Franklin D. Roosevelt: "The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little."
You can read the full comment here: https://tinyurl.com/r534n3fk