A very sad and naive piece of writing, and chock-full of lopsided argumentation throughout. Essentially a retread of the famous "Long Boom" piece in Wired, circa 1997.
Simply put: dramatic increases in automation (and other so-called disruptions) have never solved the unemployment problem in the past (due to secondary effects and other factors). Nor is there any evidence yet that the AI disruption will be particularly different from these past disruptions, in scale or in any structural sense.
There's also the conveniently ignored fact that just because other jobs might become available once certain large employment categories (e.g. translators) get basically nuked - that doesn't mean these people will be able to find jobs that pay comparably well, or are in any way reasonably satisfying.
In short: exactly the kind of argumentation we'd expect from someone with no particular training in economics. But who, by some magical coincidence, personally stands to benefit (perhaps quite handsomely) from the "disruptions" that they're applauding. And whose effects they're more than happy to let other people (with far few options) sift through and endure the actual consequences of.
We’re beyond snake oil, this is evangelical end times prophesy
For a (pretty compelling IMHO) counter-argument see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Pq-S557XQU
A very sad and naive piece of writing, and chock-full of lopsided argumentation throughout. Essentially a retread of the famous "Long Boom" piece in Wired, circa 1997.
Simply put: dramatic increases in automation (and other so-called disruptions) have never solved the unemployment problem in the past (due to secondary effects and other factors). Nor is there any evidence yet that the AI disruption will be particularly different from these past disruptions, in scale or in any structural sense.
There's also the conveniently ignored fact that just because other jobs might become available once certain large employment categories (e.g. translators) get basically nuked - that doesn't mean these people will be able to find jobs that pay comparably well, or are in any way reasonably satisfying.
In short: exactly the kind of argumentation we'd expect from someone with no particular training in economics. But who, by some magical coincidence, personally stands to benefit (perhaps quite handsomely) from the "disruptions" that they're applauding. And whose effects they're more than happy to let other people (with far few options) sift through and endure the actual consequences of.