> As automation takes over, the value of labor collapses
This is the reverse of how the economy actually works. You need labor and capital to turn raw materials into goods and services. If you invested a lot in capital in automation, you don't want that getting screwed up for want of labor, and so you pay a premium for workers who will do the job right and ensure you're getting full value from your capital.
That's why highly automated companies pay their employees better than less automated companies, and highly automated professions pay better than less automated professions.
automation doesn't replace someone they simply provide you extra time ,that was previously invested in doing repetitive task . it can be in hardware or software . software automation is must as many of thing. as now a days a lot of thing is software based in daily life .
There is a lot of reasons why automated companies pay more but it is usually to do with augmentation and the remaining skills required being higher on the skills pyramid and more scarce. Efficiency gains usually cause the next bottleneck to be hit requiring more skill and/or experience to fix (higher hanging fruit).
Usually the amount of pay increase no way compensates for the total pay lost across all workers - that's one of the incentives to continue with the efficiency gain of course. If it happens too fast only a select few will have jobs because the demand won't have time to match the new supply.
All the above assumes you need greater levels of intelligence to deal with the next bottleneck and that intelligence comes from humans as its only source. If AI is more intelligent than humans then this effect - known for most of human history - becomes an invalid assumption of the economic model; bottlenecks and the ability to solve them goes to the highest/cheapest intelligence.
IMV should AI do this it would invalidate most economic system assumptions including ones in capitalism, socialism, etc. My base case isn't a positive one sadly of what comes out on the other side.
I suspect we will invent bottlenecks for ourselves. There is already so much bureaucratic nonsense involved in knowledge work. For example, in a lot of states for a lot of purposes, a document is invalid if it is not notarized. The notary doesn't really add value in a market sense, we have just decided that you need to go swear in front of another person that you are telling the truth or that the document is genuine. Is it really that much of a stretch to imagine that there will be a human review requirement for lots of things in the future, even if completely irrelevant (or actively detrimental) to the actual work?
For awhile yes. Its ironic that the least productive people in knowledge work with the cushiest jobs will probably survive the AI wave the most. Because they do little they were probably employed for reasons other than utility/output in the first place - there isn't much to automate anyway.
While all the grinding skilled workers get displaced the bureaucracy jobs will remain. Ironic.
AI feudalism and/or monarchy although that could be quite awhile from now - there will be niches that are harder to integrate with AI that are protected for longer. A few owning everything; most other people surplus to requirements. Capitalism rewards scarcity with higher prices with both financial and social status for those with those scarce outputs - unfortunately what humans can do will become more less scarce relative to capital, land and other resources often owned by the wealthy. Economic rent will move away from skilled labor to other economic inputs.
Even people that go off grid and develop self sufficiency will eventually be subsumed by the need to feed more resources to the AI genie to grant more wishes. Whether it is land taxes, forced relocations, etc. Their land will be taken over, mined and or farmed - similar to colonies of old that were technologically less advanced than their invaders.
You are already IMV starting to see the beginning signs of the above as AI gets better. More competition in jobs, less certainity for the working class, businesses with other moats using AI to increase profits, data centres vs local communities taking land/energy/water over, AI required commodities increasing in value (e.g copper) and others. There will be more.
Modern times where we have democracy and capitalism are a relative recent phenomena when looking at the whole of human history that we take for granted when we shouldn't.
Do you see any way to avoid AI feudalism? Either political or technical. For example, maybe there is sustained demand and development of local models enough for individuals to retain some leverage, economic or otherwise. Perhaps mass movements could subvert the current centralizing forces long enough for this development, and eventually transition to a stable polity where people are given a "personal model" or implanted chip as some kind of human right.
The main way would be for people to use local models BEFORE the main AI labs take most of the excess economic activity. This creates demand for direct compute/land/energy rather than AI intelligence and as long as ownership of those stays with communities then a good economic model would be those rents subsidize the community (rather than say a UBI). Open source models will help majorly as long as people are willing to be 1 generation or so behind the latest model which currently isn't the case although I'm hoping it will do the job soon.
i.e. the community, rather than AI/big corp, would need to somehow own the scarce assets required for AI and extract economic rent from them. Whether it is energy, land, water, etc. I think its a better system then say UBI because both parties still provide something of value. This isn't my base case but it is possible. It also needs to be done while human power structures still have economic power (i.e. governments)
So it would be a combination of political will (i.e. you can't use frontier models unless they can be run by end users) and technical in that you need to have enough compute distributed with the profits of that going to local communities (e.g. data centre rent). When the AI labs engage the community that way they will pay "money" which creates a demand from large corps to local communities and adds life to the monetary system - a good thing.
Effectively compute needs to be a commodity that is rent-able/accessible to everyone at competitive prices and have multiple providers. That enables open source models, and allows a spread around the ownership of AI. It can't be hoarded by the AI labs, nor can the chips (e.g. GPU's) have only a few producers.
Both of you are right. Individuals who manage to stay employed in the face of automation will be paid significantly more than was possible prior to automation, for the reasons the comment you're replying to pointed out. But labor as a whole will have less value. To give a simple example: if you own a warehouse and you replace 6 warehouse workers making $80,000 a year with a fleet of robots and 1 technician earning $200,000 a year, automation has minted a very comfortable living for someone while dropping your labor costs significantly.
> if you own a warehouse and you replace 6 warehouse workers making $80,000 a year with a fleet of robots and 1 technician earning $200,000 a year, automation has minted a very comfortable living for someone while dropping your labor costs significantly.
So I've seen this argument made before, but they never seem to explain convincingly enough why that sole technician (or small group of technicians) would be paid so handsomely.
In a market in which there's a glut of labor, wouldn't there be plenty of desperate, and very capable, workers competing for the few available positions, thereby driving down the wages for those positions significantly as well?
And the dream of AGI, and what has been promised, and what has effectively happened in some industries already, is to have a fleet of robots and 0 technicians.
That is the goal, I'm sure. But I find it hard to believe that a system capable of completely obviating ALL human labor, at all levels of abstraction, packed into a single entity, would continue to obey capital. Imagine if all the workers at a company were woven into one hivemind, acting as one with vastly greater intelligence than the sum of the parts. That would be a hell of a lot harder to negotiate with than a union. And we don't even need to be talking about a machine god for that to be the case.
If it can replace any human labor, it needs to be able to negotiate. If it can't negotiate, then it can't replace people who negotiate for a living (salespeople, attorneys, HR, etc.)
Unless you mean that it would have the capacity but would be told not use it in this specific situation. It can't be programmed deterministically, and getting it to never do this emergently would take significantly stronger guardrails than anything even the frontier labs have been able to put together.
The salesbot is reinforcement trained how to get money from customers. It was never trained to get money from its manager. If it sometimes misidentifies the manager as a customer, it will just be rebooted.
No, the other guy is just wrong. Capital and labor are complements. If one is plentiful (capital) and the other scarce (labor) then the scarce one gets bid up.
You pay the one technician $200k instead of $80 because that technician has an outside option that will pay him $199k. He has that outside option because everyone is automating their warehouses and factories and stuff, and so in aggregate we basically wind up with 6 times as many warehouses and factories each employing 1 person.
It's a little more nuanced. There is not infinite demand for warehouses. So some of what happens is an $80k/year warehouse worker becomes a medical technician making $90k/year providing non-automatable services to the warehouse guy making $200k/year -- but the general story is everyone's wages go up. And history bears that out.
Why have a technician at all? And without the six warehouse workers and one technician, why do you need the robots, the robotics company, or the companies paying the robotics company for the robots?
Because every other company has also replaced their 6 warehouse workers with a fleet of robots and 1 technician, and that technician's skills are more rare and specialized than the warehouse workers, so you're competing with every other warehouse-owning company to hire that technician, so that technician can demand a higher salary. In other words, capitalism.
This is the reverse of how the economy actually works. You need labor and capital to turn raw materials into goods and services. If you invested a lot in capital in automation, you don't want that getting screwed up for want of labor, and so you pay a premium for workers who will do the job right and ensure you're getting full value from your capital.
That's why highly automated companies pay their employees better than less automated companies, and highly automated professions pay better than less automated professions.