Great article, Jon! Need to push back on the statements that you made about the need for human labor being finite, i.e. "We only need so much tax preparation. We only need so many support tickets closed." If AI was exclusively used to automate the way the world currently operates, your statements might be true. If, however, AI substantially transforms our lives, the market elasticity is much greater, e.g., extended life expectancy with a corresponding global increased demand for goods and services, exponential employment opportunities in frontier industries like building, training and maintaining robots. The invention of the printing press, the Industrial Revolution, and the Digital Revolution did not increase global prosperity because of greater demand for what already existed; they dramatically changed how the world worked. The challenge is that we do not have centuries, decades or even years to wait for the AI abundance pendulum to swing. Organizations should not be downsizing for the promise of AI; they should be retaining and reskilling their talent (and supplementing them with AI proficient entry level workers) to quickly respond to predictable (and unexpected) market shifts.
Thanks for the comment, Jamie! I think we're saying the same thing. You're pointing out that even the examples I gave might have ways they could turn into inelastic demand. But I still stand by my claim that not all cognition work has elastic demand and there is some existing cognition work that IS INelastic and will remain so. We can be super optimistic that this work will be replaced with new work, but we can't know for sure. The thing we humans bring to the table is our ability to think and use our limbs and listen to our emotions. If the machines become capable of doing these more cheaply (and I am not aware of a law of physics that says they can't), then we can't realistically compare this cognitive revolution to the past industrial revolotion. We can only hope and plan and stay adaptable (which is your main suggestion).
Again, though, I don't have the answer. Many would say "we should stop!" But I don't know how you enforce a stoppage worldwide without infringing on people's rights and doing draconian things in governments or starting wars.
Great article, Jon! Need to push back on the statements that you made about the need for human labor being finite, i.e. "We only need so much tax preparation. We only need so many support tickets closed." If AI was exclusively used to automate the way the world currently operates, your statements might be true. If, however, AI substantially transforms our lives, the market elasticity is much greater, e.g., extended life expectancy with a corresponding global increased demand for goods and services, exponential employment opportunities in frontier industries like building, training and maintaining robots. The invention of the printing press, the Industrial Revolution, and the Digital Revolution did not increase global prosperity because of greater demand for what already existed; they dramatically changed how the world worked. The challenge is that we do not have centuries, decades or even years to wait for the AI abundance pendulum to swing. Organizations should not be downsizing for the promise of AI; they should be retaining and reskilling their talent (and supplementing them with AI proficient entry level workers) to quickly respond to predictable (and unexpected) market shifts.
Thanks for the comment, Jamie! I think we're saying the same thing. You're pointing out that even the examples I gave might have ways they could turn into inelastic demand. But I still stand by my claim that not all cognition work has elastic demand and there is some existing cognition work that IS INelastic and will remain so. We can be super optimistic that this work will be replaced with new work, but we can't know for sure. The thing we humans bring to the table is our ability to think and use our limbs and listen to our emotions. If the machines become capable of doing these more cheaply (and I am not aware of a law of physics that says they can't), then we can't realistically compare this cognitive revolution to the past industrial revolotion. We can only hope and plan and stay adaptable (which is your main suggestion).
Again, though, I don't have the answer. Many would say "we should stop!" But I don't know how you enforce a stoppage worldwide without infringing on people's rights and doing draconian things in governments or starting wars.