The Singularity

[P.D.X.]

It is gonna be lolz when conservatives enlist AI in the name of government efficiency and it comes back with results like UBI and climate change mitigation will save trillions over a couple decades or whatever.

[EnochRoot]

My point was to take the angle of the writer who fears for their hours getting slashed. You didn't exactly quell that, btw. As for past technologies? It's absolutely eliminated jobs. I mean, right? Ah, but the cotton gin reduced the labor it took to remove seeds from the cotton, but it also increased the demand of slave labor to pick more cotton!

Po-TAY-toh, Po-TAH-toh.

Yes, I tried to make that point. It’s a major new technology. Jobs will be lost and gained. You probably don’t want to be in the buggy whip business. But there are new jobs in road paving and auto maintenance. Technology isn’t inherently evil, but folks are scared of change, especially when they feel it coming for them.

Do you honestly think there will be a net increase of jobs?

Go back to your initial rant about sportswriters and make what you’re saying make sense. You know, like I’m 5 years old.

My point was that all these writers are talking about AI and that it's useless and stupid because the only use case they seem to be aware of is replacing writers.

I have no idea if it'll create a net increase in jobs, but I do know that in my lifetime there have been a ton of technologies (personal computers, spreadsheets, tractor combines, factory robots, digital cameras, etc.) that people have claimed are going to reduce employment, and it never really has. Certain jobs and certain locations will be affected more than others, of course, but in the net, new opportunities always create new jobs.

But Mr D thinks it's dumb because it's not feeding the homeless, so we should stick to talking about the Yankees or athleisure pants.

It's not exactly apples to apples here, because industrial employment has largely left the United States, and it aint coming back.

The rest of what you said makes some sense, but at the end of the day, the goal of AI is to streamline, which means less workers to achieve the same goal in less time.

The question then is how will this open up new industry?

[Shirley]

US unemployment essentially hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. It goes up here and there with recessions, but comes back to somewhere between 3-6%. At the same time, our population has grown nearly 5x since 1900, and wages and quality of life have steadily risen. All this while we've seen unprecedented technological innovations. A jillion times people have said this new things is going to destroy all the jobs, but it just hasn't worked out that way. First it was tech that affected blue collar jobs like manufacturing, but the last 30-40 years have seen a ton of new tech that should have killed white collar jobs, but again, that hasn't happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure not only are way more Americans working, but I think we're working longer hours as well.

Now, maybe AI is finally the thing to do it, but I'm 99% sure it's not. But like the other major innovations (personal computer, Internet, the web, the iPhone), it's gonna change what some jobs look like and some jobs might go away while others pop up. But there's always going to be work.

[mister d]

I'd argue there's a big difference between automating manufacturing and automating creative work.

[DSafetyGuy]

I think people have plenty of reason to doubt AI.

[The Sybian]

US unemployment essentially hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. It goes up here and there with recessions, but comes back to somewhere between 3-6%. At the same time, our population has grown nearly 5x since 1900, and wages and quality of life have steadily risen. All this while we've seen unprecedented technological innovations. A jillion times people have said this new things is going to destroy all the jobs, but it just hasn't worked out that way. First it was tech that affected blue collar jobs like manufacturing, but the last 30-40 years have seen a ton of new tech that should have killed white collar jobs, but again, that hasn't happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure not only are way more Americans working, but I think we're working longer hours as well.

Now, maybe AI is finally the thing to do it, but I'm 99% sure it's not. But like the other major innovations (personal computer, Internet, the web, the iPhone), it's gonna change what some jobs look like and some jobs might go away while others pop up. But there's always going to be work.

Business will always find a way to exploit the proletariat. The unemployed are an un-mined resource, and they’ll find ways to exploit us for profit. Or create jobs, depending on how you look at it.

I do see D’s point, because in the past, job killing tech freed up human resources for other endeavors. Farming advances freed labor to allow the Industrial Revolution. Automating factory work freed up labor for service and tech industries. I just don’t see what is next, but nobody knew the next thing at the past tipping points. But if AI takes over most thinking jobs, I would have guessed it’d free people to creative endeavors, but AI is already starting to do that. AI can’t quite nail comedy, so maybe we become an economy of comedy writers and our newly found free time goes into consuming comedy.

[duff]

US unemployment essentially hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. It goes up here and there with recessions, but comes back to somewhere between 3-6%. At the same time, our population has grown nearly 5x since 1900, and wages and quality of life have steadily risen. All this while we've seen unprecedented technological innovations. A jillion times people have said this new things is going to destroy all the jobs, but it just hasn't worked out that way. First it was tech that affected blue collar jobs like manufacturing, but the last 30-40 years have seen a ton of new tech that should have killed white collar jobs, but again, that hasn't happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure not only are way more Americans working, but I think we're working longer hours as well.

Now, maybe AI is finally the thing to do it, but I'm 99% sure it's not. But like the other major innovations (personal computer, Internet, the web, the iPhone), it's gonna change what some jobs look like and some jobs might go away while others pop up. But there's always going to be work.

What about the quality of life and wages in the past 25-30 years? That is when more computer aided jobs have come to market. I would say it has decreased. That is without any searching. Just a bunch.

[The Sybian]

I think people have plenty of reason to doubt AI.

My wife just used ChatGPT to run a complicated predictive model for work. She was amazed at the usefulness of the output. She taught someone on her team how she created it, cut and past her command prompts, and got a different outcome. She asked ChatGPT why it gave different results, and it said it hallucinated data where it couldn’t find actual data. Still can’t be trusted.

[EnochRoot]

US unemployment essentially hasn't changed in the last 100+ years. It goes up here and there with recessions, but comes back to somewhere between 3-6%. At the same time, our population has grown nearly 5x since 1900, and wages and quality of life have steadily risen. All this while we've seen unprecedented technological innovations. A jillion times people have said this new things is going to destroy all the jobs, but it just hasn't worked out that way. First it was tech that affected blue collar jobs like manufacturing, but the last 30-40 years have seen a ton of new tech that should have killed white collar jobs, but again, that hasn't happened. In fact, I'm pretty sure not only are way more Americans working, but I think we're working longer hours as well.

Now, maybe AI is finally the thing to do it, but I'm 99% sure it's not. But like the other major innovations (personal computer, Internet, the web, the iPhone), it's gonna change what some jobs look like and some jobs might go away while others pop up. But there's always going to be work.

Your blindspot is massive. Look outside. Anywhere that isn’t locked into a gated community. Do you honestly believe we are better off than we were 50 years ago?

[HaulCitgo]

fair arguments but I dont believe wages have increased. you have to look at the bundle of goods and services it will purchase. id bet lower. innovation has definitely destroyed jobs. its also created new ones but given a veil of ignorance, you would not choose 2025 over 1975. if you have aptitude and education and finances then its a no brainer but if you are even average id say your probably worse off

[Shirley]

Your blindspot is massive. Look outside. Anywhere that isn’t locked into a gated community. Do you honestly believe we are better off than we were 50 years ago?

Yes. Compared to 1975, the unemployment rate is less than half what is was. Median household income adjusted for inflation is nearly double.

Then look around your house. You probably have more and better stuff than your parents had. Tons more clothes and gadgets, way better cars. Travel is much cheaper. Healthcare is much better. Your grocery store is bigger and has much more variety. You have more and more affordable restaurants near your home.

For the vast majority of people, quality of life - at least as can be measured economically - is better than 50 years ago. Obviously, that's not true for everyone and that doesn't mean people are happier with all of our stuff, but I'd be really interested to see any evidence that technological advances in the last 50 years have made lives appreciably worse. (Again, I'm not talking about satisfaction, or depression, or other factors that maybe aren't any better - just talking economic factors.)

So, fill me in. Help me with my blindspot since you know me so well.

[Shirley]

You can find a variety of charts measuring income growth over time here - https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N

[mister d]

So, fill me in. Help me with my blindspot since you know me so well.

For starters, you said "look at your house". We here are most likely better off. We here are not the median american.

[Shirley]

So, fill me in. Help me with my blindspot since you know me so well.

For starters, you said "look at your house". We here are most likely better off. We here are not the median american.

Good work going after my wording in one sentence while ignoring the rest of it, including data.

From Wikipedia:

Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable. It has decreased 1.0% since 1960, when 65.2% of American households owned their own home.

Meanwhile, the average size of a house has grown from 1660 sf in 1975 to 2514 in 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/529 ... homes-usa/

[duff]

Consumer goods are cheaper yet don't last as long. They are disposable because of technology. It's that better or worse for all of us. I know it wasn't for my uncle who ran a tv repair shop. It isn't better for the environment with all this cap being dumped into landfills, or worse. It isn't better for the consumer because they are buying more often for a product that lasted years longer than they do now.

Just because consumer goods are cheaper does not equate to us being in better economic positions. AI will continue that trend in my opinion. Except there won't be a need to find new jobs to work the machines like in the past.

[mister d]

From Wikipedia:

Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable. It has decreased 1.0% since 1960, when 65.2% of American households owned their own home.

Meanwhile, the average size of a house has grown from 1660 sf in 1975 to 2514 in 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/529 ... homes-usa/

1. I don't see how a decrease in ownership supports an argument that quality of life has increased.

2. I would love to see the data on independently purchased versus inherited / purchased with family assistance. Two people like my parents could get their $30K house in the mid-70s. That same house now is $295K on zillow.

[mister d]

I know it wasn't for my uncle who ran a tv repair shop.

My dad ran a copier/typewriter repair shop then, when (I think) Staples undercut him and anyone in the region doing copier work, took a job in maintenance at Sears. My mom didn't work for the first ~10 years of my life then was a librarian's aide. Those people don't own houses now.

[Shirley]

From Wikipedia:

Since 1960, the homeownership rate in the United States has remained relatively stable. It has decreased 1.0% since 1960, when 65.2% of American households owned their own home.

Meanwhile, the average size of a house has grown from 1660 sf in 1975 to 2514 in 2023. https://www.statista.com/statistics/529 ... homes-usa/

1. I don't see how a decrease in ownership supports an argument that quality of life has increased.

2. I would love to see the data on independently purchased versus inherited / purchased with family assistance. Two people like my parents could get their $30K house in the mid-70s. That same house now is $295K on zillow.

1. You're the one that made the claim that my use of the word "house" proved my ignorance. You've provided no evidence for your claims. I'm saying that a 1% drop over 65 years (while the total population nearly doubled) isn't very significant, especially considering that the median house is now 50% bigger.

2. I would imagine it's a tiny fraction of houses bought that way.

[mister d]

You claimed we're better off but homeownership isn't even stable, let alone increasing as "better off" would imply.

[Shirley]

You claimed we're better off but homeownership isn't even stable, let alone increasing as "better off" would imply.

I didn't use housing as an example, you did with your snarky comment. But if your argument is that a drop from 65.2% to 64.2% over 65 years, while actually having twice as many houses (population doubled) and them increasing in size by 50% represents a significant change in quality of life then I guess we'll just have to disagree.

Actually, you'll be happy to know that that 64.2% number was actually from 2018. Now the number is 65.6%. So by your absolutist argument, life is clearly better now. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N#0

[mister d]

If I were the one claiming the economy is better for the masses, I'd personally feel a burden to show improvement beyond "instead of 163 out of every 250 people owning a house, now its 164". And if I'm focusing too much on home ownership, I'm not sure its going to work out in your favor to include the cost of renting here.

[P.D.X.]

Would rather see the attainability of a home now vs then rather than just % ownership. We have a boomer-heavy population now that skews the data. I'm of the assumption that it's vastly more difficult for someone under 30 to buy a home now than it was in '75. I also assume that the age of retirement has risen substantially since then.

[mister d]

(Average age of a first time homebuyer is 38, an all-time high.)

[The Sybian]

(Average age of a first time homebuyer is 38, an all-time high.)

Holy fuck, that's an incredibly high age! I'm guessing in 1975 that number was significantly lower. Sure, Boomers got married right out of college, but they could afford houses back then. I'd love to see stats on the percentage of income people saved in 1975 compared to today. I think a better indicator than cheap electronics is the percentage of income people spend on basic needs like food, clothing, housing (rent/mortgage)... Or look at the cost of college, people used to be able to pay their way through college with low income parttime jobs. You think bagging groceries pays for college today?

[DSafetyGuy]

(Average age of a first time homebuyer is 38, an all-time high.)

[Johnnie]

It will never cease to amaze me that staying in the military when I did allowed me to be this far ahead of my generational cohort. (VA loan, travel, health care, free education, pension...etc.)

I'm not some soothsayer. I just knew that being in the military was a better avenue than getting out and living anywhere near my mom. And to think, it was her idea that I join at all.

Just fucking nuts.

[P.D.X.]

Yes more houses are needed but also maybe restrict predatory investor groups from purchasing up all the inventory?

[Shirley]

Yeah, I think we’re way off topic here. The current housing crisis is a result of capitalism, not technology and certainly nothing to do with AI. It’s private equity and Airbnb buying up houses everywhere.

[DSafetyGuy]

Yeah, I think we’re way off topic here. The current housing crisis is a result of capitalism, not technology and certainly nothing to do with AI. It’s private equity and Airbnb buying up houses everywhere.

It's all intertwined because line must go up, which is why so many companies are chasing AI.

[A_B]

What's the worst that could happen?

[Johnnie]

Trump to announce up to $500 billion in private sector AI infrastructure investment

[sancarlos]

[Giff]

I had lunch today with a couple of co-workers and the chief knowledge services officer at a big Texas-based law firm. He is part of this pretty interesting blog - https://www.geeklawblog.com/. I'm admittedly late to all this AI talk, but it is being highly promoted this year where el flaco and I work, and I'll be working on a project that involves it this year, so I figured it's be a good time to start catching up on all this. I'll just say his remarks on how AI has changed how they can interpret depositions and check transcripts for conflicting answers were fascinating.

[DSafetyGuy]

From "Yacht Rock"...

So Yacht Rock got moved to channel 311, and Deep Tracks got bumped to 309. I forget what took over for where Yacht Rock used to be, but Tom Petty’s station is where Deep Tracks used to be.

What weirded me out was when I looked up the channel change on Sirius XM’s website in Safari (iPad), I noted the changes, and then went to add an event on my iPad’s calendar to remind myself to make the adjustments on my car radio tomorrow AM. The iPadOS’s AI proceeded to automatically fill in the event title as, “Update Altima car radio for Deep Tracks (308), and Yacht Rock (311).”

Creepy.

The newest iOS update includes Apple Intelligence, which can be turned off in system settings.