This post was originally published on this site.
Many AI visionaries are upfront about this. In an AI future, the vast majority of people will not be able to contribute to the economy. They will be superfluous.
Vice President JD Vance says AI won’t replace humans.
Vice President JD Vance is pushing for growth in the artificial intelligence industry, but says it won’t replace humans.
Fox – 32 Chicago
There is no doubt that we are entering the age of artificial intelligence. I’m sure I’m not the only one who feels like we’re at the top of a roller coaster, tipping over the edge, accelerating faster and faster, along for the ride whether we like it or not. It’s a little stomach-turning.
I don’t want to sound too pessimistic. I know there’s a lot to be excited about. AI will surely bring with it vast leaps in technology and science, which should raise everybody’s standard of living. But while I try to embrace the optimism, I’ve noticed something in many of the AI optimist takes I read online. They often describe the future like this:
“Imagine never having to wait for a doctor’s appointment because you have the world’s greatest doctor AI right on your phone.”
Or, “imagine how efficient companies will be when all their back office HR, logistics, tax compliance, and R&D are done by AI.”
Or, “imagine how much safer warehouses and factories will be when all the work is done by AI-supervised robots.”
I’ve noticed that all of these visions for an AI utopia are lacking something: people.
Many AI visionaries are upfront about this. In an AI future, the vast majority of people will not be able to contribute to the economy. They will be superfluous. Bill Gates, a billionaire businessman, philanthropist and computer programming expert, just said most doctors and teachers will be replaced within a decade.
A future without work for the vast majority of people is disturbing to contemplate. The pace at which we are accelerating towards such a future all the more so.
I hope these predictions turn out to be hyperbolic. AI may serve as a complement to human skills rather than a replacement for a long time, increasing human productivity and generating more new jobs than it kills off. No one today bemoans the lack of cobbler and weaver jobs because they’ve been replaced by better careers. Perhaps AI, like every other technological advance, will follow a similar trajectory.
But what’s concerning to me is that virtually all of Big Tech’s thought leaders aren’t preaching this more complementary scenario. They’re saying AI is coming for all the jobs, and it’s coming fast. I take these predictions seriously. The rise of AI has dramatically changed how I see my future and how I make decisions, particularly financial. I’ve become far more conservative.
Take my house for instance. My wife and I have five kids. We moved into our current house when we had one kid. It would be nice to have a bigger house now that we’re a family of seven. But our housing costs would go up a lot if we moved to a bigger house, especially because housing prices and rates have gone up so much since we last bought.
With my pre-AI mindset, I would have planned on buying a bigger house despite the expense. We could still, in a conventional sense, afford a bigger house. But conventional house budgeting assumes my income will slowly increase for the next 30-40 years until I retire (I’m 35 now). But what if I’m replaced by AI in 10-15 years or forced into a much smaller role in my current field?
And what if most people in my income bracket face the same AI-replacement scenario? What if housing prices collapse because so many people are put out of work by AI? If I buy a more expensive house, will I be paying much more for housing just to be underwater on a mortgage thanks to AI?
It may sound like I’m describing a nightmare AI scenario, where the finances of most people from the middle class to the upper-professional class are hollowed out by AI. But this is exactly what many of the most brilliant tech innovators are explicitly saying will happen. And happen soon.
I don’t know what all this means. All I know is that I’m facing much more financial uncertainty than I was even five years ago. I’ve responded by being more cautious. While my wife and I are still looking for a new house, we’ve reduced our budget significantly.
It can’t be good for the economy if everyone in my generation thinks the same way and scales back home buying and other spending. It certainly wouldn’t be good for home prices.But is there any rational alternative?
Christopher Wood is a neurologist who lives in Clifton.