So, this is not a disagreement with what you’re saying (probably more of an agreement, actually):
The incessant desire to improve productivity is always behind new technology (let’s call it “gadgets”).
If a new gadget can improve the productivity of two people to the point where only one is needed, that is a reduction of 50% of a workforce. According to a 2020 MIT study, for everyone robot deployed, six workers are displaced. now, I specifically use that 2020 example because that was pre-generative AI.
Where I have been mistakenly looking at AI is as a purely “productivity enhancer“… And I use the legal profession only as an example… With generative AI, the professor corrected me in thinking that it only increased productivity and pointed out that it actually could be full replacement.
In looking at potential ways to save human jobs, the only way would be through artificial means: Either legislation or, in the case of the longshoremen, a contract prohibiting replacement.
From a labor perspective, there are very few unions that have the bargaining clout that the ILA does, in that the ILA could literally disrupt the entire economy. Remember Daggett’s proclamation last year when he said the union could “shut it down?”
However, even if unions were to be able to write contracts prohibiting the replacement of workers through technology, the non-union firms that are not prohibited would, after an initial capital investment, be able to surpass the unionized firm in terms of productivity, profit, and/or investment to be able to put the unionized firm amount of business.
In the ILA‘s contract, they were able to secure language that essentially amounts to the old practice of “featherbedding.”
The teamsters, for their part and with regard to autonomous trucks and robotaxis, have been lobbying hard in California for legislation that is featherbedding as well. However, they were rebuffed with Gavin Newsom‘s veto.
From a human labor perspective (unionized or not), we now have an administration that is for less regulation than it is for more regulation in terms of AI.
This is happening at the exact moment that AI and automation are about to flood the workplace.
I am by no means an expert on the topic, nor am I an economist, but in speaking to those who are more involved with analyzing this issue, I can see the writing on the wall.
This is why, over the last couple of years, I was able to conclude that AI could be “government ending” if we do not start looking at alternative ways to fund the government, if there will be massive disruptions to the workforce.
And 99% of flight time is under control of autopilot, but commercial airline pilots are still competent. Same thing with train engineers.
Why is trucking any different?
So, this is not a disagreement with what you’re saying (probably more of an agreement, actually):
The incessant desire to improve productivity is always behind new technology (let’s call it “gadgets”).
If a new gadget can improve the productivity of two people to the point where only one is needed, that is a reduction of 50% of a workforce. According to a 2020 MIT study, for everyone robot deployed, six workers are displaced. now, I specifically use that 2020 example because that was pre-generative AI.
Where I have been mistakenly looking at AI is as a purely “productivity enhancer“… And I use the legal profession only as an example… With generative AI, the professor corrected me in thinking that it only increased productivity and pointed out that it actually could be full replacement.
In looking at potential ways to save human jobs, the only way would be through artificial means: Either legislation or, in the case of the longshoremen, a contract prohibiting replacement.
From a labor perspective, there are very few unions that have the bargaining clout that the ILA does, in that the ILA could literally disrupt the entire economy. Remember Daggett’s proclamation last year when he said the union could “shut it down?”
However, even if unions were to be able to write contracts prohibiting the replacement of workers through technology, the non-union firms that are not prohibited would, after an initial capital investment, be able to surpass the unionized firm in terms of productivity, profit, and/or investment to be able to put the unionized firm amount of business.
In the ILA‘s contract, they were able to secure language that essentially amounts to the old practice of “featherbedding.”
The teamsters, for their part and with regard to autonomous trucks and robotaxis, have been lobbying hard in California for legislation that is featherbedding as well. However, they were rebuffed with Gavin Newsom‘s veto.
From a human labor perspective (unionized or not), we now have an administration that is for less regulation than it is for more regulation in terms of AI.
This is happening at the exact moment that AI and automation are about to flood the workplace.
I am by no means an expert on the topic, nor am I an economist, but in speaking to those who are more involved with analyzing this issue, I can see the writing on the wall.
This is why, over the last couple of years, I was able to conclude that AI could be “government ending” if we do not start looking at alternative ways to fund the government, if there will be massive disruptions to the workforce.
AI:Work::Crypto:Money
Honestly, don’t you think we should expect AI to be able to reliably make a cheeseburger before we replace attorneys and doctors with them?
It’s not “there” yet, but it’s close…
https://lamag.com/news/worlds-first-ai-powered-burger-restaurant-pasadena
Looks like it’s already closed, and the Reddit reviews are…. Not great.
Which is my point. If we can’t reliably replace burger flippers, why would anyone trust legal advice from AI?
And you may retort that we just a few years short of perfecting this. Which may be true, but has also been ‘true’ for at least the last 5 years.
Five years of relentless ‘it’s a first job’ and ‘it’s just burger flipping’ and yet the smartest AI in the world can’t reliably flip a burger.