> I think your categories are off. The workers in an individual company are not all the workers ever.
That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics).
> You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both.
That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. Maybe some other consumer gets a cheaper car, but fat lot of good that does you, unemployed guy. Then repeat that across most if not all sectors all at once, and it's not a good story for consumers, broadly.
And then there's all kinds of other stuff going on, stuff that economics thinking (especially ECON 101 dogma) has a hard time with.
> That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics).
Marketing is only evidence of the fact that someone wants to sell something. How can you equate basic, fundamental economics with some marketing trend?
> That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team.
It's definitely not a fairy tale. Evidence: all the millions of teams in the world that use some form of automation. You don't need a secretary for every manager now because Word and Outlook exist.
That's missing an important aspect: AI is not some technology marketed as affecting some relatively narrow slice of the economy, like a few car factories. It's being hyped as transformative of the whole thing. And that's what many people in power are hoping and pushing for (hello, AI use metrics).
> You might work in a car factory and a new bit of automation makes your job safer or higher quality, and but also your team won't get to double in size. You make cars more efficiently, which means either your car company stays in business as it's still competitive, or the global customer base of car buyers gets a cheaper car than it would've if your team had doubled in size, or both.
That's a fairy tale. If the technology allows you to make cars more efficiently, management cuts your team. Maybe some other consumer gets a cheaper car, but fat lot of good that does you, unemployed guy. Then repeat that across most if not all sectors all at once, and it's not a good story for consumers, broadly.
And then there's all kinds of other stuff going on, stuff that economics thinking (especially ECON 101 dogma) has a hard time with.