>” The technology you’re worried about can’t do what you think it can do.”
>”Will there be disruptions in the labor market? Yes. Will there be enough jobs for everyone? Probably too many jobs for the actual supply. Can these systems do creativity? No. They speed up certain rote tasks and in some cases find connections humans couldn’t. That’s not creativity. That’s not solving idiosyncratic problems.”
AI can do a great many things today which it couldn’t a decade ago, and some things which were commonly believed to be impossible for machines. The human brain is not magic. It’s atoms put together a certain way. Nothing fundamentally prevents arranging atoms differently to replicate the same capabilities, eventually.
>” Why are you worried about people paying? I don’t get this point. If I can get some commodity for free from a robot that’s a net benefit to society.”
I’m not worried, you should be if the outcome you want is a future with advanced AI and robotics where the current economic paradigm persists unchanged.
>” Robots can do repetitive work…not specialized work. If I have a new situation, or a new business opportunity a robot can’t handle that.”
>” Try and code creativity and let me know where you get.”
>” One off products…sure a 3D printer can make something…that’s different then creative problem solving…that again is rote production. And getting commodities cheap to free is a wealth multiplier.”
The point I was making there is that there can be no such thing as unique possessions when the technology exists to replicate anything at home. So, a market for one-off items is not a realistic expectation and that class of jobs can be scratched off the list you made.
>” Anyone who actually builds these systems knows they can’t do what you are arguing they will do.”
I’m not talking about what they can do today. I am talking about what they will be able to do in the future. Nobody who builds these systems will bet against the continued improvement of technology.