"Dr. Mike Israetel on the economic fallacy he says explains why AI won't cause mass unemployment: "Once we have 4 billion robots doing labor in the world, which we're like orders of magnitude off of that currently, then we've just only doubled the human workforce." "From 1700 to today..." — MTS
SUMMARYDr. Mike Israetel argues that AI and robots are unlikely to cause mass unemployment because of the economic “lump of labor” fallacy, comparing current fears to the long-term decline of farm jobs since the 1700s. He says labor markets have repeatedly expanded as productivity rose, citing the idea that billions of robots would still only double the workforce relative to today and lead to better jobs rather than widespread joblessness.
..., we've 10 or 20x'd the human labor force. And, seemingly, the economy's not like, ah, we don't need any more people, that's enough. We could just consistently have better jobs and pay people even more money." "This idea that robots are gonna show up and all of a sudden we're all completely unemployed makes a technical fallacy in economics called lump of labor fallacy. It's the idea that all the jobs currently are the only jobs that could be." "Imagine in 1750, you're like, well, 98% of us work in farming, and then you come back from the future and you're like, you guys, 2% of people in the 1990s work in farming. It'd be like, so everyone's starving to death? Like, no, no, we're super fat, actually." @misraetel — MTS
Source: https://x.com/MTSlive/status/2075721239298244848/history
Here's the deal: present one single coherent and logical counterargument and I will yield and delete all the anti-Jobpocalypse posts. Go ahead. we're waiting... prove that it isn't just a faith-based position defended by endless logical fallacies and insults.