this post was submitted on 07 Apr 2025
-16 points (36.2% liked)

Technology

68673 readers
3360 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
-16
What Will Remain for People to Do? The future of labor in a world with increasingly productive AI. (knightcolumbia.org)
submitted 6 days ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
18 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

What paid work might remain for human beings to do if we approach a world where AI is able to perform all economically useful tasks more productively than human beings? In this paper, I argue that the answer is not ‘none at all.’ In fact, there are good reasons to believe that tasks will still remain for people to do, due to three limits: ‘general equilibrium limits,’ involving tasks in which labor has the comparative advantage over machines (even if it does not have the absolute advantage); ‘preference limits,’ involving tasks where human beings might have a taste or preference for an un-automated process; and ‘moral limits,’ involving tasks with a normative character, where human beings believe they require a ‘human in the loop’ to exercise their moral judgment. In closing, I consider the limits to these limits as AI gradually, but relentlessly, becomes ever-more capable.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago (3 children)

The real question isn't how we structure our society if some extremely far-fetched scenario happens. The real question is how we structure our society right now that is already failing most of society the way it is structured right now.

Labor is not a necessity for people to survive, in fact most people would consider a place where their job wasn't required a utopia in terms of the enjoyment they get out of the actual labor. The real question is about wealth distribution, not labor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

But labor is a necessity to survive, and always has been. We need the production of goods and services. Of course the distribution of wealth and goods is also an issue, but somebody (or something) has to produce the things we use.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Labor is a human putting in work. Fully automated production of goods and services is already a thing for some goods and services today and some others have a much, much larger automation component than they had historically.

Don't confuse the wealth distribution mechanism (getting paid for labor) with the actual work itself.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

And all goods and services require some amount of humans putting in work in order for them to be provided. Nothing is truly 100% automated yet.