• Ledivin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        If you are producing X with 20 people, and AI reduces the burden on each of them by 10%, what do you think is more likely:

        • they start producing 10% more product (despite constant demand), or

        • they reduce their costs by 10%?

        Obviously not every position gets eliminated - some of those companies will produce more, instead. But to claim there’s no net loss of jobs is just plain silly.

        • blarghly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          The number of jobs to produce X decreases by 10%.

          Increased available labor then shifts to producing Y.

          • Ledivin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 month ago

            So there’s no net job loss because the people who are laid off will eventually find new jobs? What on earth?

            Given that mindset, then is all unemployment just fake? After all, they should just be finding a new job

            • blarghly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 month ago

              Um, yes? Of course, there is a time scale to everything, but yes, that is what “net” means. If someone loses a job and then gets another, then net job loss is 0.

              The unemployment rate goes up and down all the time for any number of reasons. Maybe AI will make it go up for a bit. But based on past trends, we can assume it will go back down again. It is unlikely we will end up in “end of the world, ai has taken all the jobs” territory any time soon.