More and more people might face a tough time in retirement. Low-paying jobs, inflation, and high rents make it hard to save. Now, middle-class Americans find it tough to own a home too, leaving them without a place to retire.
The increasing prices have impacted my plan to retire at 62, work part-time, and save for the future. I'm concerned about whether those who navigated the 2008 financial crisis had an easier time than I am currently experiencing. The combination of stock market volatility and a decrease in income is causing anxiety about whether I'll have sufficient funds for retirement.
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than two years, and I've made over $800,000.
That's the real beauty of the open-source movement. The cat is out of the bag in many ways. Plus, not all countries would agree to enforce regulations, and so regulating AI heavily would be a major detriment to any individual country in the grand scheme of things. I think the ultra rich will absolutely try to maintain the status quo, and their powerful positions on top, but I don't think we'll ever see truly curbed AI over the long run.
It took a lot longer. We work more now than we did before the ind rev. I read that in the UK real wages rose like 10 percent after ONE HUNDRED years. Thats like margin of error change in multiple generations.
Given the poor track record of economists’ predictions perhaps the first group that AI should replace is economist themselves. We could start by training unemployed coal miners in the use of these AI systems, I wonder if their economic predictions and solutions would produce a marked improvement in our economy’s performance.
The ATM was said to help the bank employees and reduce their work hours. It only made their work more and new tasks were added to the employees. Technology may simplify work, but companies will not let employees get those benefits. Rather they will ask 1 employee to do 4 people's work.
I'm a poor person, I've been unfairly treated by employers. But, I also understand I'm not the usual poor person. Consumption is the reason oil drilling is subsidized, while most people are not. Look at what happens when gas prices dip, consumption goes up. It's possible that consumption would level off... But, that level would likely be unsustainable. Short term, people take that road trip they've been putting off. Long term, people buy the 6.5 liter V10 SUV instead of the 2.2 liter mini van. A scrapper like me might drive 200 miles and turn a profit on a used Wolf cooktop. But, cut gas prices in half and I can go just as far for an Electrolux oven and still make a profit. Economists struggle to explain this kind of reasoning. Each person will react differently. Some would consume gasoline, while others would consume movie tickets or restaurant dinners. As finite theatre tickets, or chickens are consumed, prices increase. Thus, a cycle of inflation begins anew. Inflation is most connected to the untamed desires of consumers. Wise choices in consumption should not cause sudden inflation cycles. Wise meaning direct use for the consumer, it doesn't mean hoarding property to rent or monopolizing the poultry industry.
@@flickwtchr I'm not an apologist. What kinds of behaviors would you expect if consumers were subsidized without connection to a product output? If you were given $3600 a month, what would you do with it?
Where does the money come from in order to pay people to do nothing? Here's the time proven recipe for social collapse....when one half of the population is told that it's the other half's responsibility to pay their way through life, the other half will decide to stop taking risks, investing, building things and creating wealth because why should they do all that to give it to someone else? When an entrepeneur ends up with the same wage as a ditch digger, no one wants to be an entrepeneur.
Definitely. If people want fancy, they can do part time work. There won't be enough full time jobs to go around eventually. That comes and goes, but that contributed to the great depression.
I advocate for a similar system. Universal needs must be met, but without affording the opportunity for waste. I'm tired of seeing poor people spending to buy chrome wheels and Nike Jordans, while also complaining that they don't have money for durable goods. There's an insatiable low self esteem in American consumerism. Americans still make fun of poor people. Part of it is corporate marketing. Part of it is ontological insecurity of individuals. Part of it is our natural bias of perception and trust. I'd rather see an AI driven lottery system. Like, eBay ads that only show you the exact thing you truly need, and doesn't show it to anyone else. Thus, you're the only one who can bid on it. In some cases, you'd save thousands on a car you desperately need. But, that's the inefficiency of capitalism in our environment. If you need an oven, I could restore one for you, but there's no system that can smoothly connect a) the oven seller b) the appliance technician c) the end user. AI could revolutionize our economy with "miracles" or "luck." But, it would likely violate dozens of laws in doing so.
The chances that Libertarians and neoliberal economic types (that dominate the movers and shakers of the AI revolution) will implement themselves, or push for implementation by the government that they will pay for.......the chances that they will be sharing their profits in the form of a UBI substantial enough to pay for housing, food, utilities, health and dental care, transportation/repairs, etc are exactly ZERO. And if some UBI takes shape it will be at the expense of social security, medicare, medicaid rather than a supplement to those existing programs and will be beneath what will be necessary to keep people from being homeless, AND such a UBI will be distributed only in exchange for pervasive surveillance (as to what each dollar is spent on), social credit scoring, and biometric screening.
If he thinks that AI is going to help lower the cost of services, he is 100% delusional. When has that ever happened. Companies are greedy. That is their reason for existing. Case in point... the current cost of every day items, groceries and such. We keep being told that the economy is great right now. Yeah, for the companies!! Not so great for people. As a single person who had a great job for the last 9 years and now is in a spot where getting a job is difficult because of the AGEISM that goes unchecked in this country. My single salary is not really enough to last very long, despite the fact that I've put a lot of my salary into 401k and other accounts. It will dwindle to nothing without a full time job. And that is true for many many people in this country. And that is being ignored by everyone is power and in the media. PERIOD. Things need to change big time in this country and it's not going to help if AI takes away all of our jobs.
He is not delusional but an apologist for the 1% who will use this tech to drive even higher levels of what is already historic inequality in the US. This has been my main argument in several comments that the _______ (rhymes with trucking) moderators keep removing.
I think you mean companies are greedy, we allow them to act like that's their reason for existing. I need food to survive, I will literally die without it. Yet I don't walk into a grocery store and steal food. Society demands much more of me than meeting my nutritional needs by any means. We could expect companies to do more for society than just earn profits, make shareholders wealth. But we've been fed this myth that all companies are for is earning profit, nothing more.
AI is new and hasn't done much of anything yet but software has definitely lowered the cost of services. It's the reason you can buy stock commission free. It's the reason you can get all sorts of information for free on the internet. Groceries are not a service.
You are overlooking neo-feudalism in which the people you call elite or upper class are now demoted to just higher skilled labor. The model of highly educated doctors, or the outstanding Boeing engineers of the past, being at the top of society, is obsolete. Corporations, and ultra-rich owners of all capital are the top, and the rest are disenfranchised. That is the demise of the middle class.
Maybe we should use AI to solve the wealth inequality/cost of living/“inflation” crisis 😂 if AI helps less skilled workers do more complex jobs, business owners will drop the salaries of those jobs! The benefits of robotics/AI were meant to be shared to create a safety net in a strong Democratic future… but greed always comes first… until we finally organize to change that.
Once the elites have total control...do you think they are going to care about some pie in the sky fair and equitable society? We will all be in the streets with holes in our worn out clothing , warming our hands over the burning barrel. That's the future they have planned for us.
What do you mean that robotics/AI were "meant to be shared"? Seriously? You think for one second anyone in this AI revolution has "meant to share" the ongoing and coming spoils? Don't be so naive. They never "meant" to do any such thing.
I grew up loving all things tech but as an adult im terrified of it like no other. Not because of the tech itself but the people developing it. If things keep going the way they are humanity is doomed and this isnt a feeling its a fact.
Exactly. I've worked in Tech for over 25 years and this new wave of AI is very dangerous and will destroy most jobs. I know how these people think. Especially the heads of these companies,... Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Gates, Musk, etc. They don't care about the middle class or the average worker. Period.
The same argument was made in the 60s about information technology. It has not led to democratized information benefiting all. Just created a new way to concentrate wealth at the top. The problem is not technology but our laissez-faire attitudes about its use. Our government can’t even pass an annual budget how can they possibly regulate a massively disruptive technology. This is not a story of hope but of more broken promises and elite misjudgments.
This guy seems to be making it up as he goes along, much like everyone in this world of AI. No one really knows, but they all speak with a boat load of authority.
such notions are merely meant to pacify an increasungly awakened proletariat; to keep them from mutiny. the ruling class has and always will be the greatest beneficiary of economic "hope".
Class is abroad thing. For sure there are brilliant people. Many of wealth are just sharks. But simple revolution is a curcle going. There must be an understandable new law against corruption, not against wealth
To summarize: If you are upper class that owns business you will have more profits. If you are middle class with skills, you will become low class making less for about 50 years. If you low class, you will become even lower poor class. But be positive, It will all be good for us 50 years from now.
So we not going to address the Jon Steward segment about what tech companies want to do with AI? Apple fired Jon to stop him from reporting on AI and talking with Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan. Tech companies don't want any negative coverage of AI to the point where they will undermine journalism and democracy to imbed AI into society on their terms, no input from the public or government. It's all good and well to talk about how AI could help, but if you aren't going to address the way tech companies want this tech utilized, you are doing a great disservice to the public who are going to lose jobs and suffer because of tech companies.
While I’m also skeptical that it will be, I don’t think we can fully dismiss his argument out of cynicism. What he describes is a very real possibility. There are a lot of highly paid software engineers that are very concerned about the future viability of their jobs.
A net gain for the middle class isn't far fetched, but a net gain doesn't mean there is no pain. If 60% of middle class people have their incomes double while 40% become unemployed, there would be a 20% net gain for the middle class overall.
Thinking that AI will repair the middle class is pathetically naive. They are simply living in a fantasy world. Compared to the past, the gap between the rich and the poor is worsening, and in the near future, it will become even more severe.
So Ai will bring down wages of highly trained positions like air traffic controllers to that of school crossing guards . The poor will become the middle class, in name only.
Doubtful. The only reason air traffic controllers make what they do is their union. It has nothing to do with skills. Unless Reagan comes back from the dead and fires them again they won't get replaced by AI even if AI could do the job better and cheaper.
It would be good AI it does net more opportunity, but that isn’t what will happen first. Unchecked, AI implementation will do for the skilled and educated what automation, computers, and Wall Street’s drive to export the manufacturing sector to cheap labor counties have done to the working class There could be chaos in the streets. Our capitalist, market economy doesn’t take care of the displaced - and the government only gets to it when it is forced to - think The Great Depression, Civil Rights legislation. This is a pull yourself up by your bootstraps culture.
😂😂😂 Hahahahaha! The 'vast and unmatched wisdom' of man! TAKE A LOOK AROUND. HOWS THAT BEEN WORKING OUT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD SO FAR! WHO'S PRIMARILY BENEFITING? YOU? YOUR FAMILY? YOUR FRIENDS? YOUR COMMUNITY? NOT HARDLY.
@@flickwtchr I didn’t say that I agreed with the analysis. In fact, I don’t. But I appreciate it when someone like the speaker, whose has a top-down view of how automation can or should be integrated into society, is willing to be that clear. And I think Walter Isaacson was similarly blunt in encouraging the speaker to spell out the implications of technological advancement as he sees them. It’s an anti-humanist perspective, and one the speaker doesn’t seem to be able to imagine differently, even though he was quite clear about the suffering and cultural loss that comes with what is called by some his “techno-optimist” viewpoint. Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Andreessen, etc. … this is the view they, and most of Silicon Valley, embody. It’s what we are up against, and I applaud them both for this moment of honesty, which is what this video is. It always pays to hold your judgmental mind at bay and become curious about what you are hearing or reading, rather than jumping to conclusions and thereby encouraging a lack of candor in your adversary.
@@joyfulmindstudio Yet no mention at all regarding outsourcing of jobs and the overall impact that neoliberal economics (and Reaganomics) policies with accompanying austerity has had on the middle class. But Amanpour and Company, and indeed PBS generally (post Bill Clinton appointments of Republicans to the CPB) are very efficient propagandists for the 1%. Ever checked out Walter's wiki, and then try to square his "shucks, I don't know much" interview style? He's strategically "naive" on any points to be made that would go against the current propaganda being pushed out by apologists for the 1%, apologists for the policies that have led to historic inequality in the US.
The problem with recent tech advances is that virtually any job can be replaced by A.I. and automation. IF the hype is true. The “broader scope of work” he talks about will be expanded to inconceivable levels. Think “dark factories” that can work 24/7 without human presence other than maybe a maintenance team. Already we’re seeing fast food restaurants replacing humans. Menards uses self driving floor scrubbers. If AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is achieved then human workers will be conceivably obsolete.
As a blue collar machinist working since the 80’s, I’ve been told my whole career I’m going to be replaced by a computer. And I was. Kinda. Over 40 years. I now do the work of 5 machinists of old. But the 4 other machinists had time to retire, find other similar work, or like me increase their skills in pace with technology. But the "literate numerate tasks that follow well understood rules and procedures" that you say affected my career sounds even more applicable to modern "digital" / information office jobs than it ever did to manufacturing. I still use an incredible amount of very skilled labor in my job. If AI took over every computer aspect of my job, I’d still have more work than I can do barring some advance in humanoid robotics. And let’s not overlook the capital cost of historic automation. For a small manufacturing company to switch from manual to computer controlled machines was often 10 or 15 times the cost of a worker. And the productive life of an industrial machine is long. I still use a lathe from the 1960’s to make parts that go into space. The cost benefit of replacing an office worker is immediate. In many cases it would be like a factory that not only cut the workforce but also got to do away with the factory all together. The idea that a great percentage of the workforce won’t be entirely redundant when AI really kicks in is absurd. We’ll have Great Depression level unemployment and sectors like commercial real estate and business that service office workers like restaurants and coffee shops will fall like dominoes.
Playing devil's advocate... Consider the work of a paralegal. Each has a specialty due to their specific, earned knowledge of case law applicable in their geographic area, to their specific types of cases (property, contact, criminal, lemon law, sexual assault, divorce, etc.). That's like you having the skills to mill, lathe, turret punch, laser etch, 3d print, precision grind, coat with polymer or ceramic, electroplating, and alloy forging. No one person can do it all. So AI could help an adoption paralegal get cases done faster. It could overwhelm judges, which would be a bottleneck AI couldn't fix. Kinda how you have to check parts, even if a CNC makes them. Something could go wrong. And, without someone there to check, it will ship and cause a delay or failure (like, features cut too thin on a hydraulic plunger, or too small to fit the specified nylon ring). There's a point where mechanization goes too far. But, there also a point where it's not about us, it's about the future of humanity. It's possible that a self sustaining AI manufacturing system could sustain a human population with 90% of all people having no pressure to work in any way. That would be miserable if we kept increasing the population. There's just not enough space on Earth. If we half the population, each remaining person would have double the space to themselves... AI could sustain an artificial need for humans in jobs like animal tending and food services. We could make hot rods all day and party all night if we wanted... Sorry, but there's a future coming. We have to imagine the logical outcomes in consideration to basic human needs and faults. Not everyone deserves to live in the mechanical garden of Eden. Capitalism has created that garden for billionaires. But, that's the same sentiment people had about your lifestyle with air conditioning and refrigeration. Those people lived through the great depression. I think some assurance about your retirement, and an easing of your working conditions would satisfy every one of your true desires. I would love to work with someone part time in an aerospace machine shop... But, companies won't hire me.
@@Ali-e5h1b thanks for engaging in the conversation . You make some great points. As always, just like in my case, there will be people with very high level skills who grow with technology and those who get shut out. So some paralegals will benefit immensely and the crappy clock watching ones who were doing the bare minimum will get fired and replaced. That’s what happened in my field. Gradually all the machinists who couldn’t cut it got fired as CNC machines made it possible for me to do more and more of their work. But there were plenty of jobs they could move on to that used similar skills. Much like an office manager might move on to project management or accounts receivable. I know it’s scary and people are in denial, but AI will very soon do most of any job that is done at a desk on a computer. There will not be jobs for a huge chunk of workers to "retrain" into. As far as a techno utopia goes, I’ve never experienced a corporation or wealthy person who’s primary goal wasn’t more for them and less for everyone else. We do not have the political ability to pass any legislation at this point, much less the kind of radical laws required to implement something like Universal Basic Income. Nobody in the AI space is going to come out and say "you’re screwed" but they’ve been talking right up to that line. And I’m not here gloating about how I’m safe from all this because my Blue Collar skills turned out to not be a waste of my life after all. I understand we all sink or swim together, the people who work. If 25% of office workers get fired, and I’m seeing claims of +40% productivity increases already from AI assistance, that’s Great Depression level unemployment. It can ruin the whole economy and no one will need machinists and my 401k will tank.
9:32 as a patient/customer I do not like my healthcare provider doing a broader scope of work. I want someone to have enough time to focus on accurate diagnosis and engaged thoughtful treatment-if I book a 15 or 30 min appt and f/u regularly and they still can’t get it together.
An Artificial Intelligence Company named Palantir manages nearly 20% of the Hospital Beds in the USA right now. This company is helping to ensure that patients are neither over or under medicated among other things. People have misgivings about these technologies.
@@phil20_20Does it seem likely that AI could be used to me carefully monitor every Doctor and ensure they don't make mistakes? News flash, AI is already better than Humans when screening X-rays for Cancer and it's just getting started. It's also being used to create safer medications faster and those processes will only continue to gain momentum.
@@MTXSHO9732vV8SHO Oh yes the Peter Thiel (who seems to like fascism) founded company that specializes in mass surveillance. But hey, no worries there!
@@MTXSHO9732vV8SHO And you know what else AI is being used for? Denying care for patients at the behest of greedy Big Insurers, and since the proprietary systems are protected by "trade secrets" the decisions made can't be reviewed unless a patient has enough money to file a lawsuit if such hasn't already been nixed by fine print in a patient signed contract. AI tech will make the Big Insurers and Big Pharma that much richer, and as usual the US citizenry will get absolutely screwed in the process.
The guest argues that maybe the highest paid jobs may go down in pay due to AI making it less specialized and will translate to lower costs for the rest of us. That relies on the premise that corporations will pass those savings along to the consumer or person seeking a service. I don't think that premise needs any further explanation...
Middle class is dead everywhere. There is super rich and super poor now and gap will be even wider in near future. Those who control AI and other extreme poor people who are living day to day.
@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo see how fast they will be replaced with AI. Companies only look for cheaper and better employees. Dont tell me german companies will jeep their white color employees and they are not as rich as their parents. People share homes at 30s. In the past, they were homeowner at 20s. We are getting poorer and rich people getting richer. Elon Musk is now richer than some countries, which is insane.
Top economists struggle with forecasting FED rate cuts or foreseeing the GFC. Sorry, I don't give much credibility to the profession as a whole. They should be reclassified as economic historians. This fella is deriving some benefit from the AI hype.
Hes not considering the fact that nothing has come along that could replace SO MANY jobs at once. Automating mechanical things was absolutely disruptive like be said and caused a temporary dip. We had to deal with the speed and cost of actually building those machines then. AI can replace a much broader set of jobs much much faster. So more people will get displaced more quickly. He's not seeming to consider this.
Here is how this will likely go down. He mentions that having certain skills sets people apart as far as wages. AI will dilute those skills because the barrier to entry will be so much less with AI which will increase the supply which guess what, brings down the price to “buy” those skills. This will actually shrink the middle and you’ll have the very rich and everyone else. The very rich will be whomever holds the keys to the “tools” and anyone else with the capital to ride on their coattails.
If AI enriches the middle class, it will come at the expense of depleting people of lesser resources. Then what are we going to do with more poor people? Although resources exist for all people now, they are sequestered by more affluent people. Won’t that just make society overall worse? Or are those people expendable? May God help us because rich people are not helping.
Keep waiting for this MIT economist to at least partially credit unions with the improvement of workers wages, benefits, and hours. But no, he says it's only happened because of skilled labor.
I agree, and he’s also not addressing the speed and scale of AI advancement. He’s talking as if AI will reach a “helpful stage” in a particular area and stay that way for years or decades. I can’t remember his exact reference, but he talked about an unskilled worker getting a two year degree or certificate to get an AI assisted job at higher pay. First, we don’t yet know what these programs are or will need to look like until AI is already capable of doing these helpful tasks. Next, someone must develop these training programs based on what and where AI becomes helpful in the workplace. Then, people need to be aware of the program and someone needs to be trained to teach it (although AI might be teaching it, in which case it can also do it). By the time people apply, get accepted, spend two years before graduating, you’re looking at roughly another 2 and a half years from the when the program is developed. Altogether, this is potentially several years away, while at the same time, bigger and better frontier models are being released, and agents and applications are advancing at what may feel slow at times, but over several years completely upends the economy and global labor markets.
AI is different. It will out perform humans in pattern recognition, prediction, and decision making. That is what human professionals do today. No need for radiologist, anesthesiologists, lab techs, computer programmers, scientists, accountants, financial analysts... ironically, AI robots wont replace maids in hotels for a long time. Jobs with lots of doing in open environments are tough to make a robot good enough and cheap enough to replace maids. But mostly sit and analyze and make decisions? That AI's sweet spot. AI can outthink the average college student already. This is very different!
2:40 - he's making a poor comparison. The tools for auto workers are robots that weld and do machine work. The CNC mill has crushed the working class. Instead of 30 manual mills, there are 3 CNC mills doing the same labor but more accurately and safely. It was a boon for the middle class that could invest salaries into machines, thus cutting year to year payroll. CNC operators range in salaries depending on the variability of the work. Some operators don't even know g code, and can't setup a fixture. Some operators can write g code and select milling parameters. People that can properly apply ai to a task will be the new CNC level employees. Programmers still won't become middle class unless they cross train into business management. So, they'll either need agents to find contacts and bid them, or simply work for a well connected "CEO" that already has a pipeline to DOD or other sources of contracts. There won't be any new products created by AI. AI will be applied to interpreting laws, displaying information, and security. Few people will immediately trust a system that can't be interrogated without an expert team. That's where ai is today. If AI gives wrong answers, no one can exactly figure out why or how to correct it. You can't audit ai without manual ledgers. It's a pain in the ass. It's not accessible. This is the same hype that 3d printing had back in 2018. Look how it "revolutionized" manufacturing. AI will be limited by the human ability to audit those systems. All of the work it does will require auditing. Millions or billions of errors would go unnoticed without audits. This seems to be another pull for investment to create a commercial contest for development. I think this is how capitalism creates innovation; the temptation of greed. The most greedy and cunning will coalesce around profits; crushing millions in their wake. The hope is that we don't bankrupt the nation before something useful is created. Otherwise, we'll end up with more companies like Nikola and Theranos. Good luck in that rat race. The most profitable AI systems will likely be as weapons of perception manipulation, tantamount to mind control. New laws regarding advertising should be enacted now.
Excellent interview, David does an great job of explaining how the labor market bi-furcated and how AI may impact those specialized jobs. Lots to think about!
The shelf life of this analysis is short. Once generalized artificial intelligence is developed, all of this goes out the window. If anyone thinks that the people who own that AI are going to have the best interest of the mass of workers at heart, the people who think that have not been paying attention.
Best b.s i heard in the last couple months....actually even convincing ( for some ) .. I used to respect MIT before this video, but i just realised that they're all about technology and not sure where their funding might be coming from
...ok so for those who wanna know, i just found out...their funding sources for reseachs comes from government and industriy, among others...anyone surprised ?
He is naming jobs that require judgement so the worker can evaluate the input of AI in order to safely use it. AI may increase skill ability in lower medical jobs, but it cannot substitute for human judgement. It will not create more jobs because one nurse or doctor can only lead so many people. It won't create very many more well paid jobs. The US Occupational Outlook Edition comes out every year, and you will see the potential "job growth" for various jobs and niches. AI will not spawn larger numbers of nurse practioners than currently projected to he needed. It may allow one nurse practitioner to care for more patients, by speeding up decision making, but there will be a limit to how many helpers with higher skills that one nurse practitioner can supervise. I don't get this man's reasoning at all. I think he does not understand the job description of healthcare workers. It's on YOU to adhere to and perform at the level of competence required by your particular level of medical license.
Are referring to the ONE-SIZE FITS ALL VERY LUCRATIVE medicine industrial complex disguised as 'health' care? The decrease costs INCREASE PROFIT industry?
Wtf are you crazy it's going to destroy the middle class and by the way Mr MIT professor who is giving you money on this side of AI guarantee they're paying you dude to manipulate the numbers
The point Professor Autor makes after 6:00 addresses a bifurcation of the work force. Historic technology leaps have provided a proportionately small number of new high-paying occupations while a lot more people had to accept drops in their livelihoods. Why would the AI technology leap be any different in its effect on the workforces than the historic leaps? The work force bifurcation was that the middle class shrunk as many moved into the services sector. AI provides a worker with useful information, the value is in the AI, not the worker. In other words, If the AI is providing the professional expertise, that still leaves the worker as the generic service. Thus, many of the workers would still be paid poorly. Additionally, the historic transitions of the labor forces have involved severe suffering. How will we respond if AI causes the same phenomena? Having been “bifurcated” in 2002, I would not like to have it happen again. And I have a BS, MS, and PhD.
This was a really interesting piece and perspective. In a way, it reminds me of ideas about how AR could enable semi-expertise. For instance, an AR display and speaker could direct an average joe into installing a new washer-dryer, fixing a car issue, etc. Things that require knowledge and a body, where the AI/AR system is the knowledge and the human is the body. That said, one has to wonder how much need there'll be for human bodies to do things once automation is able to do ever more aspects of jobs.
I found this interview very helpful in understanding how today's next technological evolution can differ from previous eras, like the industrial evolution or the early stages of the information revolution. I try not to fear change, but AI seems to be more threatening than helpful, so it helps to hear other potentially positive perspectives to help think about how AI can change my own industry. I'm still trying to figure it out, as is most of corporate America, and definitely don't want to be caught on the wrong side of AI's rollout. Thanks for these long-form interviews. I enjoy all of your interviews and learn something from each of them.
AI is not new, and it’s not a scientific mystery to everyone but US scientists, either. There are two reasons it has gained so much traction recently: First, computers are almost powerful enough now to process the massive amounts of scientific, legal, and cultural information needed to solve the world’s big problems; and second, all that information is available today digitally, rather than in print form in books and academic journals. It’s simply not possible to keep the know-how to design, build, and train AI systems within the borders of the US. That war was lost many years ago.
Would have been great if this covered the impact of the rapid pace of progress to automate or replace jobs with both AI, Embodied AI(robots), maybe AGI in the short to medium term, leading mass job losses for who knows how long and that period of transition to the positives of AI. This will be in the next 3 to 5 years, depending on the rate of progress. What is being done about that? How do people prepare and transition? What support and plan is being put in place now?
I do agree with the point that AI is a different kind of computation, as it is probabilistic/extrapolating and generative, in contrast to the 100% logical predetermined ways of traditional computing. we’ll be using this everywhere in the coming decades, starting with replacing low level human judgement tasks and moving up to more complex decision making. AI can already do most of brain work humans are doing.
As AI gets better meaning it gains expertise it will eventually take human expertise jobs too. So w no jobs who has money to buy anything? What kind of economics is that? Is seems the only ones that are desperate for AI are those creating it.
Ditto what Beetoven said. Two MIT economists (Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson) put forth in their book, Power & Progress, that in the grand sweep of history, advances in technology are positive for prosperity. Yet in the span of years and decades over which lives are lived, the losers outnumber the winners. My experiences are the the benefits of technology do NOT trickle down from the top who hang on to as much as they can and for as long as they can. For example and as Beetoven mentioned, the Industrial Revolution made the owners rich but it took many decades for the workers to have any significant gains in wages. Take Lyft & Uber as current examples. Shareholders and execs got filthy rich while the commercial taxi business got decimated and Lyft/Uber drivers are still fighting for a living wage. Tom Orlik of BusinessWeek noted that "The AI revolution is lifting the market value of US businesses, but history tells us it may not do the same for workers."
Service jobs don't pay low because they "don't require expertise", they pay low because our society does not value the types of "expertise" that service jobs require. What makes AI scary is not that it will somehow objectively devalue skill sets or labor, rather that it will greatly facilitate the employer's ability to determine a lower value for those skill set or labor. WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY WE VALUE OURSELVES, OUR LIVES, AND THE PEOPLE AROUND US, then we can all benefit from the changes that technology allows for.
A good insight into the subject though your understanding of the NP and current MD roles is not deep. No one reads these comments so I won’t elaborate, but if you’re going to use healthcare to illuminate this issue, you need to expand your knowledge
Labor economist, hum. Helping the economy...for whom? Air traffic controller...lovely choice. Let's all take a moment to remember Reagan and air traffic controllers. I feel like someone for a labor discussion is missing here. His name is Sean Fain.
We are either going to have a star trek like future or we will all essentially become a slave class. It depends on how much the top is willing to share with everyone else. Not feeling terribly hopeful. The level of human suffering that would need to happen to convince the billionaire class that we all deserve decent lives is unimaginable to me. I dont think there is any level of suffering that will convince the CEO class to give up some wealth.
Perhaps we could have that guy with the high school diploma do this MIT profs job (with the correct AI support and training of course) - yeah, I don't think so.
3:00 productivity grew, and so did wealth disparities. The owners of technology and machines grew wealthy. That means everyone else will become poorer. We can't afford to compete. We would be wasting trillions if we tried. Sure you can complete with Ford, but there's no other markets. We have too many disposable cars as it is. The same with food service. The margins are even slimmer there. This is just a race to be first on the block.
From personal observation: LLMs can 10x the productivity of an experienced programmer. However they can 50x the productivity of an inexperienced programmer.
I can only imagine Prof. Autor, ran Econometric linear regressions analyses using Differences of Differences techniques, et. al. of actual historical data to make a comparative assertion that AI will significantly rebuild the middle class? I am glad Prof. Autor used Econ. History to set the stage as a comp. parm. I for one, was a huge Econ. History nerd as an undergrad. Econ. Major grad. Let the data actually show the impact using deductive reasoning. In legal, Prof. Resp. Ethics, especially in litigation has slowed the use of AI as lawyers do not understand the algorithms and have difficulty explaining it in their court briefs and arguments.
It's definitely reshaping urban life and avenues that haven't faced such changes in over a century. It's just organically and naturally where it cheaply can go. They messed around with cars, but like it or not any bot that can randomly walk up to any environment and wash dishes is held way back from cheap repeatable knowledge based jobs
Artificial Intelligence should lead to Utopias of creative social commingling and cohabitation with modern monetary economics..... Wait a New York minute, that sounds like Socialism !?
More and more people might face a tough time in retirement. Low-paying jobs, inflation, and high rents make it hard to save. Now, middle-class Americans find it tough to own a home too, leaving them without a place to retire.
The increasing prices have impacted my plan to retire at 62, work part-time, and save for the future. I'm concerned about whether those who navigated the 2008 financial crisis had an easier time than I am currently experiencing. The combination of stock market volatility and a decrease in income is causing anxiety about whether I'll have sufficient funds for retirement.
This is precisely why I like having a portfolio coach guide my day-to-day market decisions: with their extensive knowledge of going long and short at the same time, using risk for its asymmetrical upside and laying it off as a hedge against the inevitable downward turns, their skillset makes it nearly impossible for them to underperform. I've been utilizing a portfolio coach for more than two years, and I've made over $800,000.
How can I reach this person?
‘’Colleen Rose Mccaffery’ maintains an online presence. Just make a simple search for her name online.
I checked Colleen up out of curiosity and i must say i am impressed by her Credentials. i emailed her already, waiting on her response.
The second CEO's are told their jobs are in jeopardy of being taken over by Ai, we will see quick and hard hitting regulations to curb Ai.
That's the real beauty of the open-source movement. The cat is out of the bag in many ways. Plus, not all countries would agree to enforce regulations, and so regulating AI heavily would be a major detriment to any individual country in the grand scheme of things. I think the ultra rich will absolutely try to maintain the status quo, and their powerful positions on top, but I don't think we'll ever see truly curbed AI over the long run.
I just love when the silver-lining guy tells me the Industrial Revolution took 50 years to benefit the common people.
Typical college professor. No understanding of the real world.
Right! That's literally a lifetime, especially in those times
It took a lot longer. We work more now than we did before the ind rev.
I read that in the UK real wages rose like 10 percent after ONE HUNDRED years. Thats like margin of error change in multiple generations.
@@dmitriyapak❤
@@dmitriyapak❤
Given the poor track record of economists’ predictions perhaps the first group that AI should replace is economist themselves. We could start by training unemployed coal miners in the use of these AI systems, I wonder if their economic predictions and solutions would produce a marked improvement in our economy’s performance.
The ATM was said to help the bank employees and reduce their work hours. It only made their work more and new tasks were added to the employees. Technology may simplify work, but companies will not let employees get those benefits. Rather they will ask 1 employee to do 4 people's work.
What? ATMs eliminated windows of tellers in the grand marble lined bank lobbies. How old are you?🥸
@@calvin394😊
It's not the technology, it's WHO OWNS THE TECHNOLOGY.
The super-rich and corporations are NOT your friends.
This is an insanely narrow view of how things are going to unfold.
Very typical of Amanpour and Company, PBS, and the likes of 1% apologists and propagandists like Walter Isaacson.
Why are we subsizing oil but not people? Yes, subsidies artificially keep fuel prices down, but what is the point if wages are unfairly low?
I'm a poor person, I've been unfairly treated by employers. But, I also understand I'm not the usual poor person. Consumption is the reason oil drilling is subsidized, while most people are not. Look at what happens when gas prices dip, consumption goes up. It's possible that consumption would level off... But, that level would likely be unsustainable.
Short term, people take that road trip they've been putting off. Long term, people buy the 6.5 liter V10 SUV instead of the 2.2 liter mini van. A scrapper like me might drive 200 miles and turn a profit on a used Wolf cooktop. But, cut gas prices in half and I can go just as far for an Electrolux oven and still make a profit.
Economists struggle to explain this kind of reasoning. Each person will react differently. Some would consume gasoline, while others would consume movie tickets or restaurant dinners.
As finite theatre tickets, or chickens are consumed, prices increase. Thus, a cycle of inflation begins anew.
Inflation is most connected to the untamed desires of consumers. Wise choices in consumption should not cause sudden inflation cycles. Wise meaning direct use for the consumer, it doesn't mean hoarding property to rent or monopolizing the poultry industry.
But yes, wages are unfairly low considering the waste created by our "middle class."
@@Ali-e5h1b It's entertaining to see a "poor person" being an apologist for the 1%.
@@flickwtchr I'm not an apologist. What kinds of behaviors would you expect if consumers were subsidized without connection to a product output?
If you were given $3600 a month, what would you do with it?
Governments much prefer to give money to the already-rich.
I'm all for AI, as long as we institutionalize universal basic income.
Where does the money come from in order to pay people to do nothing? Here's the time proven recipe for social collapse....when one half of the population is told that it's the other half's responsibility to pay their way through life, the other half will decide to stop taking risks, investing, building things and creating wealth because why should they do all that to give it to someone else? When an entrepeneur ends up with the same wage as a ditch digger, no one wants to be an entrepeneur.
Definitely. If people want fancy, they can do part time work. There won't be enough full time jobs to go around eventually. That comes and goes, but that contributed to the great depression.
Equal wealth redistribution, not a meager UBI, which is a third of what people are making. Billionaire and corp fleecing must happen.
I advocate for a similar system. Universal needs must be met, but without affording the opportunity for waste. I'm tired of seeing poor people spending to buy chrome wheels and Nike Jordans, while also complaining that they don't have money for durable goods. There's an insatiable low self esteem in American consumerism. Americans still make fun of poor people. Part of it is corporate marketing. Part of it is ontological insecurity of individuals. Part of it is our natural bias of perception and trust.
I'd rather see an AI driven lottery system. Like, eBay ads that only show you the exact thing you truly need, and doesn't show it to anyone else. Thus, you're the only one who can bid on it. In some cases, you'd save thousands on a car you desperately need. But, that's the inefficiency of capitalism in our environment. If you need an oven, I could restore one for you, but there's no system that can smoothly connect a) the oven seller b) the appliance technician c) the end user. AI could revolutionize our economy with "miracles" or "luck." But, it would likely violate dozens of laws in doing so.
The chances that Libertarians and neoliberal economic types (that dominate the movers and shakers of the AI revolution) will implement themselves, or push for implementation by the government that they will pay for.......the chances that they will be sharing their profits in the form of a UBI substantial enough to pay for housing, food, utilities, health and dental care, transportation/repairs, etc are exactly ZERO.
And if some UBI takes shape it will be at the expense of social security, medicare, medicaid rather than a supplement to those existing programs and will be beneath what will be necessary to keep people from being homeless, AND such a UBI will be distributed only in exchange for pervasive surveillance (as to what each dollar is spent on), social credit scoring, and biometric screening.
If he thinks that AI is going to help lower the cost of services, he is 100% delusional. When has that ever happened. Companies are greedy. That is their reason for existing. Case in point... the current cost of every day items, groceries and such. We keep being told that the economy is great right now. Yeah, for the companies!! Not so great for people. As a single person who had a great job for the last 9 years and now is in a spot where getting a job is difficult because of the AGEISM that goes unchecked in this country. My single salary is not really enough to last very long, despite the fact that I've put a lot of my salary into 401k and other accounts. It will dwindle to nothing without a full time job. And that is true for many many people in this country. And that is being ignored by everyone is power and in the media. PERIOD. Things need to change big time in this country and it's not going to help if AI takes away all of our jobs.
He is not delusional but an apologist for the 1% who will use this tech to drive even higher levels of what is already historic inequality in the US. This has been my main argument in several comments that the _______ (rhymes with trucking) moderators keep removing.
I think you mean companies are greedy, we allow them to act like that's their reason for existing. I need food to survive, I will literally die without it. Yet I don't walk into a grocery store and steal food. Society demands much more of me than meeting my nutritional needs by any means. We could expect companies to do more for society than just earn profits, make shareholders wealth. But we've been fed this myth that all companies are for is earning profit, nothing more.
@@flickwtchr Yes Delusional... and an apologist.
AI is new and hasn't done much of anything yet but software has definitely lowered the cost of services. It's the reason you can buy stock commission free. It's the reason you can get all sorts of information for free on the internet. Groceries are not a service.
AI is not a "tool". It's the future of intelligence. Our replacement.
riiiiight. like how fair everything is now. utterly corrupt economy. impossible for common people.
You are overlooking neo-feudalism in which the people you call elite or upper class are now demoted to just higher skilled labor. The model of highly educated doctors, or the outstanding Boeing engineers of the past, being at the top of society, is obsolete. Corporations, and ultra-rich owners of all capital are the top, and the rest are disenfranchised. That is the demise of the middle class.
Reagan didn't feel the same about air traffic controllers somehow. Productivity has exploded, but workers have not benefited since 1980.
People are tired of retraining. Over and over.
Maybe we should use AI to solve the wealth inequality/cost of living/“inflation” crisis 😂 if AI helps less skilled workers do more complex jobs, business owners will drop the salaries of those jobs! The benefits of robotics/AI were meant to be shared to create a safety net in a strong Democratic future… but greed always comes first… until we finally organize to change that.
Once the elites have total control...do you think they are going to care about some pie in the sky fair and equitable society? We will all be in the streets with holes in our worn out clothing , warming our hands over the burning barrel. That's the future they have planned for us.
What do you mean that robotics/AI were "meant to be shared"? Seriously? You think for one second anyone in this AI revolution has "meant to share" the ongoing and coming spoils? Don't be so naive. They never "meant" to do any such thing.
I grew up loving all things tech but as an adult im terrified of it like no other. Not because of the tech itself but the people developing it. If things keep going the way they are humanity is doomed and this isnt a feeling its a fact.
Exactly. I've worked in Tech for over 25 years and this new wave of AI is very dangerous and will destroy most jobs. I know how these people think. Especially the heads of these companies,... Sam Altman, Zuckerberg, Gates, Musk, etc. They don't care about the middle class or the average worker. Period.
Yes. If we are forced to live under NHI , i trust Aliens/extraterrestrials 1000 times more than NHI programmed by humans.
The same argument was made in the 60s about information technology. It has not led to democratized information benefiting all. Just created a new way to concentrate wealth at the top. The problem is not technology but our laissez-faire attitudes about its use. Our government can’t even pass an annual budget how can they possibly regulate a massively disruptive technology. This is not a story of hope but of more broken promises and elite misjudgments.
This guy seems to be making it up as he goes along, much like everyone in this world of AI. No one really knows, but they all speak with a boat load of authority.
such notions are merely meant to pacify an increasungly awakened proletariat; to keep them from mutiny. the ruling class has and always will be the greatest beneficiary of economic "hope".
Class is abroad thing. For sure there are brilliant people. Many of wealth are just sharks. But simple revolution is a curcle going. There must be an understandable new law against corruption, not against wealth
To summarize: If you are upper class that owns business you will have more profits. If you are middle class with skills, you will become low class making less for about 50 years. If you low class, you will become even lower poor class. But be positive, It will all be good for us 50 years from now.
So we not going to address the Jon Steward segment about what tech companies want to do with AI? Apple fired Jon to stop him from reporting on AI and talking with Federal Trade Commission chair Lina Khan. Tech companies don't want any negative coverage of AI to the point where they will undermine journalism and democracy to imbed AI into society on their terms, no input from the public or government.
It's all good and well to talk about how AI could help, but if you aren't going to address the way tech companies want this tech utilized, you are doing a great disservice to the public who are going to lose jobs and suffer because of tech companies.
We will look back at this interview and laugh at this expert.
Have you ever used Artificial Intelligence?
im laughing already
Laugh harder at Walter Isaacson who pretends to be just a simple guy asking dumb questions. Check out his Wiki.
Better than everyone throwing tgeir hands up and giving up
If he thinks AI is going to be a net gain for the middle class, then MIT has gone stupid.
While I’m also skeptical that it will be, I don’t think we can fully dismiss his argument out of cynicism.
What he describes is a very real possibility. There are a lot of highly paid software engineers that are very concerned about the future viability of their jobs.
They've been stupid. Lot's of hype, while only a few shine. Don't get me started on Bitcoin!
A net gain for the middle class isn't far fetched, but a net gain doesn't mean there is no pain. If 60% of middle class people have their incomes double while 40% become unemployed, there would be a 20% net gain for the middle class overall.
@@kyleolson9636 The group that has their incomes double won't be the middle class. Take that to the bank.
Thinking that AI will repair the middle class is pathetically naive. They are simply living in a fantasy world. Compared to the past, the gap between the rich and the poor is worsening, and in the near future, it will become even more severe.
So Ai will bring down wages of highly trained positions like air traffic controllers to that of school crossing guards . The poor will become the middle class, in name only.
How do you perceive that AI will make the job of being an air traffic controller "easier"?
Doubtful. The only reason air traffic controllers make what they do is their union. It has nothing to do with skills. Unless Reagan comes back from the dead and fires them again they won't get replaced by AI even if AI could do the job better and cheaper.
It would be good AI it does net more opportunity, but that isn’t what will happen first. Unchecked, AI implementation will do for the skilled and educated what automation, computers, and Wall Street’s drive to export the manufacturing sector to cheap labor counties have done to the working class There could be chaos in the streets. Our capitalist, market economy doesn’t take care of the displaced - and the government only gets to it when it is forced to - think The Great Depression, Civil Rights legislation. This is a pull yourself up by your bootstraps culture.
😂😂😂 Hahahahaha!
The 'vast and unmatched wisdom' of man!
TAKE A LOOK AROUND.
HOWS THAT BEEN WORKING OUT FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD SO FAR!
WHO'S PRIMARILY BENEFITING?
YOU? YOUR FAMILY? YOUR FRIENDS? YOUR COMMUNITY?
NOT HARDLY.
Now *that* was skill in interviewing. Walter Isaacson barely said a thing, but the questions he did ask got the full story from his excellent guest.
Fawning over these propagandists for the 1% is pretty pathetic actually.
@@flickwtchr I didn’t say that I agreed with the analysis. In fact, I don’t. But I appreciate it when someone like the speaker, whose has a top-down view of how automation can or should be integrated into society, is willing to be that clear. And I think Walter Isaacson was similarly blunt in encouraging the speaker to spell out the implications of technological advancement as he sees them.
It’s an anti-humanist perspective, and one the speaker doesn’t seem to be able to imagine differently, even though he was quite clear about the suffering and cultural loss that comes with what is called by some his “techno-optimist” viewpoint. Musk, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Andreessen, etc. … this is the view they, and most of Silicon Valley, embody. It’s what we are up against, and I applaud them both for this moment of honesty, which is what this video is.
It always pays to hold your judgmental mind at bay and become curious about what you are hearing or reading, rather than jumping to conclusions and thereby encouraging a lack of candor in your adversary.
@@joyfulmindstudio Yet no mention at all regarding outsourcing of jobs and the overall impact that neoliberal economics (and Reaganomics) policies with accompanying austerity has had on the middle class. But Amanpour and Company, and indeed PBS generally (post Bill Clinton appointments of Republicans to the CPB) are very efficient propagandists for the 1%. Ever checked out Walter's wiki, and then try to square his "shucks, I don't know much" interview style? He's strategically "naive" on any points to be made that would go against the current propaganda being pushed out by apologists for the 1%, apologists for the policies that have led to historic inequality in the US.
The problem with recent tech advances is that virtually any job can be replaced by A.I. and automation. IF the hype is true.
The “broader scope of work” he talks about will be expanded to inconceivable levels.
Think “dark factories” that can work 24/7 without human presence other than maybe a maintenance team.
Already we’re seeing fast food restaurants replacing humans. Menards uses self driving floor scrubbers.
If AGI (Artificial General Intelligence) is achieved then human workers will be conceivably obsolete.
The future is (and always has been) built by optimists.
As a blue collar machinist working since the 80’s, I’ve been told my whole career I’m going to be replaced by a computer. And I was. Kinda. Over 40 years. I now do the work of 5 machinists of old. But the 4 other machinists had time to retire, find other similar work, or like me increase their skills in pace with technology. But the "literate numerate tasks that follow well understood rules and procedures" that you say affected my career sounds even more applicable to modern "digital" / information office jobs than it ever did to manufacturing. I still use an incredible amount of very skilled labor in my job. If AI took over every computer aspect of my job, I’d still have more work than I can do barring some advance in humanoid robotics. And let’s not overlook the capital cost of historic automation. For a small manufacturing company to switch from manual to computer controlled machines was often 10 or 15 times the cost of a worker. And the productive life of an industrial machine is long. I still use a lathe from the 1960’s to make parts that go into space. The cost benefit of replacing an office worker is immediate. In many cases it would be like a factory that not only cut the workforce but also got to do away with the factory all together. The idea that a great percentage of the workforce won’t be entirely redundant when AI really kicks in is absurd. We’ll have Great Depression level unemployment and sectors like commercial real estate and business that service office workers like restaurants and coffee shops will fall like dominoes.
Playing devil's advocate... Consider the work of a paralegal. Each has a specialty due to their specific, earned knowledge of case law applicable in their geographic area, to their specific types of cases (property, contact, criminal, lemon law, sexual assault, divorce, etc.). That's like you having the skills to mill, lathe, turret punch, laser etch, 3d print, precision grind, coat with polymer or ceramic, electroplating, and alloy forging. No one person can do it all.
So AI could help an adoption paralegal get cases done faster. It could overwhelm judges, which would be a bottleneck AI couldn't fix. Kinda how you have to check parts, even if a CNC makes them. Something could go wrong. And, without someone there to check, it will ship and cause a delay or failure (like, features cut too thin on a hydraulic plunger, or too small to fit the specified nylon ring).
There's a point where mechanization goes too far. But, there also a point where it's not about us, it's about the future of humanity. It's possible that a self sustaining AI manufacturing system could sustain a human population with 90% of all people having no pressure to work in any way. That would be miserable if we kept increasing the population. There's just not enough space on Earth. If we half the population, each remaining person would have double the space to themselves... AI could sustain an artificial need for humans in jobs like animal tending and food services. We could make hot rods all day and party all night if we wanted...
Sorry, but there's a future coming. We have to imagine the logical outcomes in consideration to basic human needs and faults. Not everyone deserves to live in the mechanical garden of Eden. Capitalism has created that garden for billionaires. But, that's the same sentiment people had about your lifestyle with air conditioning and refrigeration. Those people lived through the great depression.
I think some assurance about your retirement, and an easing of your working conditions would satisfy every one of your true desires.
I would love to work with someone part time in an aerospace machine shop... But, companies won't hire me.
@@Ali-e5h1b thanks for engaging in the conversation . You make some great points. As always, just like in my case, there will be people with very high level skills who grow with technology and those who get shut out. So some paralegals will benefit immensely and the crappy clock watching ones who were doing the bare minimum will get fired and replaced. That’s what happened in my field. Gradually all the machinists who couldn’t cut it got fired as CNC machines made it possible for me to do more and more of their work. But there were plenty of jobs they could move on to that used similar skills. Much like an office manager might move on to project management or accounts receivable. I know it’s scary and people are in denial, but AI will very soon do most of any job that is done at a desk on a computer. There will not be jobs for a huge chunk of workers to "retrain" into. As far as a techno utopia goes, I’ve never experienced a corporation or wealthy person who’s primary goal wasn’t more for them and less for everyone else. We do not have the political ability to pass any legislation at this point, much less the kind of radical laws required to implement something like Universal Basic Income. Nobody in the AI space is going to come out and say "you’re screwed" but they’ve been talking right up to that line. And I’m not here gloating about how I’m safe from all this because my Blue Collar skills turned out to not be a waste of my life after all. I understand we all sink or swim together, the people who work. If 25% of office workers get fired, and I’m seeing claims of +40% productivity increases already from AI assistance, that’s Great Depression level unemployment. It can ruin the whole economy and no one will need machinists and my 401k will tank.
9:32 as a patient/customer I do not like my healthcare provider doing a broader scope of work. I want someone to have enough time to focus on accurate diagnosis and engaged thoughtful treatment-if I book a 15 or 30 min appt and f/u regularly and they still can’t get it together.
They need to have a hierarchy in place. They also need to screen out incompetent doctors better than they are.
An Artificial Intelligence Company named Palantir manages nearly 20% of the Hospital Beds in the USA right now. This company is helping to ensure that patients are neither over or under medicated among other things. People have misgivings about these technologies.
@@phil20_20Does it seem likely that AI could be used to me carefully monitor every Doctor and ensure they don't make mistakes? News flash, AI is already better than Humans when screening X-rays for Cancer and it's just getting started. It's also being used to create safer medications faster and those processes will only continue to gain momentum.
@@MTXSHO9732vV8SHO Oh yes the Peter Thiel (who seems to like fascism) founded company that specializes in mass surveillance. But hey, no worries there!
@@MTXSHO9732vV8SHO And you know what else AI is being used for? Denying care for patients at the behest of greedy Big Insurers, and since the proprietary systems are protected by "trade secrets" the decisions made can't be reviewed unless a patient has enough money to file a lawsuit if such hasn't already been nixed by fine print in a patient signed contract.
AI tech will make the Big Insurers and Big Pharma that much richer, and as usual the US citizenry will get absolutely screwed in the process.
It's not the technology, it's WHO OWNS THE TECHNOLOGY.
The super-rich and corporations are NOT your friends.
This AI movement and robotic's will leave many, many, people behind. Period.
AI will ruin humanity. The hubris is astonishing.
The guest argues that maybe the highest paid jobs may go down in pay due to AI making it less specialized and will translate to lower costs for the rest of us. That relies on the premise that corporations will pass those savings along to the consumer or person seeking a service.
I don't think that premise needs any further explanation...
Middle class outside the US does not need repair.
Other countries also don’t have Silicon Valley or the largest information based economy in the world like he spoke about in the video.
Middle class is dead everywhere. There is super rich and super poor now and gap will be even wider in near future. Those who control AI and other extreme poor people who are living day to day.
@@kutaytezcan-v4h You have never been to Scandinavia, Germany or Benelux.
@@kutaytezcan-v4h You should visit Scandinavia, Benelux, Switzerland, Germany, Canada or Australia for example.
@Pierluigi_Di_Lorenzo see how fast they will be replaced with AI. Companies only look for cheaper and better employees. Dont tell me german companies will jeep their white color employees and they are not as rich as their parents. People share homes at 30s. In the past, they were homeowner at 20s. We are getting poorer and rich people getting richer. Elon Musk is now richer than some countries, which is insane.
We need AI to reorganize our economy away from capitalism and abolish the class system all together.
Top economists struggle with forecasting FED rate cuts or foreseeing the GFC. Sorry, I don't give much credibility to the profession as a whole. They should be reclassified as economic historians. This fella is deriving some benefit from the AI hype.
Hes not considering the fact that nothing has come along that could replace SO MANY jobs at once. Automating mechanical things was absolutely disruptive like be said and caused a temporary dip. We had to deal with the speed and cost of actually building those machines then. AI can replace a much broader set of jobs much much faster. So more people will get displaced more quickly. He's not seeming to consider this.
Here is how this will likely go down. He mentions that having certain skills sets people apart as far as wages. AI will dilute those skills because the barrier to entry will be so much less with AI which will increase the supply which guess what, brings down the price to “buy” those skills. This will actually shrink the middle and you’ll have the very rich and everyone else. The very rich will be whomever holds the keys to the “tools” and anyone else with the capital to ride on their coattails.
This guy has no clue. AI is going to devastate middle income creatives
"could" is the key word. Anything "could" this or that.
😂😂😂 @8:30 -- Great question! LMAO!!
Community Colleges are underutilized.
If AI enriches the middle class, it will come at the expense of depleting people of lesser resources.
Then what are we going to do with more poor people? Although resources exist for all people now, they are sequestered by more affluent people.
Won’t that just make society overall worse? Or are those people expendable? May God help us because rich people are not helping.
Weirdest explanations of professional credentials I’ve ever heard. Almost like he was making up fun sounding examples on the spot.
Some people will win some people will lose. Fun with Finance. Buy gold.
a degree from an elite institution is getting less valuable by the day
The problem is this is a completely different type of technology. You cant evaluate it based upon other forms of historical new disruptive tech.
Keep waiting for this MIT economist to at least partially credit unions with the improvement of workers wages, benefits, and hours. But no, he says it's only happened because of skilled labor.
A.I. and A.I. with advanced robotics are going to be so much more radically disruptive than this guy is portraying in his arguments.
I agree, and he’s also not addressing the speed and scale of AI advancement. He’s talking as if AI will reach a “helpful stage” in a particular area and stay that way for years or decades.
I can’t remember his exact reference, but he talked about an unskilled worker getting a two year degree or certificate to get an AI assisted job at higher pay.
First, we don’t yet know what these programs are or will need to look like until AI is already capable of doing these helpful tasks.
Next, someone must develop these training programs based on what and where AI becomes helpful in the workplace.
Then, people need to be aware of the program and someone needs to be trained to teach it (although AI might be teaching it, in which case it can also do it). By the time people apply, get accepted, spend two years before graduating, you’re looking at roughly another 2 and a half years from the when the program is developed.
Altogether, this is potentially several years away, while at the same time, bigger and better frontier models are being released, and agents and applications are advancing at what may feel slow at times, but over several years completely upends the economy and global labor markets.
AI is different. It will out perform humans in pattern recognition, prediction, and decision making. That is what human professionals do today.
No need for radiologist, anesthesiologists, lab techs, computer programmers, scientists, accountants, financial analysts...
ironically, AI robots wont replace maids in hotels for a long time. Jobs with lots of doing in open environments are tough to make a robot good enough and cheap enough to replace maids.
But mostly sit and analyze and make decisions? That AI's sweet spot. AI can outthink the average college student already. This is very different!
2:40 - he's making a poor comparison. The tools for auto workers are robots that weld and do machine work. The CNC mill has crushed the working class. Instead of 30 manual mills, there are 3 CNC mills doing the same labor but more accurately and safely. It was a boon for the middle class that could invest salaries into machines, thus cutting year to year payroll. CNC operators range in salaries depending on the variability of the work. Some operators don't even know g code, and can't setup a fixture. Some operators can write g code and select milling parameters.
People that can properly apply ai to a task will be the new CNC level employees. Programmers still won't become middle class unless they cross train into business management. So, they'll either need agents to find contacts and bid them, or simply work for a well connected "CEO" that already has a pipeline to DOD or other sources of contracts. There won't be any new products created by AI. AI will be applied to interpreting laws, displaying information, and security. Few people will immediately trust a system that can't be interrogated without an expert team. That's where ai is today. If AI gives wrong answers, no one can exactly figure out why or how to correct it. You can't audit ai without manual ledgers. It's a pain in the ass. It's not accessible.
This is the same hype that 3d printing had back in 2018. Look how it "revolutionized" manufacturing.
AI will be limited by the human ability to audit those systems. All of the work it does will require auditing. Millions or billions of errors would go unnoticed without audits.
This seems to be another pull for investment to create a commercial contest for development. I think this is how capitalism creates innovation; the temptation of greed. The most greedy and cunning will coalesce around profits; crushing millions in their wake. The hope is that we don't bankrupt the nation before something useful is created. Otherwise, we'll end up with more companies like Nikola and Theranos.
Good luck in that rat race. The most profitable AI systems will likely be as weapons of perception manipulation, tantamount to mind control. New laws regarding advertising should be enacted now.
After listening to this mit economist it is clear AI does not offer a path to rebuilding the middle class. His examples do not prove his case, imho
Excellent interview, David does an great job of explaining how the labor market bi-furcated and how AI may impact those specialized jobs. Lots to think about!
The shelf life of this analysis is short. Once generalized artificial intelligence is developed, all of this goes out the window. If anyone thinks that the people who own that AI are going to have the best interest of the mass of workers at heart, the people who think that have not been paying attention.
Best b.s i heard in the last couple months....actually even convincing ( for some ) ..
I used to respect MIT before this video, but i just realised that they're all about technology and not sure where their funding might be coming from
...ok so for those who wanna know, i just found out...their funding sources for reseachs comes from government and industriy, among others...anyone surprised ?
FOOLS GOLD THEY WILL NEVER HELP US!
He is naming jobs that require judgement so the worker can evaluate the input of AI in order to safely use it. AI may increase skill ability in lower medical jobs, but it cannot substitute for human judgement. It will not create more jobs because one nurse or doctor can only lead so many people. It won't create very many more well paid jobs. The US Occupational Outlook Edition comes out every year, and you will see the potential "job growth" for various jobs and niches. AI will not spawn larger numbers of nurse practioners than currently projected to he needed. It may allow one nurse practitioner to care for more patients, by speeding up decision making, but there will be a limit to how many helpers with higher skills that one nurse practitioner can supervise. I don't get this man's reasoning at all. I think he does not understand the job description of healthcare workers. It's on YOU to adhere to and perform at the level of competence required by your particular level of medical license.
Are referring to the ONE-SIZE FITS ALL VERY LUCRATIVE medicine industrial complex disguised as 'health' care? The decrease costs INCREASE PROFIT industry?
Systemic greed derails all of this. Don't they ever get enough?
Wtf are you crazy it's going to destroy the middle class and by the way Mr MIT professor who is giving you money on this side of AI guarantee they're paying you dude to manipulate the numbers
What an expert explanation of expertise. I’d like my time back please.
The point Professor Autor makes after 6:00 addresses a bifurcation of the work force. Historic technology leaps have provided a proportionately small number of new high-paying occupations while a lot more people had to accept drops in their livelihoods. Why would the AI technology leap be any different in its effect on the workforces than the historic leaps?
The work force bifurcation was that the middle class shrunk as many moved into the services sector. AI provides a worker with useful information, the value is in the AI, not the worker. In other words, If the AI is providing the professional expertise, that still leaves the worker as the generic service. Thus, many of the workers would still be paid poorly.
Additionally, the historic transitions of the labor forces have involved severe suffering. How will we respond if AI causes the same phenomena? Having been “bifurcated” in 2002, I would not like to have it happen again. And I have a BS, MS, and PhD.
I think the MIT professor needs to study greed
Helpful perspective to share. Thanks
Thanks for tuning in. We appreciate you!
this guy has no idea what he is talking about !
Lol
This was a really interesting piece and perspective. In a way, it reminds me of ideas about how AR could enable semi-expertise. For instance, an AR display and speaker could direct an average joe into installing a new washer-dryer, fixing a car issue, etc. Things that require knowledge and a body, where the AI/AR system is the knowledge and the human is the body.
That said, one has to wonder how much need there'll be for human bodies to do things once automation is able to do ever more aspects of jobs.
I found this interview very helpful in understanding how today's next technological evolution can differ from previous eras, like the industrial evolution or the early stages of the information revolution. I try not to fear change, but AI seems to be more threatening than helpful, so it helps to hear other potentially positive perspectives to help think about how AI can change my own industry. I'm still trying to figure it out, as is most of corporate America, and definitely don't want to be caught on the wrong side of AI's rollout. Thanks for these long-form interviews. I enjoy all of your interviews and learn something from each of them.
And someday, with the right evolutionary choices, pigs could fly.
"AI" was invented to replace human workers. That is its primary purpose.
What a great discussion and excellent guest. Thank you.
Wouldn’t need to rebuild if you didn’t destroy them
I don't think the guest considered AGI powered robots who will perform alot of the manual, semi-skilled labour as well
AI can help rebuild the American Middle class as long as we don’t share this advantage with other countries.
AI is not new, and it’s not a scientific mystery to everyone but US scientists, either. There are two reasons it has gained so much traction recently: First, computers are almost powerful enough now to process the massive amounts of scientific, legal, and cultural information needed to solve the world’s big problems; and second, all that information is available today digitally, rather than in print form in books and academic journals. It’s simply not possible to keep the know-how to design, build, and train AI systems within the borders of the US. That war was lost many years ago.
Would have been great if this covered the impact of the rapid pace of progress to automate or replace jobs with both AI, Embodied AI(robots), maybe AGI in the short to medium term, leading mass job losses for who knows how long and that period of transition to the positives of AI. This will be in the next 3 to 5 years, depending on the rate of progress. What is being done about that? How do people prepare and transition? What support and plan is being put in place now?
As a frequent watcher of Amanpour & Co, I'd say this was the least convincing of your guests.
I do agree with the point that AI is a different kind of computation, as it is probabilistic/extrapolating and generative, in contrast to the 100% logical predetermined ways of traditional computing. we’ll be using this everywhere in the coming decades, starting with replacing low level human judgement tasks and moving up to more complex decision making. AI can already do most of brain work humans are doing.
As AI gets better meaning it gains expertise it will eventually take human expertise jobs too. So w no jobs who has money to buy anything? What kind of economics is that? Is seems the only ones that are desperate for AI are those creating it.
MIT in Massachusetts? Sounds like he might have been paid to share this delusional idea.
Ditto what Beetoven said. Two MIT economists (Daron Acemoglu & Simon Johnson) put forth in their book, Power & Progress, that in the grand sweep of history, advances in technology are positive for prosperity. Yet in the span of years and decades over which lives are lived, the losers outnumber the winners. My experiences are the the benefits of technology do NOT trickle down from the top who hang on to as much as they can and for as long as they can. For example and as Beetoven mentioned, the Industrial Revolution made the owners rich but it took many decades for the workers to have any significant gains in wages. Take Lyft & Uber as current examples. Shareholders and execs got filthy rich while the commercial taxi business got decimated and Lyft/Uber drivers are still fighting for a living wage. Tom Orlik of BusinessWeek noted that "The AI revolution is lifting the market value of US businesses, but history tells us it may not do the same for workers."
I say the computer and AI will continue elevate our best and leave the rest of us to fight for scraps.
Service jobs don't pay low because they "don't require expertise", they pay low because our society does not value the types of "expertise" that service jobs require. What makes AI scary is not that it will somehow objectively devalue skill sets or labor, rather that it will greatly facilitate the employer's ability to determine a lower value for those skill set or labor. WE NEED TO CHANGE THE WAY WE VALUE OURSELVES, OUR LIVES, AND THE PEOPLE AROUND US, then we can all benefit from the changes that technology allows for.
Are education systems here in the U.S. ready to support this?
A good insight into the subject though your understanding of the NP and current MD roles is not deep. No one reads these comments so I won’t elaborate, but if you’re going to use healthcare to illuminate this issue, you need to expand your knowledge
Ai is good for CEOs, bad for repeative workers.
I find Christiane's voice, articulation, and cadence magical.
He sounds very excited about lowering everyones income. Will be so much cheaper when everyone else makes less
Great discussion! No disrespect to Dr Autor… I’m still giving AI the side eye.
Labor economist, hum. Helping the economy...for whom? Air traffic controller...lovely choice. Let's all take a moment to remember Reagan and air traffic controllers. I feel like someone for a labor discussion is missing here. His name is Sean Fain.
We are either going to have a star trek like future or we will all essentially become a slave class. It depends on how much the top is willing to share with everyone else. Not feeling terribly hopeful. The level of human suffering that would need to happen to convince the billionaire class that we all deserve decent lives is unimaginable to me. I dont think there is any level of suffering that will convince the CEO class to give up some wealth.
Wishful thinking of the Anglo kind. Nah, he's no Adam Smith.
Heres whatll restore the middle class.
Political action, strikes, protests.
All terms thatll push this comment to nothing on the yt algo
No it wont. Anti corruption measures - that what helps
This has to be the most nieve headline ever.
It won't. I'm old. I've heard that BS before. Middle class people will be working the drive thru at Burger King if they're lucky.
Perhaps we could have that guy with the high school diploma do this MIT profs job (with the correct AI support and training of course) - yeah, I don't think so.
3:00 productivity grew, and so did wealth disparities. The owners of technology and machines grew wealthy. That means everyone else will become poorer. We can't afford to compete. We would be wasting trillions if we tried. Sure you can complete with Ford, but there's no other markets. We have too many disposable cars as it is.
The same with food service. The margins are even slimmer there. This is just a race to be first on the block.
No it won't, it'll make paperclips out of the universe.
AI will lead to job losses and we will need ubi!
Delusional.
From personal observation: LLMs can 10x the productivity of an experienced programmer. However they can 50x the productivity of an inexperienced programmer.
I can only imagine Prof. Autor, ran Econometric linear regressions analyses using Differences of Differences techniques, et. al. of actual historical data to make a comparative assertion that AI will significantly rebuild the middle class? I am glad Prof. Autor used Econ. History to set the stage as a comp. parm. I for one, was a huge Econ. History nerd as an undergrad. Econ. Major grad. Let the data actually show the impact using deductive reasoning. In legal, Prof. Resp. Ethics, especially in litigation has slowed the use of AI as lawyers do not understand the algorithms and have difficulty explaining it in their court briefs and arguments.
It's definitely reshaping urban life and avenues that haven't faced such changes in over a century.
It's just organically and naturally where it cheaply can go.
They messed around with cars, but like it or not any bot that can randomly walk up to any environment and wash dishes is held way back from cheap repeatable knowledge based jobs
Gerb wsntab lubnsg gerb bahig ferbl
Artificial Intelligence should lead to Utopias of creative social commingling and cohabitation with modern monetary economics.....
Wait a New York minute, that sounds like Socialism !?