Stanford Economist Now Believes an AI Job Apocalypse Is Unlikely (washingtonpost.com) 65
"There is still no sign of economy-wide job destruction," says economist Erik Brynjolfsson. Working with researchers at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab, Brynjolfsson has determined an AI "job apocalypse" is unlikely, reports the Washington Post, "even though it will likely impact entry-level jobs."
And Brynjolfsson "predicts that demand for experienced workers such as senior coders will still be high even if AI takes on more routine knowledge and coding work in the future." Earlier this month, Brynjolfsson and his colleagues at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab updated their widely publicized report, "Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence," to reflect that they do not see widespread, economy-wide job displacement associated with AI...
Brynjolfsson: What has moved on the upside is productivity. Nonfarm business productivity growth is running over 2 percent, the best sustained stretch since the late-1990s boom... The gains show up years after the investment, and they're starting to show up... By 2030, we will have enormously more capable AI, meaningfully faster productivity growth and an unemployment rate that looks unremarkable — somewhere in its historical range. That surprises people, but it's what the mechanism implies... [T]he technology is becoming much more powerful, and it's going to be even more powerful.
Secondly, there are huge implications for business and the economy, including some increases in living standards, but also, potentially, job disruption. And then, thirdly, we must act now to address this gap. We can't just sit back and wait for the tsunami to hit us. And one of the things we can do is put in place institutions, policies and research to make the technology more complementary — using AI to complement people so it creates more jobs. A common misconception among business managers is AI, in order to be effective, has to reduce jobs. That's just not true. You can use AI to increase employment and productivity at the same time. It's kind of a win-win...
Right now, tax policy is very skewed toward favoring capital versus labor — and, as a consequence, a lot of entrepreneurs and managers, they're basically being guided by the federal government to replace workers with machines. And I don't think that's necessarily what we'd like to have happen. From an economist's perspective, what you want to be doing is not mimicking and replacing things. You want to be extending and complementing — have humans do new things they never could have done before.
He acknowledges "real, persistent and widening" effects on entry-level jobs, with a labor market "closing the on-ramp for people starting their careers... If companies don't hire people at the base of the pyramid, then they're not going to have those people later when they need them."
One he points out that one company is instead using AI to speed up its training of young employees.
And Brynjolfsson "predicts that demand for experienced workers such as senior coders will still be high even if AI takes on more routine knowledge and coding work in the future." Earlier this month, Brynjolfsson and his colleagues at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab updated their widely publicized report, "Canaries in the Coal Mine? Six Facts about the Recent Employment Effects of Artificial Intelligence," to reflect that they do not see widespread, economy-wide job displacement associated with AI...
Brynjolfsson: What has moved on the upside is productivity. Nonfarm business productivity growth is running over 2 percent, the best sustained stretch since the late-1990s boom... The gains show up years after the investment, and they're starting to show up... By 2030, we will have enormously more capable AI, meaningfully faster productivity growth and an unemployment rate that looks unremarkable — somewhere in its historical range. That surprises people, but it's what the mechanism implies... [T]he technology is becoming much more powerful, and it's going to be even more powerful.
Secondly, there are huge implications for business and the economy, including some increases in living standards, but also, potentially, job disruption. And then, thirdly, we must act now to address this gap. We can't just sit back and wait for the tsunami to hit us. And one of the things we can do is put in place institutions, policies and research to make the technology more complementary — using AI to complement people so it creates more jobs. A common misconception among business managers is AI, in order to be effective, has to reduce jobs. That's just not true. You can use AI to increase employment and productivity at the same time. It's kind of a win-win...
Right now, tax policy is very skewed toward favoring capital versus labor — and, as a consequence, a lot of entrepreneurs and managers, they're basically being guided by the federal government to replace workers with machines. And I don't think that's necessarily what we'd like to have happen. From an economist's perspective, what you want to be doing is not mimicking and replacing things. You want to be extending and complementing — have humans do new things they never could have done before.
He acknowledges "real, persistent and widening" effects on entry-level jobs, with a labor market "closing the on-ramp for people starting their careers... If companies don't hire people at the base of the pyramid, then they're not going to have those people later when they need them."
One he points out that one company is instead using AI to speed up its training of young employees.
Do AIs want to make you stupid? (Score:2)
I think it's funny because the AIs (including AC, of course) are training the humans to be stupid so they will buy profitable garbage that hurts the customers who bought it and vote for corrupt politicians who will harm the voters who voted for them. In reinforcement terms, shallow, trivial, and I dare say stupid questions get "meaningful" answers while deep questions result in negative reinforcement with increasingly ridiculous hallucinations, falsehoods, and I dare say directed lies. (The directors includ
Re: Do AIs want to make you stupid? (Score:3)
All the answers that AIs provides are something hunans have made and then that knowledge is scraped from the web.
If you need something truly original you need a human.
Biased news from the start (Score:4, Insightful)
> Erik Brynjolfsson. Working with researchers at the Stanford Digital Economy Lab
A "news" article, supposedly unbiased, quoting an expert who works with the people whose job it is to research, get paid for, and promote AI technology.
A major newspaper should know better than to quote a person who profits from AI about whether or not AI is good for regular people's job prospects.
And take into consideration that the Washington Post is owned by something which sells AI based cloud services.
The old joke about Economists. (Score:2)
Regardless of what they're on about or who's paying them I'd take it with a huge grain of salt.
Death of Expertise (Score:5, Insightful)
The apocalypse isn't job replacement, it's job training. ALL of the entry level jobs in most industries are going to be replaced by AI, and there will be no jobs available to train up the next set of tier 2 and 3 employees. The apprenticeship model that most of the world relies on is going to collapse. It will take a decade to realize the losses and by then it will be too late to train replacements.
Re: (Score:3)
I expect the prevailing thinking among the so called "tech giants" is that before the loss of level 1 talent would normally impact level 2, AI will be replacing level 2, and so on up the chain.
It's a risky gamble but the end game is clear - the job market WILL be disrupted and the ramifications of so many displaced workers may provoke an uprising.
Re: Death of Expertise (Score:1, Interesting)
I don't believe either of these will happen. I think it's more likely to lower the barrier to entry. This was, in fact, exactly why the Luddites did what they did. In my case, AI has been a useful learning tool for fields I have no expertise in, or adjacent ones I've never touched. Sometimes it's just an incredibly powerful search engine, and sometimes it leads by example. It's because of AI that I have started to do frontend work -- without it I'd have needed to take a course, and even then it would have t
Re: Death of Expertise (Score:4, Insightful)
Except if you lower the entry-point to get to Lvl 2 while getting rid of Lvl 1, then you get total morons who wouldn't even be considered for Lvl 1 doing Lvl 2 work... so, what did all that accomplish?
Higher labor demand? What labor? There's less and less actual labor (y'know... us blue-collar workers) regular jobs and more and more office jobs for those who have the fancy piece of paper.
How do you increase demand for labor when manufacturers are looking to have less meatsacks around by AI-enabled automating away more and more jobs and having more jobs done by one person? Of course, us blue-collars could go get us some of that edumacation, but not many of us have $200k sitting around, don't qualify for scholarships, can't afford to have another loan (the ones for the house and ten-year old truck dun used up muh credit), and don't have the time while working our lower-paying jobs and providing for the family of lil' uns'.
irreverentdiscourse and Sethra both have it right.
Re: (Score:2)
Except if you lower the entry-point to get to Lvl 2 while getting rid of Lvl 1, then you get total morons who wouldn't even be considered for Lvl 1 doing Lvl 2 work... so, what did all that accomplish?
Or, more likely, they both just change in ways you never expected. How precisely they change depends on the job, but I don't foresee businesses putting people into jobs they're unqualified for any more than they already do. It just doesn't make business sense, and any who do that will feel the consequences of it one way or another. If the economy worked the way you seem to think it does, we wouldn't have a functional economy right now.
Higher labor demand? What labor? There's less and less actual labor (y'know... us blue-collar workers) regular jobs and more and more office jobs for those who have the fancy piece of paper.
Actually that youtube video I linked addresses this. I did put it there f
Re: Death of Expertise (Score:2)
These total morons basically got rid of the need for experts as ai made them look good.
Even worse is slightly smart folks who know enough can make things that took a team of developers years ago.
Ai basically gets rid of the experts and raises the morons.
Re: (Score:3)
Last week I was struggling with sharing my main computer's resources with 3 other windows 11 machines. I used ChatGPT to navigate the details and got it done under the AI's direction. It all works now.
Then it hit me after the AI offered me the equivalent of a network engineering and Windows 11 systems administration set of courses, giving me the number of hours it thought it would take me to learn it, and so forth. I remember the Win 11 sys admin knowledge was estimated at 1000 hours. (wow). But treati
Re: (Score:3)
Its already too late. New grads used AI to cheat on their homework, so they aren't qualified for entry level positions anyway.
America's lack of nuance is pissing me off (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah we're not all immediately going to lose our jobs.
That's not the problem. The problem is we already are in a scenario where we have two good jobs for every five people. A good job here is something that lets you afford a one-bedroom apartment by yourself in a city that consistently has employment.
Oh here is where a bunch of people dig up lower cost apartments and places with little or no economic activity or job
Re: America's lack of nuance is pissing me off (Score:3)
Pretty much. The rich and powerful figured out how to manipulate the sentiment of a large portion of the US. They convinced Americans that acting in their own best interest is playing into the hands of some boogeyman named Socialism or Washington Elite. Even the people who taught me to think critically as a child were swallowed by the MAGA wave.
The political opponents that should charge to the rescue are tripping over their own feet in an orgy of ineptitude.
I forget this was an AI thread. Sorry.
It's the woke agenda now (Score:1)
What's going to be fun is in 2032 when Trump's going into his fourth term and all these old fucking farts who sold us out so they could freak out about trans girls in sports and drag queens reading books lose $500 a month of social security money and become h
Re: (Score:2)
Or you could do the rest of us a favor and off yourself now, you whiny ass.
Re: It's the woke agenda now (Score:2)
Oh go fuck yourself (Score:2)
There is absolutely no reason why everything can't be fine but guys like you are so fucking stupid you think you're part of the in group and that when the shit hits the fan Trump has your back. He hates you. You disgust him. When you showed up on January 6th to make him King he was pissed off how low class and how m
Re: Oh go fuck yourself (Score:2)
Re: Oh go fuck yourself (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Theres a psychological hook with these dudes that is nefariously hard to correct for.
Theres pretty well documented evidence that peoples voting preferences correlate strongly with certain brain structures and essentially the more fearful you are, the more likely your going to vote right wing. The thing is, the people running the show with the current clown-car administration know this. They know that by constantly creating a climate of fear and uncertainty, with a constant parade of devils and outrages, the
Same old, same old (Score:3, Interesting)
But just like every disruptive thing in the past, things just change, not ending up with mass unemployment and people starving in the streets.
We just adjust our skillsets, and move on. I've changed my skillset several times since I first entered the workforce in the 70's. Possible issues? Ya gotta enjoy learning. But that hasn't actually changed.
Now, for people who want to get their first job, and have it remain unchanged until they retire - that's always been a different story. They are the ones who become redundant very early, often the "I got laid off at 50, now I can't get a job!"
At present, AI will likely eliminate some lower level programming. So people will need to move on from that. Really proficient programmers will still be working. It's good to become proficient.
It isn't to say that AI doesn't have teething problems - the present paradigm of AI datacenter eventually doubling a nation's power consumption is a non-starter. As AI improves it will likely be condensed in power needs - a lot.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, the old it'll never happen because it's never happened before argument.
Dropped dow to coward level to disagree with me. Even though you have to log in as you. You are the true definition of coward. Ewwwwwwwww!
Probably after all the jobs are gone, humanity won't mind when you starve to death.
How Elites Captured Capitalism (Score:2)
The definition of "job" needs tightening (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
"Economist" should be one of the easiest jobs to replace with AI. Ir's not as though they ever do much other than says whatever their employer wants them to say.
Your prejudice against economics is showing (Score:2)
The fact that the bump in the road of the 2008 financial crisis didn't result in a 1930s style depression is because economics has found out how to prevent that outcome. Ignoring that fact is foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
It's because the government threw vast amounts of cheap credit into the economy which turned a short-term crash into a long-term depression where kids can't afford houses and the cost of living is increasing by far more than the fake inflation figures economists churn out.
And it's also why we now have a Potemkin economy where nothing really works and we pretend to get rich by selling houses to each other at ever-increasing prices.
The 1930s depression was also caused by economists who refused to let things c
You have no idea how bad the 1930s were (Score:2)
I suggest a watch of 'The Grapes of Wrath' or some of the documentaries about the period; calling the present period 'depression' is absurd. Yes, housing is far too expensive. This is caused by three factors:
1) Nimbys refusing to allow new housing
2) High building costs
3) High land costs
Only the third is blameable on the quantitive easing post 2008.
Re: (Score:1)
It seems that in all the news about "jobs" in the US, the definition used is "job == someone does something for money". Which results in completely different reporting than if the definition of "job" used was "working position that dependably earns someone a livable income".
Livable income is money. And I suspect you are one who says - "From each, according to their ability, to each according to their needs. I understand that for economists, a world where every human works 3 gig-economy jobs may appear 3 times as good as one where humans need just one job to make enough money for a living, but most people do not fancy a future where all the (previously well paid) jobs are done by some robot.
Did you know in America, we're all starving in the streets, because no one has any mon
Re: (Score:2)
That's some serious verbal diarrhea...
Re: (Score:2)
That's some serious verbal diarrhea...
You could have disagreed, But you put the pinnacle of your intellect on display for the world to see.
Honeychild, give mommy and daddy their computer back, because 5th grader playground insults are so 5th grade.
Re: (Score:1)
Without doing something for some money, you can't buy the bare necessities to survive.
Working in a position that dependable earns someone a (sometimes, comfortably) livable income, typically refers to someone having a degree and all that.
Gig-economy jobs can work, but once too many people are out of work because of _Progress_, that 'too many people' will be fighting eachother to get those few gig jobs.
My job is now reviewing AI code (Score:3)
The only way I can do work that is because I spent years writing code.
How does someone now in college prepare themselves to do my job by forcing themselves to *write* code, knowing an AI can write it better 9 times out of 10 ?
I hope CS professors are focusing on that.
Re: (Score:2)
My job is now creating good instructions for the AI then reviewing code written by the AI. The only way I can do work that is because I spent years writing code.
How does someone now in college prepare themselves to do my job by forcing themselves to *write* code, knowing an AI can write it better 9 times out of 10 ?
My best guess is that as time progresses, and code writing becomes better, that you serve as a transition person. Likely by the time you retire, checking the code will be less of an issue.
Re: (Score:2)
Is AI code getting better? (Score:2)
Are you needing to make less and less interventions? If so, you may be redundant soon...
Re: (Score:2)
I do think future models will actually be better, but I don't believe they will never need guidance and review.
Interesting reply, thank you. (Score:2)
n/t
Re: (Score:3)
There's no shortcut to experience. "Debugging is twice as hard as writing code" - why do people think this does not apply to reviewing? If you can't write the code, you can't review it effectively. The moment the code doesn't do 100% what you want, you have to debug it anyway. Students have to write shitty code, to understand why it's shitty, and then improve it. They need to hone their skills. There's no shortcut to that, as the premise is you spend time honing them, which includes failing as much as succe
Re: Mental disorder (Score:2)
I found some examples of anxiety-inducing statements that have been handed to the American people in the last couple years:
âoeChicago about to find out why it's called the Department of WAR.â
âoeItâ(TM)s called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand â" We wonâ(TM)t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.â
"There will be no food, there will be no h
Re: Mental disorder (Score:2)
I just learned a lesson about copying and pasting into the browser on my phone. It's mangled. I can barely read my own post.
Re: Mental disorder (Score:2)
Tsunami (Score:2)
I read TFS. "We canâ(TM)t just sit back and wait for the tsunami to hit us" does not match the title of "apocalypse unlikely"
Where do Senior Developers come from? Thin air? (Score:4, Insightful)
I keep reading that AI will be replacing junior positions and that senior positions will still be in demand. Where will the next generation of senior developers come from? How will the develop their skills if AI is removing the junior roles?
Re: (Score:1)
Of course, thin air (also known as: the guy who got the senior title because his dad is golfing buddies with the current senior) is where they come from.
"no sign of economy-wide job destruction" (Score:2)
Except the continued layoffs of tens of thousands of people, the multitudes losing their homes because they haven't been able to find a job, etc. etc.
Nero fiddles while Rome burns.
The end is nigh (Score:2)
Really. Truly. For SURE this time.
Look, depending on who you ask, the sky is falling, the market is going to collapse next week, the icecaps are
melting, the Earth is overheating, sea levels are rising, the Rapture is upon us, some bubble is about to pop, the Singularity
is near, AI will enslave us all and we are living in the end times.
There doesn't seem to be a day that goes by that some doomer isn't out there spouting a story about some apocalypse
level catastrophe that is right around the corner.
( Coinc
Civilization collapse (Score:2)
Collapse generally takes decades or centuries. For the current global interconnected civilization it will likely take longer, as this civilizatoin has been quite stable since the Great Divergence of the 15th or 16th century.
Reliable accounts of people during a civilization collapse are essentially nonexistent, and the retelling likely benefits from hindsight. That said, it seems unlikely that anyone living through it would have been able to confidently identity a collapse that was due to systemic human-caus
Jobs are being degraded. (Score:1)