AI will create millions more jobs than are lost because of economic growth

AI and related technologies such as robots, drones and autonomous vehicles could provide a net boost to employment in China of around 12% over the next two decades, equating to around 90 million additional jobs.

Around 26% of existing jobs in China could be automated over the next 20 years, but this is projected to be more than offset by job creation of 38%, giving an estimated net gain of 12%.

Services (+29%) and construction (+23%) could see the largest net increases in jobs by 2037 in China, offset by estimated net job losses of around 10% in agriculture.

PwC estimates that the boost from AI and related technologies to economic growth in China could create millions of new jobs, more than offsetting displacement of existing jobs. But the report argues there is no room for complacency given the projected scale of disruption to the labor market from these technologies.

This new analysis for China contrasts with PwC’s earlier research suggesting a broadly neutral net impact of AI and related technologies on jobs in the UK. In that analysis, PwC found that these technologies could displace around 20% of existing UK jobs by 2037, but could create a similar number of additional jobs by boosting economic growth. Based on previous research, PwC judges that results for the UK are likely to be broadly similar to the average across OECD countries.

Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots, but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.

163 thoughts on “AI will create millions more jobs than are lost because of economic growth”

  1. I don’t think it is as complicated as that. Keynes’s problem is that he pointed out that the economy won’t fix itself in a timely manner, which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won’t be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.

  2. I don’t think it is as complicated as that. Keynes’s problem is that he pointed out that the economy won’t fix itself in a timely manner which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won’t be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.

  3. I don’t think it is as complicated as that. Keynes’s problem is that he pointed out that the economy won’t fix itself in a timely manner, which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won’t be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.

  4. I don’t think it is as complicated as that. Keynes’s problem is that he pointed out that the economy won’t fix itself in a timely manner which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won’t be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.

  5. I don’t think it is as complicated as that. Keynes’s problem is that he pointed out that the economy won’t fix itself in a timely manner, which meant that the government might have to interfere with the economy to expedite its recovery. Many capitalist prefer the concept of laissez-faire because it gives them a free hand to rip people off. We must always remember that no manner how painful a Depression or a Recession is there are people who will profit quite well from it and these people won’t be happy with a quick recovery. Vultures always eat quite well during a drought or a famine.

  6. You’ve missed the point of UBI. Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point, which is why their arguments don’t make sense, the math doesn’t work, and various trials around the world have all failed. UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any), because, as you point out, it’s just too expensive. UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of “AIs are so productive that (30%? 50% 90%??) of humans are unemployable”. Under those circumstances, the government CAN grab say 5% of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class. Of course people read this, think it sounds idyllic, think that it would be cool NOW, and then can’t work out why it can’t be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.

  7. You’ve missed the point of UBI.Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point which is why their arguments don’t make sense the math doesn’t work and various trials around the world have all failed.UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any) because as you point out it’s just too expensive.UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of AIs are so productive that (30{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}? 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}??) of humans are unemployable””.Under those circumstances”” the government CAN grab say 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class.Of course people read this think it sounds idyllic think that it would be cool NOW”” and then can’t work out why it can’t be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.”””

  8. What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau. And you fully know what that term means. You just don’t want to admit it. So you play games. Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn’t exactly hide yourself well.

  9. What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau.And you fully know what that term means. You just don’t want to admit it. So you play games.Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn’t exactly hide yourself well.

  10. It’s comical that you think i’m a leftist.””I said you were a wu mau. Learn to read.”””

  11. I hope the robots take over everything one day, it’s be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course, life will get dull very quickly unless there’s a new focus on what “living” actually entails once we’re not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.

  12. I hope the robots take over everything one day it’s be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course life will get dull very quickly unless there’s a new focus on what living”” actually entails once we’re not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.”””

  13. What nonsense. A new job is created, do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day, and costs $8/hr, or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K, but works 23 hrs a day, spends a hr recharging, and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr? Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.

  14. What nonsense. A new job is created do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day and costs $8/hr or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K but works 23 hrs a day spends a hr recharging and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr?Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.

  15. Mostly the lost of jobs hype. What normally happens when there is an improvement in productivity in a particular type of job there is a lost of jobs in that field. But the workers eventually migrate to other types of jobs. The same thing will happen as it had happened time and time again. The consumers will pay less for the product produced thru improved productivity which will leave them money to buy other products and services. And the increased demand for these products and services will generated new jobs.

  16. Mostly the lost of jobs hype. What normally happens when there is an improvement in productivity in a particular type of job there is a lost of jobs in that field. But the workers eventually migrate to other types of jobs. The same thing will happen as it had happened time and time again. The consumers will pay less for the product produced thru improved productivity which will leave them money to buy other products and services. And the increased demand for these products and services will generated new jobs.

  17. Wanna bet that you can’t ‘shut’ me up? You can’t see through anything. You’re too ignorant. It’s comical that you think i’m a leftist. You just don’t know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists, you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don’t have a convincing argument.

  18. Wanna bet that you can’t ‘shut’ me up?You can’t see through anything. You’re too ignorant. It’s comical that you think i’m a leftist. You just don’t know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don’t have a convincing argument.

  19. STFU, wu mau scûm! The rest of us see right through your bûllsh!t. Tell Beijing that during your next status update meeting.

  20. STFU wu mau scûm!The rest of us see right through your bûllsh!t. Tell Beijing that during your next status update meeting.”

  21. You’ve missed the point of UBI.

    Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point, which is why their arguments don’t make sense, the math doesn’t work, and various trials around the world have all failed.

    UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any), because, as you point out, it’s just too expensive.
    UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of “AIs are so productive that (30%? 50% 90%??) of humans are unemployable”.
    Under those circumstances, the government CAN grab say 5% of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class.

    Of course people read this, think it sounds idyllic, think that it would be cool NOW, and then can’t work out why it can’t be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.

  22. What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau.

    And you fully know what that term means. You just don’t want to admit it. So you play games.

    Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn’t exactly hide yourself well.

  23. I hope the robots take over everything one day, it’s be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course, life will get dull very quickly unless there’s a new focus on what “living” actually entails once we’re not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.

  24. You are right, AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan, for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing. China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire, then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much, much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this. Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.

  25. You are right AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing.China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this. Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.

  26. What nonsense. A new job is created, do you hire the human who works 8 hrs a day, and costs $8/hr, or do you buy a AI enabled android who costs 40K, but works 23 hrs a day, spends a hr recharging, and does so for less then $1/hr? Or do you rent one for $3/hr?

    Theres NOTHING humans will be better at eventually. And once that occurs those newly created jobs will not be filled by them. PERIOD.

  27. Mostly the lost of jobs hype. What normally happens when there is an improvement in productivity in a particular type of job there is a lost of jobs in that field. But the workers eventually migrate to other types of jobs. The same thing will happen as it had happened time and time again.

    The consumers will pay less for the product produced thru improved productivity which will leave them money to buy other products and services. And the increased demand for these products and services will generated new jobs.

  28. Wanna bet that you can’t ‘shut’ me up?

    You can’t see through anything. You’re too ignorant. It’s comical that you think i’m a leftist. You just don’t know how far to the left YOU are! And as is usual for leftists, you attack the person and ignore the argument when you don’t have a convincing argument.

  29. A limit of how many of everything, but no limit on the number of things. In other words, the author is right and you’re wrong.

  30. A limit of how many of everything but no limit on the number of things. In other words the author is right and you’re wrong.

  31. You are right, AI will help China be more productive as their population decreases. Same goes for Japan, for example. that might be good for the productivity of the country (or company) but not necessarily for the individual. It all depends on where the workers are and timing.

    China may lose about 150m-180m in their working population between now and 2050 (aging demos). They have currently about 120m manufacturing workers. You could argue that if automation reduces the number of factory employees at the rate they retire, then no problems. But automation labor-displacement is much, much faster. HonHai can reduce their labor force in China by about 900k-1m and replace it with a force of 10-20k in various regions around the world. So they are doing this.

    Modern automation is sudden. Demographics is gradual.

  32. In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed, who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly, many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers. Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.

  33. In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers.Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.

  34. UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI, Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don’t have much income, it’s in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk’s Tesla shares, Bezos’ Amazon shares, Brin’s Google shares, liquidating Buffett’s empire, etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets, like Musk, bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money. You can confiscate all the income of the top 1%. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21% of all adjusted gross income. Is 21% of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1% are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then? I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries. The UBI debate is a great example of how people can’t think ahead, or unable to. I don’t expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..

  35. UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don’t have much income it’s in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk’s Tesla shares Bezos’ Amazon shares Brin’s Google shares liquidating Buffett’s empire etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets like Musk bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money.You can confiscate all the income of the top 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of all adjusted gross income. Is 21{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then?I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries. The UBI debate is a great example of how people can’t think ahead or unable to. I don’t expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..

  36. A couple of points: – China is still around 40% rural and that will decline. So they’ve likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs, even as agriculture gets more automated. – In 20 years, China’s population will have peaked, but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5% smaller. But since the working age population will be about the same size, they’d currently have to have over 12% unemployed to take on the 12% excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years, the 12% figure could work out numerically…

  37. A couple of points: – China is still around 40{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} rural and that will decline. So they’ve likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs even as agriculture gets more automated.- In 20 years China’s population will have peaked but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} smaller.But since the working age population will be about the same size they’d currently have to have over 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} unemployed to take on the 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years the 12{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} figure could work out numerically…

  38. Do you think it is a meaningful state for humans to have no other purpose than to consume goods? I think that it is a terrible idea for people to loose the one thing that anchors them to normal behavior: work. I see a lot of people being able to wage social wars, and nobody busy with normal chores….

  39. Do you think it is a meaningful state for humans to have no other purpose than to consume goods? I think that it is a terrible idea for people to loose the one thing that anchors them to normal behavior: work. I see a lot of people being able to wage social wars and nobody busy with normal chores….

  40. Well, China has demographic issues that were going to cause labor shortages in the future so maybe it’s true that the impact of AI won’t be as sharp there but the same is not true here in the US.

  41. Well China has demographic issues that were going to cause labor shortages in the future so maybe it’s true that the impact of AI won’t be as sharp there but the same is not true here in the US.

  42. In Japan there are as many job openings as unemployed, who do not have the qualifications for the positions. Similarly, many manufacturers in the Midwest cannot find workers to fill their technical positions and are forced to use robots or train workers.

    Disregard any projections beyond a few years. The employment situation now is a good indication of future prospects and problems.

  43. In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that. And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.

  44. In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that.And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.

  45. New jobs will be something like posting bullsh!t blog posts that propagandize what our AI Overlords want propagandized, I would imagine.

  46. New jobs will be something like posting bullsh!t blog posts that propagandize what our AI Overlords want propagandized I would imagine.

  47. Holy Krap! Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing, despite the fact that we don’t agree on a lot. Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing! You Mark, Goatguy…and of course you can count me in, as well.

  48. Holy Krap!Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing despite the fact that we don’t agree on a lot.Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing!You Mark Goatguy…and of course you can count me in as well.

  49. Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots, but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.” BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own, how many homes, how many of everything. Services, not so much but still there’s an upper limit to most of those also. This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn’t deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns.

  50. Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots” but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.””BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own”” how many homes how many of everything. Services”” not so much but still there’s an upper limit to most of those also.This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn’t deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns.”””

  51. UBI is nonsensical. To fund UBI, Uncle Sam would have to confiscate wealth (the real rich don’t have much income, it’s in wealth). That means nationalizing Musk’s Tesla shares, Bezos’ Amazon shares, Brin’s Google shares, liquidating Buffett’s empire, etc for instance. Then what? To convert it into cash (to pay for UBI) they have to find a buyer. But buyers are nowhere because the government has taken their money. And some assets, like Musk, bleed cash. I guess you can simply print money and give it to people. That will last about as long as the stuff people want to buy is no longer being produced because the companies that make the stuff no longer have any money.

    You can confiscate all the income of the top 1%. They make about $500k a year in median income and account for about 21% of all adjusted gross income. Is 21% of ALL income enough to spread out to the mass unemployed? No. Then what do you do in year 2? The 1% are probably not that keen to work much because whatever they make will be taken. Where will you take the money from then?

    I guess you can go full retard and do a Mao or Lenin and go communist. Then rest assured having UBI is the least of your worries.

    The UBI debate is a great example of how people can’t think ahead, or unable to.

    I don’t expect a bloodbath. Humans are fairly complacent. The richest of the rich can give everyone VR helmets and let them play Fortnite and put Xanax in the food chain. Oh wait…..

  52. A couple of points:
    – China is still around 40% rural and that will decline. So they’ve likely got a lot of economic growth that can create new urban jobs, even as agriculture gets more automated.

    – In 20 years, China’s population will have peaked, but will have only declined back close to where it is now. Total working age population will be only about 1.5% smaller.

    But since the working age population will be about the same size, they’d currently have to have over 12% unemployed to take on the 12% excess new jobs. I guess if many jobs are only part time in 20 years, the 12% figure could work out numerically…

  53. Do you think it is a meaningful state for humans to have no other purpose than to consume goods? I think that it is a terrible idea for people to loose the one thing that anchors them to normal behavior: work. I see a lot of people being able to wage social wars, and nobody busy with normal chores….

  54. Myself, I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder, what exactly are ordinary people going to do? AIs will by definition have no particular form. They’re like brains compared to bodies. AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile, some on wheels, some bipedal, some quadrapedal. Some bugforms, some like eels, fish; some attached to walls, to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning. If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald’s eatery kitchen, what would the ‘bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first), but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries, burgers, buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms, cameras, claspers and actuators, to roast things, fry things, make burgers, fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald’s kitchen today, it probably will take 10 or more ‘bots of various forms to produce the same product line. But the difference couldn’t be clearer: once “the bugs” are worked out, the ‘bot + AI powered McDonald’s fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in, the output won’t have missing items, or with tired employees, slovenly presentation. Oh, the kitchen, like most, will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than ‘bots. After awhile though, will people be needed at all? Even for the frozen goods, taking out trash, cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup, mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine, its cups and unfailingly quirky

  55. Myself I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder what exactly are ordinary people going to do? AIs will by definition have no particular form. They’re like brains compared to bodies.AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile some on wheels some bipedal some quadrapedal. Some bugforms some like eels fish; some attached to walls to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning. If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald’s eatery kitchen what would the ‘bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first) but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries burgers buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms cameras claspers and actuators to roast things fry things make burgers fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald’s kitchen today it probably will take 10 or more ‘bots of various forms to produce the same product line. But the difference couldn’t be clearer: once “the bugs” are worked out the ‘bot + AI powered McDonald’s fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in the output won’t have missing items or with tired employees slovenly presentation. Oh the kitchen like most will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than ‘bots. After awhile though will people be needed at all?Even for the frozen goods taking out trash cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine its cups and unfailingly quirky ice mak

  56. +1 … mmm … but WHICH hype? The AI-will-be-great hype, or the AI-will-be-a-disaster hype? … doesn’t matter which, still +1 GoatGuy

  57. +1… mmm … but WHICH hype? The AI-will-be-great hype or the AI-will-be-a-disaster hype?… doesn’t matter which still +1GoatGuy”

  58. Well, China has demographic issues that were going to cause labor shortages in the future so maybe it’s true that the impact of AI won’t be as sharp there but the same is not true here in the US.

  59. Whenever I read articles like this I have to wonder what the authors are thinking. Why won’t the AI and robotics simply replace the “new jobs”? Given the exponential nature of computation, science, information processing, robotics, and progress in general, we will reach a point where the “new” jobs can’t be created fast enough to replace the ones lost to automation. In the past, society had plenty of time to adapt to changes from automation. That’s becoming less and less the case.

  60. Whenever I read articles like this I have to wonder what the authors are thinking. Why won’t the AI and robotics simply replace the ew jobs””? Given the exponential nature of computation”” science information processing robotics and progress in general”” we will reach a point where the “”””new”””” jobs can’t be created fast enough to replace the ones lost to automation. In the past”””” society had plenty of time to adapt to changes from automation. That’s becoming less and less the case.”””

  61. I was wondering the same thing. Not sure what planet Sanjay lives on. But productivity gains from automation will simply be used to increase stock price and line the pockets of the already rich. In the absence of laws to prevent it, capital tends to accumulate in the hands of a few. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the immense wealth/income disparity that exists today.

  62. I was wondering the same thing. Not sure what planet Sanjay lives on. But productivity gains from automation will simply be used to increase stock price and line the pockets of the already rich. In the absence of laws to prevent it capital tends to accumulate in the hands of a few. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the immense wealth/income disparity that exists today.

  63. In defense of Keynes…and I say this even though I trash Keynesiantardism whenever I get the chance …he had no idea that the rise of debt-consumerism would occur when he wrote that.

    And you are correct how modern Keynesiantardism has bastardized what he stood for.

  64. laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses”. You really believe that? Hasn’t happened so far so why would it happen in the future (outside of fascist totalitarians like Stalin and Mao)? Democracies are not democratic.

  65. laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses””. You really believe that? Hasn’t happened so far so why would it happen in the future (outside of fascist totalitarians like Stalin and Mao)? Democracies are not democratic.”””

  66. I don’t believe PWC’s report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their “sizing the prize” methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said “lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we’ll use their assumptions”. IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan. PWC doesn’t consider that China’s working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate), nor that the “service” sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated! Garbage analysis. Generally, PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn’t stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them, can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure, the “economy” will grow, but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production).

  67. I don’t believe PWC’s report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their sizing the prize”” methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said “”””lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we’ll use their assumptions””””.IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan.PWC doesn’t consider that China’s working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate)”””” nor that the “”””service”””” sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated!Garbage analysis. Generally”” PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn’t stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure”” the “”””economy”””” will grow”””” but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production).”””

  68. Holy Krap!

    Everyone on here seems to have zeroed in on the same thing, despite the fact that we don’t agree on a lot.

    Even Shiggity piped up. Same thing!

    You Mark, Goatguy…and of course you can count me in, as well.

  69. “Most of the new jobs created will have nothing directly to do with AI or robots, but will simply be the product of a richer society with consequent increased demand for goods and services of all kinds.”

    BS. There is an upper limit on how many cars people own, how many homes, how many of everything. Services, not so much but still there’s an upper limit to most of those also.

    This is why building infrastructure in the US doesn’t deliver the same ROI than it does in poorer nations. Law of Diminishing Returns.

  70. AI can do more than just replace jobs in offices, warehouses, factories and fields. AI robots can do work for us at the bottom of the sea, or in outer space, on the Moon, Mars, or the asteroid belt, etc. AI could help us to tame every environment that’s hostile to human beings. AI will take care of productivity, while laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses. Our job will simply be to choose which fruits to consume. We humans will be reduced to our most salient distinguishing attribute – our power of choice that comes from our free will.

  71. AI can do more than just replace jobs in offices warehouses factories and fields. AI robots can do work for us at the bottom of the sea or in outer space on the Moon Mars or the asteroid belt etc. AI could help us to tame every environment that’s hostile to human beings. AI will take care of productivity while laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses. Our job will simply be to choose which fruits to consume. We humans will be reduced to our most salient distinguishing attribute – our power of choice that comes from our free will.

  72. Keynes, the source of the always wrong so far yet commonly instituted economic theory, once claimed there would be such efficiency due to standard industrialization that people would work 15 hour weeks for the mere purpose of having something to do. Modern Keynesian economics have conspired to take all those productive gains from the worker, mostly in the form of inflation and laws that prohibit competition. Until this stops every non truly free society (including the US) will continue to see the workers produce more and earn less.

  73. Keynes the source of the always wrong so far yet commonly instituted economic theory once claimed there would be such efficiency due to standard industrialization that people would work 15 hour weeks for the mere purpose of having something to do. Modern Keynesian economics have conspired to take all those productive gains from the worker mostly in the form of inflation and laws that prohibit competition. Until this stops every non truly free society (including the US) will continue to see the workers produce more and earn less.

  74. Myself, I kind of wonder what all the new jobs will be. I think about the AI-are-coming sentiment and wonder, what exactly are ordinary people going to do?

    AIs will by definition have no particular form. They’re like brains compared to bodies.

    AIs likewise will have a (likely bewildering) array of waldos¹ at their behest. Some mobile, some on wheels, some bipedal, some quadrapedal. Some bugforms, some like eels, fish; some attached to walls, to factory floors with bolts. Or with large magnets for operational stability AND ease of repositioning.

    If — as my favorite example — one were to AI-ize a McDonald’s eatery kitchen, what would the ‘bots look like? Well… many changes to the machines (but not too many so that humans could assist at first), but also mobile waldos¹ that could unload bags of fries, burgers, buns into refrigerated bins; other assembly-line permanently mounted arms, cameras, claspers and actuators, to roast things, fry things, make burgers, fill bags with orders. If it takes at least 3 people to competently staff a low-demand McDonald’s kitchen today, it probably will take 10 or more ‘bots of various forms to produce the same product line.

    But the difference couldn’t be clearer: once “the bugs” are worked out, the ‘bot + AI powered McDonald’s fry kitchen will easily be a 24-hour-a-day operation. So long as the orders are competently entered in, the output won’t have missing items, or with tired employees, slovenly presentation. Oh, the kitchen, like most, will definitely need to be end-to-end cleaned at least a couple of times a day. And people will initially be better at this than ‘bots.

    After awhile though, will people be needed at all?

    Even for the frozen goods, taking out trash, cleaning shop? People will still be desired for the public-facing side of the operation. People to clean the dining room. People to refill the catsup, mustard and napkins. People to service the beverage machine, its cups and unfailingly quirky ice maker.

    But with some significant (and ultimately cosmetic) rearrangement of things, all these subsystems — except cleaning the dining room floor and tables — could be processed by AI waldos¹ behind the counter. And, people these days being entirely comfortable with their smart phones, perhaps even the ubiquitous tired order-clerk position would mostly go away. Bring in your phone or tablet, and order up what you want, confirm it, pay for it … in advance of having it in hand.

    So this is what causes me to wonder.

    What all the new jobs will be.

    Just saying,
    GoatGuy
    ________________________________________
    ^waldo – remote controlled arm typically, but can be any remote controlled humaniform device.

  75. Whenever I read articles like this I have to wonder what the authors are thinking. Why won’t the AI and robotics simply replace the “new jobs”? Given the exponential nature of computation, science, information processing, robotics, and progress in general, we will reach a point where the “new” jobs can’t be created fast enough to replace the ones lost to automation. In the past, society had plenty of time to adapt to changes from automation. That’s becoming less and less the case.

  76. I was wondering the same thing. Not sure what planet Sanjay lives on. But productivity gains from automation will simply be used to increase stock price and line the pockets of the already rich. In the absence of laws to prevent it, capital tends to accumulate in the hands of a few. The numbers speak for themselves. Just look at the immense wealth/income disparity that exists today.

  77. “laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses”. You really believe that? Hasn’t happened so far so why would it happen in the future (outside of fascist totalitarians like Stalin and Mao)? Democracies are not democratic.

  78. I don’t believe PWC’s report for a second when it comes to job creation. They took their “sizing the prize” methodology and tried to fit it into the official PRC situation. They basically said “lots of jobs lost but the Communist Party says there will be an open tech-based society that will create jobs so we’ll use their assumptions”.

    IE this is just another paid piece of moronic analysis to fit the 5-year plan.
    PWC doesn’t consider that China’s working population is decreasing (at an accelerated rate), nor that the “service” sector (which supposedly will be the biggest net winners in an automated world) are precisely those jobs that can be automated!

    Garbage analysis. Generally, PWC makes a very big error regarding the topic of automation (sizing the prize) when they fail to take into account that automation and productivity doesn’t stand still. The jobs of tomorrow as PWC likes to call them, can very well become redundant with the technologies being developed today. Automation is out-running job creation. Sure, the “economy” will grow, but the spoils will only be for the very few (who have jobs and/or own the production).

  79. AI can do more than just replace jobs in offices, warehouses, factories and fields. AI robots can do work for us at the bottom of the sea, or in outer space, on the Moon, Mars, or the asteroid belt, etc. AI could help us to tame every environment that’s hostile to human beings. AI will take care of productivity, while laws will redistribute the fruits of that productivity to the masses. Our job will simply be to choose which fruits to consume. We humans will be reduced to our most salient distinguishing attribute – our power of choice that comes from our free will.

  80. Keynes, the source of the always wrong so far yet commonly instituted economic theory, once claimed there would be such efficiency due to standard industrialization that people would work 15 hour weeks for the mere purpose of having something to do. Modern Keynesian economics have conspired to take all those productive gains from the worker, mostly in the form of inflation and laws that prohibit competition. Until this stops every non truly free society (including the US) will continue to see the workers produce more and earn less.

  81. You’ve missed the point of UBI. Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point, which is why their arguments don’t make sense, the math doesn’t work, and various trials around the world have all failed. UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any), because, as you point out, it’s just too expensive. UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of “AIs are so productive that (30%? 50% 90%??) of humans are unemployable”. Under those circumstances, the government CAN grab say 5% of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class. Of course people read this, think it sounds idyllic, think that it would be cool NOW, and then can’t work out why it can’t be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.

  82. You’ve missed the point of UBI.Not your fault; most people who go on about UBI also miss the point which is why their arguments don’t make sense the math doesn’t work and various trials around the world have all failed.UBI is not a solution to current problems (if any) because as you point out it’s just too expensive.UBI is a solution to a future (possible) problem of AIs are so productive that (30{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}? 50{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} 90{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12}??) of humans are unemployable””.Under those circumstances”” the government CAN grab say 5{22800fc54956079738b58e74e4dcd846757aa319aad70fcf90c97a58f3119a12} of GDP and use it to give everyone a payment that gives them a decent life as part of the leisure class.Of course people read this think it sounds idyllic think that it would be cool NOW”” and then can’t work out why it can’t be paid for without the advanced AI and robotics that the idea is based on.”””

  83. What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau. And you fully know what that term means. You just don’t want to admit it. So you play games. Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn’t exactly hide yourself well.

  84. What ignorance? You claimed I think you are leftist when I said no such thing. I called you for what you are…a wu mau.And you fully know what that term means. You just don’t want to admit it. So you play games.Everyone on here knows you are wu mau. You didn’t exactly hide yourself well.

  85. I hope the robots take over everything one day, it’s be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course, life will get dull very quickly unless there’s a new focus on what “living” actually entails once we’re not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.

  86. I hope the robots take over everything one day it’s be nice not lacking for anything and just enjoy life. Of course life will get dull very quickly unless there’s a new focus on what living”” actually entails once we’re not preoccupied with bringing in the paychecks as we do now.”””

Comments are closed.